Want Joseph Kony? Get Him Yourself!

I’m sure you’re aware of the Kony2012 campaign. The expressed goal of this campaign is to make the Ugandan butcher Joseph Kony a household name, to raise awareness and bring him to justice. The implied goal is that this awareness will result in pressure on our government to DO SOMETHING!

Our government. That is, the US government. Because, seriously, who else can do it?

If you haven’t seen the video, you should check it out. At about 13:55 in the video, we see the proponents of action being rebuffed by the government. Washington Politicians rightly state that capturing Kony is not something that affects the US security or US interests. The US government’s charter is to safeguard the rights and safety of US citizens. Not the rights and safety of anyone in the world. Later in the video these folks get a grass roots movement going on the part of a whole lot of people who apparently haven’t read the US Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, the Federalist Papers or the Declaration of Independence. Now the politicians take note, and start paying attention, because their job is to get re-elected, even if it means shredding the constitution to do it.

Before I get into the questionability of what these people propose, let me first state that while the humanitarian activities of this group is laudable, they are hardly the only charity working in Uganda, and there are many others who use the money you donate more efficiently than these folks do. Before you reach for your wallet, research the charity groups, look at their public filings about how much of the donations go where you intend, and make your own mind up.

I vehemently oppose the idea that the US government should have a role in capturing Kony. Anyone; as a citizen of the US, as an agent of the government, as an advocate for US policy; makes an egregious error if they think it's morally acceptable for the US government to deploy military force under the US flag to hunt for this animal Joseph Kony. They do not - the government does not - have the right to coerce anyone else - any American soldier - to act on their behalf in this matter. There is no imminent public safety threat to US citizens; it's not a matter for the US government; any more than the current unrest in Syria is, or any more than the recent actions in Libya were. The US must divest itself of this mistaken idea that we’re the world’s police force. This idea has gotten us nothing but heartache, failure and far too many coffins returning home from war in the last thirty years. I am no peacenik – there is a time and circumstance for war – but far too often we have used the military to try to accomplish missions that by their very nature have no acceptable resolution.

If this movement really has this many people behind it, and is collecting donations, then let them go get Kony themselves. Seriously folks, quit thinking that the government is the go-to person every time you have a problem. There's plenty of mercenary guns for hire - well respected ones like Blackwater - who will take the contract and do the mission more quickly and efficiently than any governmental organization. Or take more general action and just put a bounty on his head - dead or alive.  And let's have a reality check here, to stop Kony, you will have to kill him. Any other result is a fairy tale. He will never appear before the ICC.

And once you kill him, then what? Take a look at ICC's list, see how many other officers of the LRA are on there. And plenty more that haven't gotten notice from the ICC because the leaders are getting all the attention. This is whack-a-mole. You eliminate one, another just pops up to take his place. The fact is there will always be a "Kony" out there until you remove the environment that breeds these vermin. And now we're talking about nation-building again. That concept is a bottomless pit and has never worked when it's been tried, because these conditions aren't about infrastructure or economics, they're a result of attitudes and cultural values - or what we might think of as lack of same.

Get Kony. Then get the fifteen others that take his place. and once you get them all, go after the similar but less well known groups doing the same thing, who never got big because Kony was around. I guarantee you'll never run out of bastards to round up in Uganda. You think Kony is an aberration? Remember Idi Amin? Kony isn't the problem, he's a symptom. Until the Ugandan people are fed up with this and choose a different path, and are willing to - as our forefathers did - mutually pledge to each other their Lives, their Fortunes and their sacred Honor, and take up arms as a community and say "ENOUGH!" then this will go on. This is not something that can be solved by foreign intervention.

The video interviews Santo Okot Lapolo and Norbert Mao, Ugandan politicians. They state that the international community needs to arrest Joseph Kony, that they are willing to cooperate with the international community. If these politicians were true statesmen, they would require the Ugandan army to secure the safety of their citizens in the areas affected by Kony, and be incensed at the idea that they need help from the international community. They know there’s a lot of money to be made if international assistance comes to Uganda, and they’re perfectly positioned to see that a lot of that money goes through their hands. To be fair, however, Kony has left Uganda, and is has been operating in Sudan, the Central African Republic and the Congo for 5 years at least.

You got Kony’s name well known. Good job! Now go get him yourself. Don’t ask for a single drop of blood from an American soldier to do it, and don’t ask for a single dime of taxpayer money to do it. I know there are a bunch of American servicemen who would happily do this for you, but that’s not what they’re being paid for by the US taxpayer, that’s not why we have an army. Remove our advisers from Uganda. If they want military advice, there’s plenty of private companies who will advise them for a price.

I oppose the implicit goals of this movement to raise public awareness for the purposes of pressuring government action. Awareness, fine. Great. Government action? NO! absolutely not. This reminds me too much of how some other Really Bad Ideas got started.

US Presence in Muslim Countries

Smile, but then remember that this video is a metaphor for US efforts to bring peace, stability and progress to countries like Iraq and Afghanistan (And coming soon to a combat theater near you: Iran and Syria!).  There is chaos while everyone fights for their share of the candy.  The bigger kids make sure the little kids don't get any candy.  If the little kids do get candy, the bigger kids take it from them. When the candy runs out, they quickly abandon you, and tell you to GTFO of their country. There will never be enough candy. The more candy that is distributed, the more rotten the teeth become.

Stop the Jizyah!

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

-(The Qur'an (Yusuf Ali tr), Surah   9:29)

“Accept Islam, pay the Jizyah, or the sword!” – The choices offered to infidel communities in the path of the 7^th century Muslim conquests.

Jizyah.  Tribute.  Tax on the dhimmi – the non-believer who willingly lives under Islamic law. One of the purposes of the Jizyah is to intentionally humiliate the non-believer. Everyone living under Islam has to pay for the privilege.  As a Muslim, you would be subject to the zakat, or temple tax.  If you are a khaffir, or non-believer, you are subject to Jizyah.  According to Muslims, this tax subsidizes the protection that the dhimmi enjoys, and is only fair because a dhimmi is exempted from military service.

Before we go down that road, let’s take a moment and recall the other things that a dhimmi is exempted from.  A dhimmi cannot be in a position of authority over a Muslim.  A dhimmi cannot hold public office.  A dhimmi cannot bring suit against a Muslim in court (at least not with any chance of winning – dhimmis are not allowed to be judges).  In effect Dhimmis are third-class citizens, second being Muslim women.

We have to examine the protection that this tax pays for.  Protection from what?  Why, Muslims, of course! In essence, our Muslim friends, having attained authority in a country, declare that non-muslims have to pay protection money, without which. . . well, who knows what might happen the next time a mullah whips the crowd into a frenzy against infidels?  Since Jizyah is obligatory, and every Muslim feels it’s his solemn holy duty to enforce the edicts of Allah, if news spreads that you missed your Jizyah payment, every Muslim in reach will automatically assume that it’s open season on you. You have no recourse to the law.  And there’s nothing a devout Muslim likes better than to do Allah’s holy work and send an infidel to Hell.

It’s the biggest protection racket in the world.  Think Mafia, and then remember where the Mafia learned their lessons: Sicily was under Muslim occupation from 965 until 1061.

Muslims are unabashed in their belief that Jizyah is their due.  In the eighteenth century Maritime powers regularly paid tribute to the Muslim Barbary pirates to ensure safe passage of shipping within reach of the coast of North Africa.  The fledgling USA appropriated $80,000 to be paid in tribute to the Barbary pirates in 1784.  In a day when there was no income tax, the US government was forced to raise money by import duties and raising levies among the citizens.  As can be imagined, the willingness of the US population to contribute to pay the Muslim maritime Jizyah was non-existent. The US was forced to pay ransoms for ships and crews captured, rather than a regular tribute.  In 1795, the USA paid nearly a million dollars in cash, naval stores, and a frigate to ransom 115 sailors from Muslim pirates of Algiers.

In 1801 the pasha of Tripoli demanded an immediate Jizyah payment of $225,000 and annual payments of $25,000 from the US.  The newly elected President Thomas Jefferson realized that there would be no end to the demands, and refused.  The pasha of Tripoli then declared war on the USA.  The resulting four year war was the first time that American forces were deployed on overseas soil, and the US Marine became the natural enemy of the Islamist extremist. Tribute/ransom payments continued in one  form or another until a second war in 1815.

The idea of Jizyah, or tribute, was resurrected in 1978, and agreed to by arch-traitor President Jimmy Carter at the Camp David peace accords.  Again, to purchase protection from Muslim armies, the USA committed to pay $1.3 billion annually in the form of “military aid” to Egypt.  This was the cost of purchasing protection for Israel from Egypt. Those subsidies continue to this day.  With the recent change of power in Egypt, the new government was sure to remind the USA of its obligations, and blatantly stated that ending the Jizyah subsidy would release Egypt from its agreement and leave it free to attack Israel.

The result of this insane policy is that Israel and the USA face the spectre of an attacking force armed with the best Western military technology that money can buy, including the M1A1 Abrams tank – currently undefeated in battle. The Egyptian slang for an M1?  “Jew-killer”.

The US taxpayer pays an annual Jizyah to the Muslim government in Egypt, protection money to prevent Egypt from attacking Israel.  This is blackmail, and needs to stop.  This money would be much better invested in ensuring that we are able to annihilate Egypt’s military capability should they attack a neighbor for the crime of being a non-Jizyah paying infidel. Until Islam is subdued, they will continue to try to extort money from the productive countries of the world and return nothing except the hollow promise that they won’t attack us – today.

Santorum: The Not-Mitt, Not-Newt Candidate

Last night Rick Santorum had a surprisingly good night, coming from out of nowhere to win Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri (although Missouri is admittedly a beauty pageant, their delegates will be selected in a caucus).

Is this an indication that Rick has what it takes to maintain this lead, or is it a repudiation of Mitt Romney?  Sadly, I think the latter.  I’m not sad that Mitt is being repudiated, mind you, but that we’re not fronting a powerful candidate who is a clear choice to lead the country.  I’m afraid that Santorum is benefiting from Romney and Gingrich beating each other bloody. Romney has realized that he can’t win against Newt without going negative, and spent a heinous amount of money in Florida doing just that.  It’s a balancing act, to go negative enough to do the necessary damage to win the nomination, without poisoning the well for November, leaving your base disillusioned and staying home.

Romney has lots of problems.  The conservative base is not enamored of him. His record of governing seems to lean very left of center.  Yeah, people can change, but actions speak louder than words.  He’s seen as a member of the Republican establishment, and if there’s anything the election of 2010 told us, it’s that the right is sick of the Republican establishment, business as usual, reach across the aisle politics of Boehner, McConnell and McCain. It was the Republican establishment that helped get us into this mess by not getting a backbone and standing up against the democrats as they piled on social program after social program without a single idea of how to pay for them.

There’s a considerable sentiment among the conservatives that wonders about the wisdom of nominating the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama in 2008.  Seriously, this guy polled behind career RINO McCain.  Why is he even a contender this time around?  Is the right comfortable with the idea that you can buy a nomination?  I think not.

The right is also very suspicious of another political dynasty. We’re bothered by those.  We’ve had enough country club political dynasties.  We don’t want another Kennedy family or Bush family wielding so much influence on America.  Romney’s father was the Governor of Michigan.  That’s enough Romney for a few generations, thank you. The voting record shows this – Mittens is polling about where he was four years ago, and he lost then.

Romney speaks well and says more or less the right things, but that’s all it seems like.  It’s hard to tell if he’s saying what he does from a conservative foundation of principles, or if he’s just saying the expedient things that will get him elected.  The lack of detail on specific issues makes him sound like any other political candidate.  Newt, on the other hand, is willing to go into whatever level of detail you want to go on any given subject. 

The problem with Newt is not his failed marriages – I’ve heard an interesting argument there that there’s something about this guy that attracts women, even when he’s already spoken for.  That should tell us something.  His problem is not his political record, where he was run out of office by a revolt among the establishment republicans – led by then junior congressman John Boehner.  For a lot of people that’s a selling point – proof that Newt isn't an establishment guy. 

No, Newt’s problem is that he’s usually the smartest guy in the room, and it’s obvious. That’s probably a good thing; it would be nice to have an intelligent person in the White House for a change.  But it’s not likely to happen, because America isn’t made up of brainiacs who aren’t uncomfortable in the presence of someone like Newt.  America is predominantly sports jock types, who squirm uncomfortably in the presence of someone like Newt, because they’re outclassed and they know it. I know, I know, not everyone is like that, I’m not saying Newt isn’t doing well.  He just won’t do well enough to win.  That’s a loss for America.

The bottom line is that Santorum’s main advantage coming out of last night’s wins is that he’s not-Newt and not-Mitt.  Don’t get me wrong, I do like Rick Santorum.  I’ve listened to him on the radio doing interviews for years and never had a problem with what he said. He’s just not the heaviest hitter in the field right now, and I think America is losing an opportunity if Gingrich isn’t nominated.

And then there’s that foreign policy nutter Ron Paul, but that’s a subject for a different discussion. 

An Open Letter to the People Who Hate Conservatives More than They Love America

So in the course of casual surfing, I stumbled upon this hate-filled rant: An open letter to the people who hate Obama more than they love America.  Well, if I have a weakness, that would be a feeling that I have to respond to this sort of stupidity whenever I find it.  This kind of thing is like a red flag waving in the face of a bull, I just can't help myself.  So in true quixotic fashion, I roll up my sleeves and wade in, point by point:

I don't know who this person is talking about. He believes it's directed at me, I'm sure he thinks so, but they’ve apparently never actually talked to anyone that they’re writing about, as much as talked past them. So let me set the record straight. . .

Yeah, I hate Obama. He will go down as the worst president in American history on the strength of his record. It has nothing to do with the color of his skin. His resume showed he was unqualified to be a city dog catcher, but the true believers made him the most powerful man in the world. The folks on my side are still scratching our heads and wondering what the country was smoking when that happened.

Don't hate gay people. Don't know where you get that idea. It's not us that say they can't breed and have kids, that would be something you need to take up with mother nature.

Don't hate black people.

Don't hate immigrants. My grandmother was an immigrant, my mother is an immigrant, my wife is an immigrant. I know probably better than you do what it takes to come to this country legally, and I get quite upset when people break the rules and jump the line, and I think those folks should go back home and apply like everyone else.

Don't hate Muslims - at least not for being Muslim. I know enough about Islam to know that it's values are exclusively incompatible with Western values. A lot of Muslims seem to hate me for my beliefs and my freedoms, and in those cases the feeling is mutual.

Yeah, I'm not too keen on Labor unions. Labor Unions killed GM - the crown jewel of American industrial might. Labor unions prevent free market trade in labor, artificially create labor shortages, add unnecessary costs to production, and practice protectionism in the face of rampant unemployment. They are a refuge of the incompetent who are afraid to compete on a level playing field for their (meager) skills and services. You complain about so many factories who have boarded up and moved overseas, yet you don't see that the labor unions are what caused it. I can and do compete quite well without labor unions, I will never work for a union company, because I know I can do better than most of my coworkers, and I want an environment that rewards me for that.

I don't hate women who feel they have a right to choose, but I wonder why your side is so dead-set against allowing that woman to see an ultrasound of her unborn baby before making that choice. Apparently her right to choose ends if she makes a choice you disagree with.

I hate your kind branding me as a racist and a bigot when I am no such thing. That's your trump card when you have nothing else to contribute to the discussion.  Your claim that conservatives are racist is nothing more than asking someone if they quit beating their wife.

I don't talk about hating gay people. That's a straw man argument, and the only time it even comes up is when you bring it up. I do talk about creating jobs, and how the government gets in the way of that.

I don't assume black people are poor or on food stamps. Apparently you miss the fact that we laud Herman Cain, Allen West, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams and many more. You call us racist not for our non-existent attitude towards a person's skin color, but because we speak out against an entitlement mentality that that you promote for the purpose of enslaving the very group of people you accuse us of hating!

I hate socialism because it's a demonstrably failed economic model. I do not hate social justice. I just disagree with your method of achieving it.

I join with the founders of this country in being suspicious of government, and preferring to choose my own destiny and not wanting government to take care of me. I don't like having my hard earned money taken from me by the government and given to someone who chooses not to produce anything.

I abhor war - probably more than you do - but understand that sometimes it's necessary. I know what torture is, and don't get upset when avowed enemies of the USA are frightened by barking dogs or suffer indignities.

And no, we're not consumed with hate the way you seem to be. We just don't like busybodies like you telling us how to live, what to do, how to act. Live and let live is our motto, but your side can't be content with that, you want us to live and pay for you to live.

We understand that the founders never meant that the State be devoid of the belief in God, but that the State should never enforce a State religion. This was based on the all too recent experiences of the founders in the religious civil wars of Europe, and they wanted none of that here. You bunch of atheists have twisted these words in order to remove every suggestion of God from the public discourse, which is never what the framers intended.

No one is demonizing minorities, but America is great for a reason, and that reason does not include embracing and holding valuable failed systems imported from other countries. America is great because it holds the individual's liberty and the right to private property in the highest esteem. Don't you come to me with other beliefs from countries with failed economies and try to implement those failures here.

You state, "If you hate the Government then you are unqualified to manage it." Non-sequitur. One does not follow the other. You state this as a postulate, but there is no logical connection. But then, logic isn't a strength for your side, is it?

You have your numbers and we have ours, you say BHO’s approval ratings are at 50%, I've seen polls a lot lower, in the low 30’s. He has a campaign ahead of him, and this time he has a record. Do you care to answer a few questions which might arise? Like, "Mr. President, you traveled to Pakistan in 1980 when it was illegal for American citizens to do so; what passport did you use?”  “Mr. President, how many Mexican citizens were killed by guns that came from your failed "fast and furious" program?” “Mr. President, a half a billion taxpayer dollars disappeared when Solyndra went bankrupt; where is that money, and why did you support a failing company with our money?”  “Mr. President, you said that if you couldn't fix unemployment in three years, you would be a one-term president; why are you running for a second term?”  Oh, I could ask many more questions that you’ll never hear the media ask.

No, my friend, more than 50% of the national debt was rung up under your fearless leader. Obama added more to the national debt than all the other presidents combined. We are not holding the economy hostage, we're insisting that giving the government more money is not the answer. We don’t believe playing political games with a tax cut by kicking the problem down the road two months is the answer.  We think a debt ceiling is there for a reason, and that reason doesn’t mean you just raise it when you want to spend more money.  We must force the government to live within its means, and if that means you don't get your entitlement check, too bad. Better now than wait for a full economic collapse where nobody gets paid anything, which is exactly what's going to happen if YOU don't quit spending MY money.

And don't speak to me of obstructionist filibusters. The Democrat party held up 23 legitimate judicial nominations under the Bush administration. You pay lip service to minorities and women, but when Miguel Estrada, Janice Rogers Brown, Carolyn Kuhl and Priscilla Owen are nominated, you shot them down, because your ideology trumps your lip-service to rights for women and minorities.

Obama didn't kill Bin Laden, Seal Team Six and Robert Gates did. Obama had to be dragged off the golf course for the final phase, and the whole world knows that Gates runs the defense department without consulting Obama, so if anything goes wrong, Obama can deny responsibility and throw Gates under the bus.

You call Obama tax cutting and deficit reducing. Do you live in some sort of alternate reality? That's just an outright lie!

The rest of your rant is based on fallacious straw man arguments. You would do well to actually talk with the object of your scorn and listen, instead of telling us what we think. We don't want to go to war, but when we do we want to win, and win decisively. It's your side that cuts needed funds to the troops and cries when we break the china that prevents us from doing so. I don't think the government has any business spending my money to teach you how to have sex. I want to see subsidies to oil companies and farms eliminated. I want my government officials to stop spending like drunken sailors, I don't care if they have (R) or (D) after their name. You think it's okay, as long as they spend it on "social issues." I want the TSA to be disbanded, and the patriot act repealed. I have a gun, I can protect myself, thank you.

The problem with your side is you see nothing but issues that need fixing, and you automatically assume that the government is responsible to fix it. You are a bleeding heart that wants all the ills of the world fixed, but somewhere along the line it fails to occur to you that fixing everything costs money - more money than we have, more money than we can afford. You will spend us into bankruptcy and still not fix all the problems you want addressed. Meanwhile the real power brokers are using you as useful idiots to promote an agenda that makes it easy from them to steal from the public trough, and prolong the very problems you seek to solve, because it's profitable for them. I want to turn off the spigot, let the problems solve themselves, and wean these leeches like Soros away from the public teat.

You promote the "working class" as something high and mighty, and indeed it is, but not for the reasons you state. You accept a working class of mediocrity that can only get ahead by collectively "sticking it to the man" who provides their means of subsistence. I am of the working class, but a working class of excellence who provides value to my employer, and is compensated commensurately. My labor is valuable, and I sell it to the highest bidder on a free market. If I lack value, I improve my skills through education to add value. If I think I'm being unfairly compensated, I go to someone who values my labor more and work for them. I am in demand. The fact that you need to be in a union suggests that you are not. What does that say about you? I would be ashamed if I were you, not proud. You have accepted mediocrity, embraced it and held it up as something to be proud of. You fool.

We don't hate you, or any of the things you say we hate. That hatred you accuse us of is a reflection of your own irrational feelings towards something you obviously don't understand. Your poorly aimed diatribe is an attempt for you to rationalize something you're too immature to wrap your minds around. We don't hate you, but you do kind of disgust us. We wish you would grow up and quit acting like spoiled children. We're tired of changing your diapers and catering to your senseless crying and demands that we return you to the teat and take care of you from cradle to grave.

Keep your dreaming. The only poll that matters is 11 months away. I don't think your guy has a chance. Should he by some miracle win, get back with me in four years and explain to me if America is moving to be the workers paradise that you envision, or the socialist hell that this economic model has produced every other time it's been tried.

Get Rich with the RV of the Dinar! (or Not)

I had an illuminating conversation the other day that forcefully reminded me to never underestimate the depths of human stupidity.  This one makes me very angry, because I know a few people buying into it, but the person in question is literally betting the farm on it.  He’s unemployed, and instead of looking for work, he’s convinced that he has the gold ticket and his ship is about to come in.  Meanwhile his family's on food stamps and his kids can’t afford new clothes for school.  And no matter how I try to explain it to him, he just doesn’t understand that he’s chasing a will-o-the-wisp.

There’s a scam circulating that involves the impending “RV” of the Iraqi dinar.  For those of you not in the know (I wasn’t), “RV” stands for “revaluing” the dinar.  The Iraqi dinar currently trades at about 1170 dinar to the US dollar.  Unscrupulous currency brokers have convinced an astonishing number of people that they should invest in the dinar in preparation that the dinar will soon be revalued, making them overnight millionaires.

What does it mean to revalue a currency?  Well, it could mean several things.  One is just the normal floating exchange rate of the currency on the international market.  This exchange rate reflects the demand for the currency internationally, which is influenced by trade and fiscal policy.  If a government prints a bunch of fiat money and dumps it on the international market, the demand goes down and the rate drops.  Buying and selling into and out of a country involves using that country’s currency, and the amount of trade in and out causes the currency demand to fluctuate.  This is normal.  You can speculate in this market, and even make money, but it’s just gambling, and no one is going to get rich from a sudden, predictable move in this way.  In fact, the Iraqi dinar has been remarkably stable for the last four years, indicating that the exchange rate is being artificially supported by outside agents (Can you say U.S. Federal Reserve?).  Should the US reserve remove its exchange rate controls from the dinar, in all likelihood the value of the dinar will drop like a rock, further wrecking the Iraqi economy.  If you have foolishly invested in the dinar, this is definitely NOT what you’re looking for.

Another way the dinar could be revaluated is for the Iraqi government to place severe controls on currency availability.  The idea would be to reduce the number of dinar in circulation, increasing their value.  The government would absorb (and literally burn) excess dinar being held in bank reserves, thus restricting the money supply.  The problem with this scenario is that it would have a very deflationary effect, causing prices to rise in an economy that’s struggling to get back on its feet as it is.  People would hoard their money, waiting for it to be more valuable, stalling an economy that’s barely moving right now as it is.  No, the Iraqi government has a vested interest in promoting spending, not savings.  Again, for the speculator, this process would be slow, and probably not profitable, as the world exchange rate would probably not notice a shortage of dinar in Iraq.  After all, that paper money needs to be supported by real material wealth and productivity, right?

The third way is the one all the speculators are counting on to make them rich overnight.  The hope is that the Iraqi government will lop a few zeros off the end of the currency, making the dinar worth $1.17 on the world market at the stroke of a pen.  So our savvy speculator buys a thousand  dollars worth of dinar – 1,170,000 dinar to be exact.  Then the Iraqi government removes three zeros, and viola! Like magic, our happy speculator’s 1,170,000 dinar is now worth a cool million!

Hold on, Sparky.  Not so fast.  No one is going to stand for that. That money has to be represented by real wealth somehow, and the world currency exchange will just laugh at Iraq and want to cash their dinar in for the real wealth that Iraq insists it’s now worth, causing the dinar to crash back to its original level almost instantly, because Iraq certainly doesn’t have that wealth.

No, there’s an intermediate step that for some strange reason the dupes in this scam aren’t willing to admit to.  Iraq certainly can remove as many zeros as it wants from its currency – many countries have done so in the past.  But the only way it can do that is to print “new” dinar and exchange them for old dinar – at a 1000:1 exchange rate.  That way no new wealth is demanded, and the available dinars in circulation is reduced by a factor of 1000.  The books balance, no one gets rich, and our happy speculator finds that his old dinar are worthless, except to buy new dinar, which can be traded for pretty much what he originally paid, minus a brokerage commission, of course.

Looking through message boards, this scam has been around for at least 5 years, ever since the post-war dinar sort of stabilized, at a much lower level than pre-war.  This is an understandable devaluation, when you consider how much wealth was literally blown up during the war, how much productivity was ruined, and how the Saddam Hussein regime artificially set the exchange rate by controlling international trade through their oil monopoly.

The average person can’t just go into a bank and ask for dinar.  This scam is perpetrated by currency brokers who are sitting on mountains of nearly worthless dinar that they can’t move, because nobody wants them, not even the Iraqi government.  They find a sucker, and convince him about the impending RV, and tell them how their investment will get a thousand-fold boost when it happens (conveniently neglecting to tell them that they will have to exchange their old dinar for new dinar when it happens).  At the very worst they create a market for their dinar, offloading them to a sucker who thinks he's sitting on a gusher about to blow.  If they’re real slick, they can even sell their dinar above market rate, because of the aforementioned difficulty in the average person getting dinar (Because, realistically, who the hell really wants them?).  A quick look through internet message boards shows that the true believers have been anticipating the RV of the dinar to happen “any day now!” for at least the last five years.  Meanwhile the currency broker takes your dollars and starts investing in a real currency market.

Anyone who's had a basic accounting class will tell you, the books must ALWAYS balance!  You can't just invent a thousand times more wealth out of thin air by fiat.

The amazing thing, is that when I tried to explain this to my colleague who was all jacked up about how much money he’s soon going to be worth, he refused to listen to the facts, and waved me off with an airy “You just don’t understand.”  I patiently admitted that I didn’t understand, and invited him to please explain it to me.  He couldn’t, of course.  His most coherent response was “You’ll see!”

Be very careful.  They’re out there, walking among us.  And they vote.

Proud to be an American

About ten years ago, in an international forum right after 9/11, a European colleague of mine expressed some puzzlement over why Americans are proud of being American. He stated that he was French, but wasn’t particularly proud or ashamed of the fact. He just was.

This opened my eyes to one of the biggest differences between Americans and other nationalities. This difference leads to a much different world view, and consequently is a stumbling block to non-Americans who are trying to understand the motivations and mindset of Americans.

You see, unlike virtually every other nation in the world, America is not a place. America is an idea! America is a loose collection of people who share this idea and embrace it and understand that this idea is the source of America’s incredible prosperity.

Now, not all “Americans” understand, or embrace these ideas, which leads to considerable confusion within our country, as well as for those who are trying to make sense of it from outside. You can easily identify these people, because they are not proud to be Americans, they downplay their national identity when overseas, they speak poorly of America to non-Americans, and they feel they have to apologize for things that America has done in history. Real Americans pretty much wish these faux Americans would find someplace more to their liking and go live there, because they’re not helping here.

When someone proudly and unashamedly proclaims “I am an American!” you can make some pretty safe assumptions about that person (yes, I'm being politically incorrect, I'm using the ancient "He" to refer to the generic human, in which the female gender is implicitly included. If you ladies feel left out, maybe it's time to dial down the sensitivity a few decibels) :

• He believes in personal responsibility, that he is responsible to feed and shelter himself and those who depend on him.
• He believes in a good day’s work for a fair days pay.
• He believes in the rule of law, and will typically observe the reasonable application of the law even when no one is looking.
• He believes in the inviolate right to private property. You have the right to keep what you have earned.
• He believes that the rights of government derive from the governed, that government is a necessary evil that should be kept small and poorly fed, lest it grow too large and become uncontrollable.
• He believes that no one owes you anything because you have a body temperature. You want something bad enough, you’re free to try to attain it, but you shouldn’t expect it to be handed to you.
• He understands that there’s no such thing as a free lunch.
• He believes that liberty is a fundamental human right.
• He believes that you have the responsibility – but not the obligation – to help your neighbor when they’re in need.
• He understands that people are more important than things.
• He has a sense of justice, and a natural inclination to object to and oppose injustices. He recognizes that justice must apply to everybody, or it’s meaningless.
• He understands that one man’s prosperity doesn’t automatically imply another man’s poverty.

As a people, Americans are very tolerant. We have a long history for putting up with a lot of abuse. But there’s a limit, and when you cross that limit, woe to you. A number of nations have discovered this the hard way. Remember that the United States is the only nation in history to have used nuclear weapons in anger, and we don’t apologize for it. Remember also that the target of that retaliation is today one of our fastest friends, staunchest allies and most prosperous trading partners.

These are some of the characteristics of an American. This is the culture in which we were born, and which has allowed America to become the most prosperous nation in the history of the world. We are proud to be Americans, not because we hail from a particular place, but because when we make the statement we are telling you who we are as a people, what our values are and what you can expect from us. If you hold these ideals, if you embrace this ethic, then you are welcome to come to our shores and join us for our mutual prosperity.

Do not come to our country to escape the failed political and economic model of your home country, and then seek to alter America to duplicate the failed system of your home. Do not try to reshape America to your liking. America works just the way it is, and works better than anything else you can find today. Yes, there may be ways of making it better, but not by copying demonstrable failures from other countries. If you prefer another nation’s system to that of America’s, then by all means, go live there, and let us alone. There’s a reason for our incredible prosperity. If you want to partake of that prosperity, then learn what that reason is and reshape yourself to embrace it. If you think you have a right to come here and accept charity in the form of entitlements without having participated economically, then you are not welcome here. We want and encourage people who think like us to come to our shores and help us be prosperous. If that’s not acceptable, or if that’s not working for you, then you’re free to leave. No one is stopping you, and quite frankly, we wish you would go.

Two short tales of my personal experience to highlight what it is to be an American:

It was once observed to me by a man who had never been to America - and indeed had even met very few Americans – that the world was circled by the graves of Americans who died to bring freedom to other people.

One foggy morning in England, during rush hour about ten miles from a major American military base, I witnessed a one-car accident where a local woman missed a turn and collided with a barrier, doing severe damage to her car. At least thirty cars witnessed this accident. Only three cars stopped to render assistance. We were all Americans. I commented on this to one of the police officers who responded, and he replied “Oh, yeah, without you Yanks, we’d get no help at all in these situations.”

I am proud to be an American.

Did Anwar al-Awlaki Deserve Due Process?

Today we killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen by birth. Even as the news flashes around the globe, liberal hand-wringers are agonizing over the idea that the US Government sanctioned and executed a targeted assassination of an American citizen without due process. One such example of this kind of fuzzy thinking can be found here. Even presidential-hopeful foreign policy nutbag Ron Paul is weighing in against this. The case of the hand-wringers is based on the fact that he was not indicted, that his fifth amendment rights were violated ("No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law"), that there was no due process.

Where the hand-wringers on the left don’t get it is that this animal was only technically an American citizen, by accident of birth. He had de facto rejected allegiance to America, scorned American law, and had engaged in an active campaign against the United States. The fact that he hadn’t filed the correct paperwork with the State Department renouncing his American citizenship spoke more for his disdain for the American rule of law than it did for any technicalities of his loyalties.

Anwar al-Awlaki was in fact an enemy combatant. On October 27, 2008, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon ruled that an enemy combatant is anyone who directly supports al Qaeda, the Taliban or an associated group involved in hostile acts against the United States or its allies. This certainly applies to al-Awlaki, inasmuch as he was involved with the planning of the 9/11 attack, and was a mentor and spiritual advisor to Nidal Malik Hasan. He frequently published incendiary sermons on the internet, and espoused armed jihad against America. The FBI considered him one of Al Qaida’s top recruiters.

Is it the position of the hand-wringers that the US justice department obtain an indictment against every member of Al Qaida before allowing the military to strike? Or only the members of Al Qaida who are high ranking and have the media spotlight? Is it the position of the hand-wringers that US soldiers request ID and confirm the legal case for detaining and/or executing members of Al Qaida on the battlefield? Are we living in a Victorian age where commanders refrain from engaging their counterparts in decapitation operations because it isn’t honorable? How do the hand-wringers feel about the fact that the enemy will operate under no such restrictions?

What would the net effect be of having provided al-Awlaki the due process of law? Do the hand-wringers have any doubt that he was a major figure in the global jihadist network of which Al Qaida is a part? Do the hand-wringers have any doubt about al-Awakis very public exhortations to Muslims to take up arms and wage violent war against the United States? Does anybody think for a second that this guy would turn himself in if there was a warrant for his arrest, or that he would be extradited? Yemen is nominally an ally in the War on Terror, albeit not one I would turn my back on, so our forces are limited to playing by their rules in their country. This means we have no military presence there and operate in the grey area of unmanned drones that characterizes 21^st century warfare.

This war is not your grandfather’s war, with neatly drawn divisions of Us and Them. It’s not confined to a location or specific battlefield or even a recognizable theater of operations. With modern communications and technology, one man in a mountain redoubt in a backwater country like Yemen could command a worldwide network for jihadists. It’s only fitting that he met his demise at the hands of a pilot sitting in Missouri or New Jersey, playing the World’s Greatest Video Game. The battles of the 21^st century come in two flavors, the short meeting actions that are decisively over in minutes or hours, and the slow dance of counter-terrorist operations, where armies move at a seeming glacial pace in the dark, in cyberspace and on the airwaves, in a techno-dance of hide and seek, waiting for the moment to strike. This is the battlefield where al-Awlaki was acting as a commander, and in the heat of battle was located and terminated, as we would do to any high ranking enemy commander.

Does the rule of law, the rights conferred by that law, and the due process safeguards built into that law apply to people who actively seek to abolish that law? The law was designed to protect the individual from government abuse. By what twisted logic do we pervert the intent of that law to protect the enemies of that law?

The hand-wringers make the assertion that the law must apply to everyone equally (although I find that these same people are the first to propose to limit the constitutional rights of their political opponents). I contend that this is only true and possible when everyone accepts the rule of that law, and has pledged to abide by it. Those that scorn the law, reject the law, and indeed seek to replace that law with a theocratic tyranny have no business being afforded the protections of that law. The laws upon which Western Civilization are based should not become a suicide pact that prevent us from defending Western Civilization against the well armed and fanatic forces of ignorance and chaos.

This doesn’t mean that the US government has shredded the constitution and that the black helicopters will come and fast roping commandos will start assassinating normal law-abiding citizens with impunity. Although, to listen to the rhetoric, I can’t help but wonder if the hand-wringers would happily endorse this action if it were taken against elements of the TEA party, who have done nothing unconstitutional; but have the temerity to disagree with the liberal policies of the left.

Al-Awlaki stepped out from under the protection of the law of his land of birth, and proceeded to wage war on that land and the laws for which it stands. He got what was coming to him. Good job and good riddance.

Christian Values - 10 years after 9/11

Last Sunday was the tenth anniversary of the tragic events of September 11, 2001.  At Mass that morning we were called both by the scripture and from the homily to forgiveness and called to live by our Christian standards. Unfortunately, I feel our parish priest is not a student of Islam or Islamic history

Let’s reflect on a few things here before we go rushing off to embrace our Muslim brethren in a spirit of unrestrained forgiveness.

Throughout scripture there’s a general theme regarding forgiveness – that forgiveness must be sought before it’s granted.  The offender must acknowledge his sin and seek reconciliation in a spirit of penitence. We have been repeatedly taught by Jesus that faith saves the sinner from his sins, and this theme was reinforced in Paul’s letters. Even on the cross, Jesus did not explicitly forgive his tormentors, but interceded on their behalf for God to forgive them due to their ignorance. 

Where are the penitent Muslims?  Who has sought reconciliation with Western Civilization to atone for the grievous sin that has been committed against us?  As Christians, our hearts are open to forgiveness and reconciliation, but we wait – seemingly in vain – for someone to step forward and seek that forgiveness that we so desperately want to give.  Instead, we are informed by the enemies of Western Civilization that we are hated.  The rank and file Muslim in Islamic nations hates Americans.  This is what they’re taught from birth, and they are quite frank and honest about it when the question comes up.  This is not a result of American interventionism, this sentiment was dominant in 2001.  Throughout the 20^th century, the leaders of the Islamic world have been impoverishing their people under totalitarian regimes and laying the blame on Israel, the USA and Western Civilization for their own sins.  The result are whole nations made up of credulous conspiracy theorists. And these people are more than willing to act on their hatred, as evidenced in thousands of terrorist attacks worldwide since 9/11 (17744 such attacks at the time of this writing).

Yes, Father, we can and will forgive these people.  When they seek it.  For now, all I see is enmity and hatred and the desire to kill us.

We were also informed that as Christians who espouse the uniquely American concept of freedom of religion, we should not be protesting the construction of mosques in our communities.

I’m sorry, Father, but you’re dead wrong on this point.  The mistake you make is assuming that Islam is a religion in the pattern of all others, and should therefore be accorded the respect for its tenets and beliefs that we accord to other non-Christian religions.  Islam is not a religion.  It’s a fascist, totalitarian political construct wrapped in a veneer of sanctity by justifying its actions on the satanic utterances of its founder.

Islam is a belief system that is diametrically opposed to the values we hold dear as Judeo-Christians living in the Western Civilization.  It’s irresponsible to tolerate the presence of Islam, when Islam explicitly refuses to tolerate other beliefs. Islam’s tolerance of other belief systems is inversely proportional to the percentage of population that are Muslim in any group.  Tolerance and accommodation of a small group of Muslims inevitably leads to larger groups of Muslims, who use our Western values of free speech and freedom of religion to protect them in an ongoing campaign to extinguish free speech and free religion and replace them with Islamic sharia law.  If you think this is overly alarmist, then look at the problems that are being faced by the UK and France and other European countries as their Muslim population grows.  This is happening today, exactly as I project.

Moreover, as a Christian I have no problem tolerating the existence of other beliefs systems who do not acknowledge my faith in Christ.  Islam however, does acknowledge it, and roundly condemns it!  Islam specifically denies the crucifixion, states unequivocally that it never happened ( Quran 4:157).  It denies the holy trinity and the divinity of Christ (Quran 4:171).  And it brands me a heretic or infidel for believing these things and instructs its followers to persecute me on that basis (Quran 9:29). As a Christian, I can tolerate even this intolerance, but that does not mean I have to accommodate these beliefs and make room for them in my community.  Having read the Quran, I am aware of its Satanic origin, and as a responsible Christian, it’s my duty to repudiate this belief system.

Let’s suppose that Adolf Hitler justified his actions on the basis that he was in direct communication with the One God, Creator of the Universe, and that he was only doing what God told him was right and proper.  And he explicitly stated that God instructed him to assassinate his detractors, drive the Jews out of his land and murder them and wage war throughout the world to subject the entire planet to his authority. Would we provide a place for such Nazi believers to build their sanctuaries in our country?  Especially when those sanctuaries have been repeatedly proven to be headquarters, fund raisers and recruiting grounds in an ongoing battle to conquer Western Civilization?  Would we make a place for them and accommodate their peculiar Nazi requirements in our society?  In the interest of tolerance and religious diversity would we include Nazi studies in our universities, and invite Nazis to speak in our churches and synagogues so that we can better understand their beliefs?

Of course not, because we understand Nazism and what it stands for.  The problem is that no one has bothered to take the time to learn and understand Islam and what it stands for. Islam has in fact done all of the things I accuse the Nazis of doing, right from its inception. The parallels between Hitler and Muhammad are astonishing. They both established cult-like followers. They both believed their race was the superior race. Neither one tolerated dissension, and had dissenters killed.  Both assassinated their political opponents.  Both exterminated Jews and other undesirables. Both were ascetics. The difference is that Hitler never claimed to be speaking on behalf of God Almighty.

If I would not tolerate fascism and Nazi party beliefs to be accepted in this country, why would I accept those same practices and beliefs merely because the founder of the cult claimed to be talking to God?

The Name of God is Not "Allah"

There are some Christian churches in the Middle east that use the word Allah instead of God.  This is an egregious error.  Allah is the name of the pagan moon god of the Kaaba that was worshiped by the Meccans before Muhammad.  Muhammad's own family name was Abdallah, meaning "slave of Allah".  He was the chief deity of the Meccan pantheon.  When Muhammad first started hearing the voices and attributed it to divine message, he referred to his new God as Al-Rahman.  Nowhere in the Surahs revealed in Mecca do we see his god referred to as Allah, because he knew the Meccans would not accept their Kaaba God as the sole God.  Al-Rahaman was the term used by a different temple further south towards Yemen (The Kaaba was not unique; every town had their own kaaba that they circumambulated as a form of worship.  This practice came from India).  Only after Muhammad fled to Medina did he start calling his God Allah, since no one in Medina knew much about the Allah of the Kaaba.

The use of Allah by Christian communities is a bow towards the Muslim majority in the countries where this is practiced, and attempt to placate the Muslims and keep them from burning their churches and killing their people, because of the Muslim intolerance for all things non-Muslim.  Muslims find this acceptable, because it allows them to promote the fiction that Allah is the same as the Judeo-Christian God. God has a name, though, and it most certainly isn't Allah: 

    Then Moses said to God, “Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I shall say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you.’ Now they may say to me, ‘What is His name?’ What shall I say to them?”
    And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” And God, furthermore, said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations.
-Exodus 3:13-15

"I Am"  That's deep, no matter how long you think about the implications of that, it's deep.  The Hebrew word was  הָיָה, directly translated to YHWH (written Hebrew had no vowels), pronounced Yah-weh, which later got mangled into Yehova, and in Latin the Y sound was written as a J, which we barbarian English actually pronounce as a J, thus Jehovah.  The literal definition is "To exist" or "to Be or Become".  This is God's name for all generations.  Not "Allah".

Islam's New Role in American Politics

Presidential hopeful talk show commentator Herman Cain recently stated that he wouldn’t appoint a Muslim to a cabinet position. This created a minor fire storm of political correctness, and he subsequently recanted his position, effectively placing himself in the back of the pack for 2012. Not so much because of the position, but his lack of resolve demonstrates that he’s capable of being swayed by perceived public opinion.

This is a real problem for a presidential candidate, because once you snatch the brass ring and find yourself in the oval office; you become separated from the people who put you there. There are two types of politicians: Those who operate and lead from core principles (The Leader) and those who are adept at reading the public and reflecting the public’s desire in their actions and words (The Chameleon).

The Leader does well when his principles reflect those of the majority of the people. He will be able to function in times of difficulty by consulting the foundations of his principles and making sound decisions on that basis. If his principles are true, his decisions will be supported by his constituency without having to consult them. These sorts make very good Presidents, but they're rare.

The Chameleon stakes his career on being able to read the mood of the public, and this propels him quickly through politics, until he reaches the Oval office; at which point he’s suddenly cut off from direct contact with the public that provides him his direction, and he becomes one of the most isolated people in the nation. Stripped of his litmus test of crowd reaction, his decision making process develops a fatal lag filter, and he cannot lead effectively, deprived of his primary source of political acumen.

Herman Cain proves by his flip-flop that he’s characteristically a Chameleon. Surely we can do better.

The discussion has introduced a new weapon into the Democrat arsenal of political dirty tricks. The question of the role of Muslims in the American political landscape will have a prominent position from now on. Having smelled blood in the water, the Democrats will continue to hammer this question at all Republican candidates, fully aware that the core republican constituency has a visceral negative reaction to the idea of Muslims in political power. This question will serve only to weaken a Republican candidate, either from their base or from the independent voters, and has no downside for the Democrats.

The Chameleons will stammer and waffle, unsure how to respond because of the political crosswinds pulling them in opposite directions.

Only the Leaders will be able to step forward and use this question to take the offensive, and use their bully pulpit to educate the American public. Allen West is currently the only person I see who seems willing to do this.

The premise behind the Democrat position is that the government should reflect the diversity of the American public. In the name of Diversity the Muslim American population should be represented in American government.

This is a noble sentiment if you don’t understand what it is you’re talking about. If you think this is a morally justified way of selecting our government, then I have to ask this question: In the name of diversity, should the White supremacists of America be properly represented by installing card-carrying Nazis into government positions?

Well, why not? Because Nazis are intolerant? Look at the plight of non-Muslims in Muslims dominated countries around the world. They have second class status in judicial proceedings; they have no chance of winning a legal claim against a Muslim in a Muslim dominated court. They operate at an economic disadvantage, since no contract made with a Muslim is enforceable in a Muslim court for a non-Muslim. They cannot build new places of worship, and frequently cannot repair their existing places of worship. They live in constant fear of a Muslim mob becoming inflamed at some slight and burning their houses and places of worship.

Or maybe it’s because the Nazis are racist, genocidal maniacs? Look at the Muslim sentiment regarding Jews around the world. Anti-Semitism is a hallmark of Islam, and Muslim leaders are not shy about expressing their desire to finish what Hitler started.

Diversity proponents will argue that Muslims in America should not be judged by the actions of radicals overseas. This argument needs to be dispelled. In the first place Intolerance and anti-Semitism are not traits of radical Muslims around the world; this is the normal attitude of the rank and file Muslim population. The average overseas Muslim firmly believes that Israel is a force of evil which should be eradicated, and that Islam is destined to eventually rule the world. The majority of the population in such countries as Egypt, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, all across North Africa, Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf view Osama Bin Laden as a folk hero and support Jihad against Western Civilization in principle if not in action.

Part of the Muslims faith is that Islam demands more loyalty than does one’s nationality. An American Muslim must consider himself a Muslim first, and an American second. If he does not, then one must question his devotion to Islam.

To be a Nazi essentially means that you endorse the fascist political economic model. This political economic structure has advantages and disadvantages, and is no less a viable economic model for discussion as is communism or capitalism. Evaluating fascism as an economic model is outside the scope of this discussion, the point is that we don’t evaluate Nazism on the basic of its primary economic model; we evaluate it based on the demonstrable record it carries with regard to civil and human rights. We refuse to acknowledge or tolerate Nazis is any position of power in our society, and we only tacitly tolerate their presence as long as they don’t break any laws, and we watch them very, very closely. We do this because we’ve seen what the Nazis have done in the past, and we have solemnly vowed “never again.”

Yet for some reason we tolerate an ideology that at the core has very little difference from Nazi ideology. Because it is self-labeled a “religion,” we give it a pass, even though it openly endorses a fascist hierarchical structure in which the minutest details of individual life are scrutinized to ensure compliance with party (religious) ideology. We look the other way when history and current events repeatedly insist that “never again” has somehow transformed into “right now”. Muslims leaders are openly and brazenly calling for the destruction of Israel and the extermination of the remaining Jews. Christians are being martyred in Muslim countries at a rate never before seen in history, even the darkest early days of Christianity. Muslims Americans do not repudiate these actions; they spend their time instead condemning governments of the West for not being sensitive of the sensibilities of the individual Muslim.

Perhaps if the Germans had declared Hitler a Prophet, and Nazism a religion, they could have sued the USA for violating their right to religious liberty.  

Jesus is God

It’s a common Muslim argument that Jesus is not God. It’s a fundamental tenet of their faith, because if Jesus was God, then everything Muhammad said was a lie, since Muhammad elevated himself to the status of a prophet above Jesus.

Jesus wasn't a prophet. In all of our accounts of prophets, even Islamic accounts of Muhammad, it’s clearly recorded that God spoke to the prophet in question. The prophet heard and responded to the voice of God, or in Muhammad’s case an angel that he identified as Gabriel (Note that Muhammad is the only case of a prophet being spoken to through an intermediary. All the Hebrew prophets heard God directly). There's no record in any of the Gospels that Jesus heard the voice of God or was instructed by God in what to do or how to act. There are references in the New Testament that may suggest he was a prophet, if taken out of context. These cases fall into two categories: either someone has identified him as a prophet (John 4:19, 6:14, 7:39, 9:17, Luke 7:16, Matt 21:10, 21:46), or Jesus has made an observation about prophets that are also applicable to him (John 4:44, Luke 4:24, Mark 6:4, Matt 13:56 ). Indeed, Jesus can not be a prophet, because “out of Galilee arises no prophet.” (John 7:52).

Four hundred years before Christ, Isaiah foretold the coming of God as Man: Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. “But,” Muslims cry out with glee, “His name was Jesus, not Immanuel!” Hold on just a second, Matthew teaches us non-speakers of Hebrew that, “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel," which translated means, "God with us." (Matt 1:23) It’s not a proper name, but a title. Matthew is very clear that Jesus represents “God with us.”

John is even more direct in the opening of his Gospel:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. (John 1:1-4)

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. John1:14

I know that Muslims are kind of weak in drawing logical connections, so to spell it out: The “Word was God” is followed by "the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us". Now if A=B and B=C, then A=C. The Word is God. The Word walked among us. God walked among us. It’s quite simple, really.

Now Muslims will trot out ad nauseam scriptural references that Jesus is the Christ (true), and that his followers referred to him by a variety of titles: Rabbi, Messiah, Christ, Lord. And they point out that he never says he is God. 

This is not true.  Jesus declared himself to be God, and did so in such a way as to scandalize the Jewish community to the point here they were prepared to stone him to death for blasphemy. 

The Jews said to Him, “Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets also; and You say, ‘If anyone keeps My word, he shall never taste of death.’ Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too; whom do You make Yourself out to be?” Jesus answered, “If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God’; and you have not come to know Him, but I know Him; and if I say that I do not know Him, I shall be a liar like you, but I do know Him, and keep His word. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” The Jews therefore said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” - John 8:52-58

To a Jew, this was a declaration of Godhood, for the name God gave to Moses when asked his name was, "I am that I am.  Tell them I AM has sent you." Exodus 3:14. Jesus also places himself out of space and time with this statement.

More than once he’s called God, and he doesn’t rebuke the speaker. You see, God is not like Allah, he doesn’t have this narcissistic need to blow his own horn. Allah insists that he is God over and over again, to the point that it becomes tiresome. As Joseph Goebbels said, if you tell a lie often enough and loudly enough, people will believe it. It serves God’s purposes better if people come to the correct conclusion on their own. The God of Abraham is a thinking man’s God. He’s not going to take you by the nose and lead you to every tiresome article of faith. He gives you the information you need and then lets you figure it out. The lesson is learned by the ones who understand much more effectively than by the ones who follow because they don’t know any better.

But the apostles who lived with Christ were too close to the event, entrenched in their own prejudices and beliefs, and couldn’t see the forest for the trees. Jesus got a little frustrated and gently chided them for not seeing what was in front of their faces:

Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”

Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you, I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me; otherwise believe on account of the works themselves. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go to the Father. And whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." (John 14:8-15)

Here, Jesus makes it very clear that he and the father are one. “Whatever you ask in my name, I shall do.” Who can answer prayers but God? Jesus equates himself with God.“…Keep My commandments.” Whose commandments? Only God gave commandments. Jesus again equates himself with God.

In a definitive scene after the resurrection, Jesus is identified by the scientist of the group, Thomas, who is reluctant to believe anything that he can’t feel, see, hear, touch and measure. Note that when Thomas identifies him, Jesus is not angry, does not rebuke or correct him, but indeed seems pleased, satisfied that the truth is sinking in.

Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing.”

Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.” (John 20:27-29)

Does Jesus rebuke Thomas? No, he instructs him, and acknowledges his belief.

Throughout Christian history, it's been acknowledged that Christ was God in the form of man. This is a fundamental article of faith stated in the Nicene creed: “We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father. Through Him, all things were made. For us men and our salvation He came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit, He was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.” This belief is not disputed by any Christian community that maintains a tradition of apostolic succession from the original twelve disciples. This is what they believed, and this is what they taught. Throughout the letters they refer to Christ as "Lord" (in the Greek, "Kurios", Master, Authority -- a title also given frequently to God.).

John unabashedly states that Jesus is God. John was one of the twelve, often described as the “most beloved” apostle of Christ. Who would know better than John? An illiterate seventh century poet from a thousand miles away who converts from polytheistic paganism says Jesus could not be God. The man who was closest to him throughout his ministry, who took his mother as his own and cared for her for the rest of her life, says Jesus was God. This is not even a close call.

This is very difficult for Muslims to grasp, since from the cradle they are trained to think linearly and uncritically. They are immersed in a faith that is at time contradictory and makes little sense. This faith controls every aspect of their lives, right down to toilet habits. It does not allow for questions or independent thought, but blind, unthinking obedience. The penalty for not observing this obedience includes death. But Jesus was an intelligent man. He played word games to amuse himself, and spoke in riddles and metaphor to make his followers think. The Muslim response to a metaphor from Muhammad’s time is to take a sword and cleave it in two. Muhammad was too one-dimensional to think in symbolic terms, too controlling to let people figure the truth out for themselves, because it would be bad for him if the truth they found didn’t involve him as the center and spokesperson of God. Muslims today are faced with a dilemma of relating to a world where Western values dominate, and logic is required to function, yet they must maintain an intellectual blind spot with regard to faith, because one dare not peek behind the curtain. As a result, their arguments consist of ad hominem attacks, derision, often foul language and threats, and yet seem completely incapable of disassembling a logical argument. In the marketplace of ideas, they are bankrupt.

Intolerance of Islam

Why is it so impossible for Muslims to coexist peacefully with Christians?  Because Islam is threatened by Christianity.  Muslims know that the only reason Islam continues to exist is because it holds its slaves in fear, fear that to leave Islam is to invite the death penalty.  Islam keeps its slaves ignorant, feeding them from birth a diet of lies and twisted truths, teaching them to hate others- people who have little animosity towards Muslims.  Islam prevents its slaves from accessing the beliefs of Christianity, banning and disparaging the study of Bibles, for fear that the truth would expose the lie of Islam.  Islam hates non-Muslims and seeks to persecute them, to demonstrate to the Muslim masses that you cannot be a non-Muslim and be happy, lest the vast multitude of lip-service Muslims simply leave Islam.

If Islam adopted a more tolerant attitude, allowed people to worship their God as their conscience dictated without interference, promoted peace and recognized the brotherhood of man, acknowledged that a man's relationship with God is a personal matter between him and God alone, practiced that no person should be coerced to worship in a particular fashion. . . why inside of generation, Islam would virtually disappear from the face of the Earth!

Even with all of the totalitarian guards that Islam has erected to defend its ignorant theology, it is doomed, because you cannot keep the truth from so many people forever.  As more people see the truth and turn away from Islam, it will scream louder, become more strident, its lies will become more outrageous, and it will lash out in frustration at the enemy that seduces its faithful away with truth.  Instead of melting quietly away as it should, it will self-destruct in a paroxysm of violence, as Satan seeks to harvest his crop of souls before they return to the path of truth. We see that starting today.

How can the truth be defeated?  If the Muslim believes that Islam is the truth, they should put down their weapons and embrace the non-Muslim, the Jew.  Their truth will protect them and their beliefs.  They should be able to persuade the infidel to become a Muslim without fighting them or subduing them.  They should be able to prevent the apostate from leaving Islam by simply stating the truth to them.   Since Islam must constantly attack the infidel, since it must kill those who leave Islam, this demonstrates that their ideology is bankrupt, their truth is a sham, and that they must gain through violence and force what they cannot possibly do through reason.

The Death Penalty - a Proposed Alternative.

On Wednesday, March 9, 2011, at 1 p.m. Eastern Time, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed the Death Penalty Repeal bill into law, joining fifteen other states and the district of Columbia in not having the legal ability to execute heinous criminals.

This is one issue in which I have traditionally been squarely on the fence for most of my life, but I’m finally leaning towards abolishment.

The down side of the death penalty is the issue of innocence. Our criminal justice system is good, but not perfect. Not every defendant has the resources of OJ Simpson. Prosecutors have a political vested interest in securing convictions. A conviction means a case is closed, a crime is solved, the community is safer, justice is served, and most importantly the prosecutor is doing a good job and should be retained. This political environment has the potential to foster a climate where results count more than real justice, and an innocent man is sent to prison. Exoneration of convicts based on forensic DNA evidence demonstrates that this happens. That it happens even once is far too much. The cases in which a prisoner is released and cleared of charges get a lot of press. But you cannot release an innocent man who has been executed in accordance with the law!

Then there’s the issue of the cost. A death penalty conviction starts a process which is sufficiently drawn out that the convict stands a very good chance of dying of old age in prison before being executed. Appeals are expensive, time consuming and the justice system (i.e. John Q. Public) pays for the endless appeals and legal maneuverings of a convict who’s willing to grasp at every legal straw available to prolong his life.

On the flip side are the crimes in which the guilt of the accused is in no question, such as Jared Lee Loughner. There are crimes committed where the crime is so heinous, and the guilt of the accused is so well established, that one’s natural reaction is to kill the perp as quickly as possible. I don’t have a problem with this.

Many Christians base their objection on Biblical moral grounds, from the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus20:13, KJV). This is a misapprehension, based on a loose translation. The original Hebrew word used was רָצַח (ratsach), which more closely translates to “murder”. Indeed, the death penalty was a central tenet of ancient Hebrew justice. To say that the state cannot execute criminals based on biblical teachings is hypocrisy.

But from a purely philosophical standpoint, the idea that the State has the right -even the obligation -to execute its own citizens should disturb anyone, no matter what the crime of the citizen is.

Let’s think about the purpose of execution. From an emotional standpoint, execution is the ultimate revenge. You have harmed me beyond recompense and for that act you will pay with your life. Is it the role of the state to extract revenge? And what sort of revenge is it when it’s carried out sometimes decades after the crime, when the crime has become a distant memory and the general public doesn’t even remember the details of the crime? If it’s revenge we’re after, locking the condemned in a room with the victim’s family and a ready supply of baseball bats for 20 or 30 minutes seems more appropriate.

The death penalty isn’t an effective deterrent. People committing crimes do not consider the scope of punishments they may face for the crimes. The logical argument in favor of the death penalty is that the condemned is guilty of a crime so heinous that no punishment is adequate, that no rehabilitation is possible, and that the death penalty is an economic alternative to maintaining the condemned for life in prison. In effect, the condemned is too dangerous to release into society, and therefore it’s a preventive measure. The problem with this logic is that the cost to the state of executing a prisoner is often more than maintaining their life in prison.

But, states the death penalty advocate with a certain amount of justification, life in prison is an inadequate punishment for some egregious crimes, and represents leniency on the part of the state. Victims families will never reach closure knowing that the person who committed a heinous crime is drawing breath, warm and safe behind prison walls, getting three meals and a bed to sleep in every night, medical care, exercise, TV and access to prison occupation programs and “quality of life” perks. Can’t say I disagree. Some would argue that prison is a thoroughly unpleasant, stressful place, and that life in the joint is no bed of roses. I would contend that humans are sufficiently adaptable that they can adjust to almost anything, and a person facing life in prison can come to terms with it over time. Surviving the first few years will place the prisoner in a position in the social order of the prison that can be tolerated, at times even enjoyed.

I think there’s a middle road. Short of death, I propose there be a special classification of life imprisonment. Let’s call it “living death”. Upon conviction, you are condemned to die in prison. There is no possibility of parole. From the moment you begin serving your sentence, you will be considered dead for all intents and purposes. You will be declared legally dead for the purposes of settling your estate. You will have no contact with your family or loved ones. They might as well hold your funeral when you enter prison. Once the appeals process has run its course, you will have no further contact with legal representation. You will be allowed to access a minister of the religious denomination of your choice, but the minister will be chosen and trained by the department of corrections. Said ministers will not convey messages to and from outside your prison. You will have no access to any sort of media outside the prison, nor will you have any contact outside the prison. You will be housed alone in a 20x20 cell. Your meals will be provided to your cell with a 2000 calorie per day diet. You will keep your cell as clean and functional as you like – it’s your place to live for the rest of your life. If you destroy property, it will not be replaced. The “death row” block will be subject to periodic inspection to ensure that prisoners are not subjected to abuse beyond the scope of their incarceration. Prisoners will receive necessary medications and annual health checks, but no major medical intervention in the event of serious illness or conditions. The state has no interest in prolonging your life by artificial means. No one will be notified when you have lived out your natural life and died. You will be cremated on site.

This should satisfy the death penalty opponents who abhor the idea of killing a man, no matter the crime, and should satisfy the death penalty advocates by removing the criminal from society as effectively as execution and not providing him with a comfortable living or any sort of social support so desperately important for humans.

This is the harshest punishment I can imagine without becoming inhumane. The state has no interest in spending resources in making the life of the criminal miserable. Neither does the stat have an interest in making the life of the “death row” prisoner comfortable. The prisoner must be satisfied with the fact that the only reason we don’t kill him is he’s not worth the expense. And in the very unlikely event that it’s discovered that a prisoner was found to be wrongly convicted, we can always retrieve them from the abyss of the “death row” prison system and return him to freedom.