Category Archives: Reason

'Son of Hamas': Israel Has A Moral Code, Hamas Not

Free Speech, Israel, Jihad, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Palestinian Authority, Reason, Terrorism, The West

Enlightened, realistic, intelligent people (western, left-liberal intellectuals are precluded by definition) who visit or come to know Israel—the place, the people, the purpose of it all—abandon the easy, destructive, fashionable path of the Palestinians.

Such a man is Mosab Yousef, a “Son of Hamas”—also the title of his book—interviewed extensively by CNN’s Christian Amanpour.

This extremely bright young man’s central conversion is religious—once he embraced Christianity, his political change of heart followed. (How ironic, then, that western “intellectuals,” claiming to bear christian witness, routinely root for savagery as against civilization?!)

Amanpour, a fan of that authentic, ever-elusive, tame Islam, was shocked to hear these two stupendously courageous statements from Mosab Yousef:

1. The gangster of the world is the God of the Qu’ran.

2. Shin Bet has rules; is committed to a constitution, is not thirsty to kill Palestinians. Hamas’s goal, on the other hand, is to kill civilians, plain and simple.

Amanpour—who finds herself unable to abide Yousef’s admission that Shin Bet has a moral code, Hamas does not—then spent the rest of the admittedly penetrating interview trying to discredit Israel and the convert.

“Who turned you to working for the Israelis,” she demanded of Yousef.

Tellingly, the Hamas gangster she entertained to that end had a fit about being pitted against an Israeli expert on espionage, Yossi Melman of the leftist Haaretz.

An enlightened young man, with a fidelity to what’s infront of his eyes, turning against Hamas? This, to the western woman hot for the Hamas hottie, his bombs and his “causes”, is incredible.

Amanpour and the other Muslim academic she herded in for the occasion are, seemingly, quite invested in discrediting a born-again Christian whose conversion has seen him reject barbarism.

Regulars on the pro-Palestinian libertarian/left sides of the ideological spectrum might be warned of a major contradiction they risk committing, as they gather to slander Mosab Yousef, “Son of Hamas”:

Boy-oh-boy, has this man hungrily embraced civilization both from the depths of his being and in his actions. Yousef is risking his life to court the ways of the West: speaking, writing, arguing; having fun and making money while doing it all.

Now this is a hero in the Randian mold. May he stay safe.

‘Son of Hamas’: Israel Has A Moral Code, Hamas Not

Free Speech, Israel, Jihad, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Palestinian Authority, Reason, Terrorism, The West

Enlightened, realistic, intelligent people (western, left-liberal intellectuals are precluded by definition) who visit or come to know Israel—the place, the people, the purpose of it all—abandon the easy, destructive, fashionable path of the Palestinians.

Such a man is Mosab Yousef, a “Son of Hamas”—also the title of his book—interviewed extensively by CNN’s Christian Amanpour.

This extremely bright young man’s central conversion is religious—once he embraced Christianity, his political change of heart followed. (How ironic, then, that western “intellectuals,” claiming to bear christian witness, routinely root for savagery as against civilization?!)

Amanpour, a fan of that authentic, ever-elusive, tame Islam, was shocked to hear these two stupendously courageous statements from Mosab Yousef:

1. The gangster of the world is the God of the Qu’ran.

2. Shin Bet has rules; is committed to a constitution, is not thirsty to kill Palestinians. Hamas’s goal, on the other hand, is to kill civilians, plain and simple.

Amanpour—who finds herself unable to abide Yousef’s admission that Shin Bet has a moral code, Hamas does not—then spent the rest of the admittedly penetrating interview trying to discredit Israel and the convert.

“Who turned you to working for the Israelis,” she demanded of Yousef.

Tellingly, the Hamas gangster she entertained to that end had a fit about being pitted against an Israeli expert on espionage, Yossi Melman of the leftist Haaretz.

An enlightened young man, with a fidelity to what’s infront of his eyes, turning against Hamas? This, to the western woman hot for the Hamas hottie, his bombs and his “causes”, is incredible.

Amanpour and the other Muslim academic she herded in for the occasion are, seemingly, quite invested in discrediting a born-again Christian whose conversion has seen him reject barbarism.

Regulars on the pro-Palestinian libertarian/left sides of the ideological spectrum might be warned of a major contradiction they risk committing, as they gather to slander Mosab Yousef, “Son of Hamas”:

Boy-oh-boy, has this man hungrily embraced civilization both from the depths of his being and in his actions. Yousef is risking his life to court the ways of the West: speaking, writing, arguing; having fun and making money while doing it all.

Now this is a hero in the Randian mold. May he stay safe.

Update IV: Joe Arpaio, Patriot

Constitution, Democracy, IMMIGRATION, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Nationhood, Reason

Judging by the way the muck-media treat Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, you’d think he was breaking the law, or something. Arpaio uses “minor misdemeanors to catch dope dealers, seize drugs, DUIs,” then inquires about the perp’s immigration status and enforces immigration laws on the streets.

HORRORS!

In response to these so-called controversial “crime sweeps,” the 77-year-old sheriff hero must contend with outsiders—“activists” who rush to the scene (you didn’t think they had jobs!) to snap him in action, as he goes about protecting the people of his country, who, incidentally, continue to re-elect him.

Yes, the Moron Media remain mum about that pesky thing called democracy. When practiced on a local level, democracy is at its purest and fairest. Correction: that is the only form democracy should take. “Democracy must be confined to a ‘small spot’ (like Athens).”

In any event, Kris W. Kobach, one of the most brilliant constitutional immigration legal minds allowed occasionally on the fool’s lantern, confirms that “state police, exercising state law authority only, [can] make arrests for violations of federal law.”

In follows from “states’ status as sovereign entities,” that “[t]hey are sovereign governments possessing all residual powers not abridged or superseded by the U.S. Constitution. The source of the state governments’ power is entirely independent of the U.S. Constitution.”

the enumerated powers doctrine that constrains the powers of the federal government does not so constrain the powers of the states. Rather, the states possess what are known as “police powers,” which need not be specifically enumerated. Police powers are “an exercise of the sovereign right of the government to protect the lives, health, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the people

Wait a sec, didn’t I say something similar in “Aliens In Their Hometown”?

Take this to the bank: Arpaio is a patriot. And read Prof. Kobach’s entire analysis.

Update I: To the libertines who cannot abide the idea of a drug dealer on the corner of the street of a poor neighborhood (like Nancy Pelsoi, libertines live away from the madding crowds) being stopped for any reason: try picturing a Venn Diagram, if you’re vaguely inclined to reason. The overlap between dealers, drunk drivers (scroll down for sacrificial lambs), and other evil-doers and illegality is quite fantastic.

By selecting for these life-style choices I’ll call them—I don’t wish to offend libertines—Arpaio seems to stop the right people each and every time. Want proof that the old, common-sensical bugger has nailed it? Arpaio stands accused of rational profiling, a badge of honor; when in fact, all he has done is select (apparently representatively) for assorted petty, and non-petty, crime.

Update II: Another reminder to the pansy libertines who galvanize the argument from Hitler when their panties get in a knot: In a free society, rooted in private property rights, land owners along the border would have likely formed militias to repel trespassers from their land or neighborhoods. The local patrol, whether under private property, or in the founder’s republic of blessed memory, would work very much as Arpaio works it—and certainly not as the typical effete of the libertarian left posits.

In a free society based on absolute private-property rights, the natural tendency of men—a tendency that is most conducive to peace—is to live among their own, but to trade with any and all. In such a society, commercial property owners will tend to be far more inclusive than residential property owners. As libertarian theorist Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe notes, owners of retail establishments, like hotels and restaurants, “have every economic incentive not to discriminate unfairly against strangers because this would lead to reduced profits or losses.” Still, they will have to consider the impact of culturally exotic behavior on “local domestic sales,” and will impose codes of conduct on guests.
Seeking low-wage employees, employers would also be partial to foreigners but, absent the protectionist state, the employer would be accountable to the community, and would be wary of the strife and lowered productivity caused by a multiethnic and multi-linguistic workforce. All the more so when a foreign workforce moves into residential areas.
In short, reasons Hoppe, in a natural order—absent government—there will be plenty of “interregional trade and travel,” but little mingling in residential areas. Just as people tend to marry along cultural and racial lines, so they maintain rather homogeneous residential neighborhoods. This is how the chips fall in a highly regulated society, so much more so in a free society, based on absolute property rights. Is this contemptible? To the left-libertarian open-border purist it is—else why would he be lending ideological support to the state’s efforts to upset any semblance of a natural order and to shape society in politically pleasing ways?

[From “LOVE-IN AT THE BORDERS”]

Update III (Jan. 5): The Constitution delegated to localities a lot of discretion in determining the way they want to live. The 14th tampered with that discretion. Still, like it or not, law enforcement is a local function and the only legitimate duty of government.

I note that our esteemed reader Myron has opted for the liberal, high-pitched strategy: accuse a man who resides in the community he protects of things he has not done or aspired to do, in the hope that something sticks; and so that the lodestar of leftism is obeyed: complete license all the time. “Oh, my G-d! Someone has stopped someone else from doing exactly what he likes on street corners, even though no one was hurt!”

It’s early for me to be fully compos mentis, but an analogy for MP’s rant about Arpaio’s alleged trespasses is to lump every mild mannered man who ever spoke unkindly to his wife with OJ Simpson, on a continuum of wife abuse. The bailiwick of lefty feminists. Moreover—and conveniently—in the process of trying to get something to stick, drug dealing was omitted in favor of accusing Arpaio of going after lone tokers.

Still, I always appreciate heated opposition to what I put forward.

Update IV: WHERE WERE HIS ROCKS? How dare this border patrolman defend himself! I’m appalled. Israelis are expected to retaliate with rocks when they’re assaulted with same, why was this U.S. Border Patrol agent in southern Arizona unprepared to rock it?

To the good news: “the agent and his dog encountered [and illegal alien] in the area of ‘D’ Hill just outside of Douglas. The man assaulted the agent with rocks and the agent shot back.”

This reminds me of the iconic scene in “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” Challenged to a duel by a scimitar-wielding enemy, Indiana Jones draws a pistol and dispatches the swordsman without further ado.

The Defunct Foundations Of The Republic

Classical Liberalism, Constitution, Democrats, Founding Fathers, Individual Rights, Natural Law, Reason, Republicans

From my new, WND.COM column, “The Defunct Foundations Of The Republic”:

“In the course of the agonizing debates over the soon-to-be-merged Senate and House health-care bills, Republicans cried out for partisanship, griped about procedure and said next to nothing about principles, an accusation that cannot be directed at the Democrats.

‘Health care in America ought to be a right, not a privilege,’ thundered Sen. Christopher J. Dodd. The Democrat from Connecticut was expressing sentiments that are par for the course in Democrat discourse.

Nancy Pelosi’s core beliefs vis-à-vis conscripting individuals into buying (or providing) a commodity at the pains of punishment came across loud and quirky. When the House passed its hulking health-care legislation, the speaker was asked where in the Constitution is the warrant for individual health mandates. Pelosi’s response was for posterity. ‘Are you serious?’ she shot back.

No, Democrats are not in the habit of hiding how they feel about the US Constitution.

As much as he dislikes the philosophical foundations of the republic, the president seems to know – and prattle – about them more so than do the Republicans. Here’s Sen. Barack Obama talking about the document Republicans discount and Democrats deem dated”…

The complete column is “The Defunct Foundations Of The Republic.”

My libertarian manifesto, Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Society, is back in print. The Second Edition features bonus material. Get your copy (or copies) now!

A Happy New Year to all,
ilana