The Muslim Ban was Never about Banning Islam

The “Muslim Ban” was never about banning Islam. Instead, it is based on this:

Not all Muslim’s are radical Islamic terrorists,

 but all radical Islamic terrorists are Muslim.

The idea was to temporarily ban all Muslim immigration until a plan for extreme vetting could be developed. Once it was developed, Trump believed he could keep America secure for the free and peaceful practice of all religions.

Trump, of course, has, at the behest of GOP advisors such as Rudi Giuliani, softened his position on the Muslim Ban. Trump has opted for a ban on specific terrorist hotbeds. This he has done despite the reality that radicalization takes place even where cells are not active. As Trump’s critics have noted, Saudi Arabia radicalized three quarters  of the original 9/11 terrorists and yet Saudi Arabia is not among the banned nations.

Perhaps the most damning criticism of Trump’s immigration ban is that we have, so far, no proof, logically deductive proof or experiential proof, that the ban is effective in any way.

Experience is certainly not the teacher anyone wants in this matter. If there aren’t attacks, we won’t know if it’s because of the ban, and no one wants proof that the ban did not work.

This leaves logical proof. This proof will come down to Trump’s definition of “extreme vetting.” If it is up to the Obama sect of the American left, the vetting will be utterly useless and ineffective. This is because the media have dwarfed the American intellect. Americans seemingly can’t have an adult discussion about liberty and religious practice because they are slaves to glittering generalities about the mythical rights of sacred cows.

The real questions are will the vetting go far enough to be effective? Beyond whether or not the vetting could be easily evaded by would-be terrorists, is the goal of the vetting itself sound?

Logically, if Trump can effectively vet the desire to practice the more radical elements of Sharia, such as punishing Muslims who convert to Christianity with death, he can stave off the horrible radicalism of terrorist attacks.

Americans have not had a national conversation about where Islam oversteps the bounds of Liberty to which all Americans are bound.

Each religion deserves its own discussion. Although Islam, Conservative Christianity and Orthodox Judaism agree that homosexuality is not God’s will, it’s rare that a single discussion will apply to many religions at once. Usually, each religion needs a unique discussion. Is animal sacrifice acceptable as part of the voodoo religions of the West Indies? Is refusing medical treatment for terminally ill children acceptable because it is part of the religion of the Jehovah witnesses? Is the use of illegal hallucinogens permissible as part of the Sioux mystical rites?

In the same way we need to squarely face the religious practices of certain schools of Islam, especially as these impact the rights of others. Should we ban burqas? Do we refuse immigration to those who believe it is a religious virtue to beat their wives? What about honor killings or female genital mutilation? Should our foreign policy discourage the murder of those who want to practice religious freedom and escape Islam? All of these are important questions that adults need to discuss. We cannot achieve peaceful religious freedom for all if we don’t ask these questions.

Some believe that all Islam is an ideological poison. That’s not clear from recent history. During much of the post World War II period Islam and the West co-exited reasonably well.

Even recent history shows that the United States has the potential for significant and strong bonds of friendship with majority Muslim states. King Abdullah II of Jordan is one such example. The remarkable events surrounding Egypt’s rejection of the radical Muslim Brotherhood are further examples of the capacity of Islam to co-exist with the West.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali calls it “reforming” Islam. We in the West need only call it “extreme vetting.” Together we need to talk about the elements of Sharia law that are elements of religious choice and the others that are part of a radical ideology inconsistent with the liberties, the natural liberties of choice and religious freedom the United States of America represents. If we can take the radical out of radical Islam we have defeated radical Islamic terrorism before it has begun.

But where are we today? We can’t honestly discuss the term “Muslim Ban.” Perhaps part of the reason is the actual meaning of the phrase requires asking other questions too subtle for intellectual children.

The Defamation of Marriage and the Rise of Totalitarianism

To abandon celebrating the self-evident truths of what a marriage is, is to abandon reason itself, for reason tells us that the oaths of marriage are abiding in their humanity. The abiding meaning of these oaths to the human spirit flow from their relationship to the commitment to others demanded by every biological union of man and Cer4F0TWQAEspsJwoman. The oaths of marriage are not for self.  The oaths of marriage begin with self, but they are in exchange for something higher in people than their personal desire. The exchange of vows is about far more than joint financial agreements that mutually benefit each ‘partner.’ Marriage oaths are selfless commitments made because of each individual’s honesty with reality.

In all of this “marriage equality” legalese is a kind of bitterness, a jealously that requires the defamation of marriage from personal spite. Only the strain-at-a-gnat, most superficial things that can, by arcane, nonsensical sophistry be associated with marriage, are of interest to modern “justice.” Under the guise of the misguided pursuit of the jurisprudence of equal outcomes as justice, the courts claim the state has no interest in the human part of marriage. Such courts and such laws must ignore liberty because liberty is a human thing. Only human hearts can see the bars that hold living things in prisons for what they truly are. 

It’s a hardness of heart, not justice, that shuts out human concerns, loves, and, finally, liberty in the name of equality.

Cer4FzQXEAQh1eDNo rational system of law can survive an arrogance so blinding it cannot see the purpose of the sacred promises of marriage, vows that are far above a desire for financial and social advantage or “equality.” No civilization can endure a foolishness so malignant that it would deny the reality, reason, and the nature of these vows. The alternatives are the savagery of totalitarian tyranny and mob rule. Vows like those that are part of marriage bring out the best, most humane in mankind. A nation that would ignore these values is inhuman and very dangerous.

Consider as an example of our national vulgarity, the legal corruption surrounding the trial of California’s Proposition 8, a trial that ended a voter initiated amendment to California’s constitution defining marriage. The definition of marriage the voters chose was, obviously, the definition of marriage already embodied in California’s constitution and family law.

Because the monkey trial atmosphere surrounding California’s Proposition 8 so reeked of corruption, it marriageis very difficult to tell from the edited version of the “Proponents Defense of Proposition 8″ (Walker’s ruling p. 6) how well ProtectMarriage.com defended that crazy California proposition that marriage is between a man and a woman. For instance, Proposition 8 is, first about preserving the definition of marriage in our laws. A marriage is a marriage and always will be a marriage despite the judicial travesty of putting marriage on trial for inequality. However, in protecting the definition of marriage, Proposition 8 is foremost a defense of the ‘right to marry’ enshrined in federal and state law. Neither the plaintiffs, the majority of voters, nor the judiciary have any authority to infringe upon this natural right of a man and a woman to join in marriage. Tragically, it has been the courts that have led the charge, not to preserve the right to marry, but to deprive the people of the legal recognition of this right. This is prima facie evidence that the bow of our constitutional government is sinking, and, like the stern of the Titanic, an American totalitarianism rises.

What was born in the darkness of California’s corrupt judicial proceedings, proceedings that showed a profound hatred of our constitutional law, can only bring deep evil to our society and culture.

Plainly some of ProtectMarriage.com’s arguments sounded like they were the wrong ones for this particular California judge. For instance, arguing that “We should not accept a court decision that may result in public schools teaching our own kids that gay marriage is ok…” (p. 7) is like arguing natural rights before a hereditary monarch. This is the blindness that passes for light in the dim and reeking recesses of our national “jurisprudence.”

Judge Walker sought to undermine a sound premise argued by ProtectMarriage. Judge Walker’s summary of this part of the argument reads, “…If the gay marriage ruling [of the California Supreme Court] is not overturned, TEACHERS COULD BE REQUIRED to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage” (p.7). Walker emphasized “could” to emphasize that the gay community repeatedly denied that teaching gay marriage to kindergartners was on the agenda. Apparently, the good judge felt it was time to refight the campaign, not in the public square where the brainless, dirty masses have the right and power to disagree. Instead, he chose to bolster its wijudgesdom by refighting the campaign in the sanctity of his safely elite, intellectually pure, courtroom. He didn’t argue the law. He argued words spoken in campaign literature. About this though, he was, as about everything else, wrong and deceitfully wrong. California history has shown conclusively that now that the Supreme Court of the United States has made dehumanized marriage the law of the land, our government schools will immediately become sexual “reeducation camps” from the earliest years.

Additionally, based on Judge Walker’s conclusion that asserting that marriage is between a man and a woman “targets gay and lesbians specifically due to sex (p.120),” he seems to have surprised everyone by taking the words “no difference” to mean no “qualitative” difference. In other words, he indicated that all who say that marriage is between a man and a woman intend to teach that same sex couples cannot be successful parents or that their commitment to each other is in some way inferior to that of heterosexual couples. He took, apparently without asking clear follow up questions, the plaintiff’s position that those who espouse the outrageous claim that marriage is between a man and a woman do so to intentionally disparage same sex couples. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Everyone recognizes that the differences that sane people wish to preserve between same sex unions and marriage are factual, biological, and historic.  If there is scientific evidence that children raised by same sex couples do not fare well, that is a matter for science and law. Courts have no more business legislating this that they do in devising the means of conducting open heart surgery.

ProtectMarriage explained that the plaintiffs give no alternative definition of marriage and send, therefore, every branch of family law into an endless morass of absurdity. Their words fell on deaf, callous ears.

It is, nevertheless, apparent that ProtectMarriage made a sound and vigorous defense of the benefits of kidsmarriage to children and for the state’s profound interest in the weakest among us. This is a sound argument, and in happier days such words would never have fallen unheeded to the ground. But these are perilous times. These are the days of a social obsession with an equality of outcomes so complete and total that no aspect of civil life is spared it’s intrusion. Instead of showing the natural compassion for the weak that must be part of a judicial temperament, Judge Walker fixated on bizarre celestial visions of equal protection. Instead of erring on the side of caution, Judge Walker put the state’s interest in assuring the will of the people with regards to the welfare of their children aside. As a result, one who seems unfit for the judgments of law has set himself up as the final authority and arbiter of the benefits of family to children. Judge Walker accepted novel studies over the proven wisdom of the ages. He did this because, in American society today, this is true enlightenment.

The defamation of marriage is the consequence of an idolatrous blindness and an ascending American totalitarianism.

These are the days of the leveling of our land. There can be no excellence because there can be no failure. It does not matter whether you study hard and become an outstanding physician who is able to help people in ways no one had ever thought about before; your outcome must be the same as your neighbor’s. It does not matter whether you’ve chosen to do drugs all through high school, the state must provide for your college education and the best health care that everyone else’s money can buy. Likewise, if you are a homosexual it is just not fair that you can’t be married like everyone else, even though it is physically impossible.

We have been making excuses for everyone in society.  It is not compassion but an obsessive craving for a self-deceptive, idolatrous ideal that thrives on its own relativistic madness. A fear of the truth, like the Tower of Babel, is being, block by block, lifted from the cheering masses of smug, useless “intellectuals” that populate the sterile hopeless corridors of our universities. Only the rise of a totalitarian state could defy the natural light of liberty completely enough to satisfy craving for self importance.

Most of the working people in America could care less about this new religion of egalitarianism. However, the elite of our educational institutions know this idol and have bowed before its golden horns.the-golden-calf

Western society’s “new” ideology, its “new” religion, is one so psychotic it can tolerate none other. Its first creed is that “all truth is relative.” Hence its others: “all choices are virtue,” “all choices are equal,” and, therefore “no choice has a consequence.” This is not a happy time in California where the merit of the family is not in the state interest. This is not a happy time in the United States when “equal protection” is exalted above sanity in a farce beyond historic parallel. The notion that some choices are a blessing to the individual and to his country is a notion that can no longer be tolerated. Such a conclusion is unacceptable, so no fact that leads to such conclusions can, ipso facto, be valid. Today we are closer to the days of the monkey-courts of the French Revolution than we were last week. An American totalitarianism is rising.

Marx’s Plot to Destroy the Nuclear Family More Horrible than his Economics

Spreading the wealth around is an idea at least as old as Karl Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Program in which he wrote: “From each according to his ability to each according to his need.” To Marx this notion was a transitional principle leading to the workers’ paradise. His economic ideas are utterly nonsensical and have caused poverty and slavery wherever they’ve been tried. Even more sinister than an “economic system” based on lies that appeal to human jealousy and greed was Marx’s methods and plans for dismembering the hub of economic liberty: the nuclear family. As wicked as Marx’s appeal to the masses of the “downtrodden” were, even more base was his appeal for “a community of women.”

As part of the “dictatorship of the working class,” Marx desired that there would be no wealth to spread around. Marx wanted to abolish “capital.” That is, Marx envisioned abolishing the means to relate to others in terms of employer and wage earner.

marx

It was an idea that never worked very well. Why? Have you noticed the flaw in Marxist logic? If there is no capital, there can be no wage earners, or, in other words, no jobs. Therefore, Marxism leads to the absence of wealth!

Oddly, illogical notions don’t work in the real world. Because of the failure of these Marxist ideas in practice (as well as on the drawing board), one almost suspects the motivation of anyone in any government who proposes them.

On one level the motivation seems plain. The appeal of Marxism can be outwardly pleasant. When we humans don’t get what they want, it feels very unfair to us. It is easy to demand fairness instead of responsibility. It’s even easier to promise to make things fair by making a gift of someone else’s property to those who desire “fairness.” Nevertheless, considering how little clear thinking it takes to recognize the absurdity of Marxism, one must wonder about the cynicism of its proponents.

Marx also had some interesting notions about marriage. The Manifesto reads: “Bourgeois marriage is (because of rampant infidelity), in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed (system of free love), an openly legalized community of women.”

For Marx any force that disrupted one’s marriage was part of the plan for a worker’s paradise. The nuclear family appeared to be a threat to the communist theorist. Again the manifesto reads: “Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.”  At any rate, once capital had been destroyed, of nature the workers RedWhiteparadise would feature no mothers and no fathers. In addition to the revolutionary party’s “community of women” Marx felt that public schools were the key to destroying the nuclear family. He was almost right about this, but marriage proved tougher than he thought. Since marriage exists prior to governments, it will endure when governments fail. Government schools can resist marriage, but cannot prevail against this God-given human ability because it is part of what people are.

Although Marx claimed that “the bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation into a mere money relation,” he was wrong about that as well. No, it would be a hundred and fifty years before the Supreme Court of the United States did this. Although married folk pay SCOTUS no mind, it begs the question: what kind of judicial system is it that wants to reduce marriage to a definition only ever imagined by Karl Marx? What kind of “justice” system hates what we are as people to such a fanatical degree?

A careful read of the Communist Manifesto will reveal its ambitious aims to amass the power of the state in the hands of the few. This, not a workers’ paradise, is what it has always achieved for those who have used its perverse arguments to their advantage. If you wonder why America has struggled since the late fifties, consider some of the other preconditions for Marxist communism that he first set out in 1847. Precondition #2: A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. Precondition #3: Abolition of all rights of inheritance. Precondition #10: Free education for all children in public schools.

By the way, some wondered whether the United States bank bailout plan would work. It did, but not, of course as wealth of nationsadvertised. Interestingly, here is the fifth of the ten Marxist preconditions for a workers paradise first outlined in the Communist Manifesto: “Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.” It all depends on what one means by “work.” Anyone who knew the history and failures of Marxist theory, would have been certain that the bailout plan would not produce wealth. However, if one hates the United States because of its international prestige, its great abundance, and its liberties, and, as a student of Marxism, has been awaiting a crisis of capital to forward the communist agenda for the express purpose of ruining the wealth of nations, this bailout worked perfectly. Small investors cannot earn interest. Centralized banks make trillions by simply recycling Federal Reserve green backs.

Marx’s opposition to The Wealth of Nations is plain. Poverty is the inevitable result of his precepts. His ideas about family are equally astute.

Relativism, Rome, Homosexuality, and the Fall of the West

The Archetype of American Wisdom

The elite Roman moralists, Virgil and Cicero, cited the agrarian lifestyle as the source of civic virtue. Thomas Jefferson went further. He believed that no nation could provide evidence of the corruption of virtues among those who worked the land. For Jefferson the independent farmer became the allegoric prototype of our unalienable rights. Meanwhile, Benjamin Franklin framed the archetype of the American spirit by printing its distinctive wisdom in a farmer’s almanac and displayed his self-reliant American wit before the courts of Europe from beneath a coonskin cap.

Cole's Savage State which is a model of Locke's view of man's natural state of freedom.

Virtue is embedded in nature, instructed by nature, and rewarded by nature. As Thomas Cole’s sequence of portraits “The Course of Civilization” illustrates, mankind’s journey from a savage state to an agrarian state nurtures courage, determination, diligence, frugality, and, above all, a respect for reality.

While the savage state is Locke’s ideal of man in nature, Cole’s pastoral state is the model of Jeffersonian virtues.

Cole's Pastoral State: the model of Jeffersonain Virtue

Below, Cole’s image of civilization’s consummation shows mankind’s social apex as his complete insulation from the rigors of the natural environment. People retain the virtues they have learned on the path to success and strength. Their virtues have allowed them to overcome the harsh savagery of the natural environment. This easily acceptable view of society’s zenith shows man severed from his teacher.

Once within the luxurious bubble of civilization, no lie is too great to be considered plausible. While we make genuine scientific progress, the false, self-styled sciences that “experiment” with the lifestyle of mankind are as old as the hills. In insulating himself from the harsh realities of nature, mankind abandons virtue and lives by the permutations of a relativism nobody in an agrarian state can afford. This natural failing of mankind only increases with his loss of virtue. The more debased and vicious people become, the more they must insist that everything is relative, that choices make no difference. Anyone who even dares to suggest otherwise becomes an outcast, a fool, a fanatic.

Cole's Consummation: Mankind's Lost Teacher

Sallust, witnessing the fall of the Roman Republic, recognized the end of Roman liberty as a consequence of Roman vice:

“…By practicing these two qualities, boldness in warfare and justice when peace came, they watched over themselves and their country. …But when our country had grown great through toil and the practice of justice, (then)…those who had found it easy to bear hardship and dangers, anxiety and adversity, found leisure and wealth … a burden and a curse. Hence the lust for money first, then for power, grew upon them …For avarice destroyed honor, integrity, and all other noble qualities; taught in their place insolence, cruelty, to neglect the gods, to set a price on everything. Ambition drove many men to become false; to have one thought locked in the breast, another ready on the tongue; to value friendships and enmities not on their merits but by the standard of self-interest, and to show a good front rather than a good heart. At first these vices grew slowly, from time to time they were punished; finally, when the disease had spread like a deadly plague, the state was changed and a government second to none in equity and excellence became cruel and intolerable.”(War With Catiline, 9-10)

Only relativism validates such practices in civic life. Self-interest is a satisfactory motivation in everything but government. This was the fanatical relativism that destroyed the Roman Republic. In Rome relativism led to a failure of patriotism, to schism over duty, and ambition over honor. The rise of RomanCole's Destruction: The effect of vice and weakness on civilization Imperialism was sealed. The systematic exultation of homosexuality was only a symptom of the decline of the Roman Republic as it is but a harbinger of the abyss now awaiting the West.

No society is fit that has lost all contact with the truth.

Certainly, there has been homosexuality in every age. However, the fall of Athens and of the Roman Republic can be linked to evidence of rampant, institutionalized homosexuality. This is the last outrage of man against nature and those values that are natural to the human heart. People become too civilized, too elite, to be bothered with the truth. Ambition dismisses the hard work of responsibility to the truth as a venal preoccupation with the trivial. Reality becomes hard words, the pauper’s long face, an outcast in polite society. Institutionalized homosexuality is not the effective cause of the end of civilization; it is simply the last death rattle of a society no longer fit for law or decency.

In Athens the rise of Socrates as a “corrupter” of the young, reveals the intense reaction against what had become very public homosexuality (“Plato”). As in the modern West, the question of homosexuality in Athens was no longer one of a government that peered into bed chambers; it was an issue of protecting young men against the onslaught of an institutionalized homosexuality in the public square. Socrates came to historic prominence in the late fifth century BCE (400 BC). Exactly what the details of the case against him were is unknown; however, Plato and Socrates were the rock stars of their age. What occurred must have been a monstrosity that could not be ignored. Yes, Socrates aggravated the traditionalists, but not by his philosophy alone. It was his behavior that outraged what was left of the old guard of the old ways. He was executed in 399 BC. Within sixty years King Phillip II of Macedonia defeated Athens, and the queen of the Athenian league became a member of the Corinthian league. Athens became a mere memory of glory.

Cole's Desolation: a mere memory of glory

The evidence that rampant, institutionalized, homosexuality held sway in Rome as the Republic burned is very telling. It is found in Augustus Caesar’s desperation about the birthrates in Rome. Not only did he pass some of the strictest ordinances favoring marriage and forbidding promiscuity in Roman history (Paragraph 13 and footnote 5), but he did so with a very peculiar tirade against the vast majority of the unmarried Roman noblemen. These noblemen were knights, members of the equestrian order. They were the elite of the Roman world. In his speech defending his new ordinances, great Augustus commiserated at length with the bachelors who protested that there were some unpleasant things “incident to…the begetting of children” (p. 23).

The account of this speech by Augustus is telling for three reasons. First, it is an often told tale that homosexuality has a genetic component that affects only a small percentage of any given population. However, plainly, plainly the majority of the equestrians had become homosexual. Secondly, this is so like government. Long after the Republic has fallen, and long after there was any chance of saving the Roman birthrate, then, then, the government gets into the act.

Lastly, a more often told tale is that the only with the rise of Christianity did homosexuality become unacceptable. This is not, historically, the case. Augustus reasoned that if there were fewer children, there would be fewer legions, and it would be the end of Roman domination of the empire. He reasoned correctly. Despite the wisdom of the most powerful emperor in the history of the Mediterranean, by the end of the first century Italian recruits comprised as little as twenty-two percent (Hassall, The High Empire, AD 70–192, p. 331) of Rome’s armies. From the first century on, barbarian auxiliaries, among whom homosexuality was not tolerated, earning citizenship by service in the Roman military became the rule. The idea of Rome lived on, but for the Romans themselves, it was mostly over. They too became but a memory of glory, an inspiration to barbarians like us.

In the case of Rome and Athens, the virtues of the old ways were neglected, so also in the United States. In Athens and Rome luxury, born by innovation and ingenuity or on slavery’s back, insulated the citizenry against the virtues an agricultural life demands. In rural societies laziness, stealing, lying and promiscuity are evils none can afford. The harvest rewards the diligent, the faithful, the honest, and the kind. Homosexuality did not bring down the ancients; it was simply their final outrage against nature and nature’s maxims. Instead of virtue the ancients increasingly insisted that depravity, dishonesty, and cruelty of every type were justified by an undeniable, invincibly proud relativism. It was a lie then. It is a lie now.

Prosperity allows one to buy out one’s conscience. Don’t make the sale. ‘Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die’ is a chorus only a rich Epicurean can sing. Riches can be deceitful and those that are most deceitful are those that are inherited. America has inherited greater riches than our founders could have ever dreamt, and we, like spoiled little rich children, insist on our delusions. We insist today that no choices have consequences, that there is no virtue and no vice, and daily we become more vicious. The more depraved our lives become, the more fanatically we insist on relativism; we are too ugly to face the mirror.

Where Roman viciousness had a soft landing with the rise of tyranny only, America and the West may have a much harder future. Our viciousness seems ready to spawn, not tyranny, but totalitarianism. Withstand our religion of relativism and be taken to the inquisitors. It’s begun: see Judge: Parents bigots for opposing ‘gay’ lessons.