Are the "Hate Crime" statutes attempts to by-pass the Constitutional guarantee of free Speech?

For three quarters of a century I have been angered by many events that centered around the exercise of free speech as guaranteed by the American Constitution.  Most were personal events that occurred after I had gotten to voting age and had to endure what I considered bad language that not only was often physically impossible but also un-civil.  These offended my perception of what communication should be in any civilized society.

Then there were general public exercises of offensive behavior and speech that seemed to violate existing social norms.  Included in this list, was the burning of the American Flag and the behavior of the Westboro Baptist Church, of Topeka, Kansas, at the funerals of fallen servicemen.

I admit to a visceral anger at such behavior, and the wish for the power to put such activities to an end.

On reflection, while there was great danger in any preemptive prohibition on speech and/or action that did not encourage actual physical harm to others, it seemed that in cases where a case could clearly be made for damage being inflicted on innocents or others those who were injured should have the right to restitution.

Logic suggests that the courts, SCOTUS included, have wrongly and carelessly expanded the definition of "free" in free speech to include freedom from consequences of that exercise.  A careful consideration of the concept of free speech seems to clearly mean that the founding fathers wished to prevent the preemptive prohibition of any person from stating a case on any subject that they found compelling.

There is no action in this world that does not have consequences for those committing actions...or speaking words.  ONLY in America are people allowed to insult others, call them vile names and, in the case of politics, actually lie about accusations and behavior.

In any moral sense, this is wrong.  Certainly any person can comment or accuse, but isn't it just common sense that there needs to be truthfulness in the comment or accusation?  Absent truthfulness, shouldn't any person...rich, famous, poor, unknown...be able to call any such commenter or accuser to make the victim whole?  What social, moral or governmental purpose is served by allowing reprehensible language.

Note that I see such action as being in civil courts, and never as being based on statutory laws.  This should never be in the criminal realm.  Why?  Because then the government is given control of determining what is acceptable or not.

I abhor the passing of "Hate Crime" and "Hate Speech" legislation.  The activities specified are already against the law and the courts have jurisdiction and those engaging in such actions can be punished for their actions.  Frankly, the motivation for abhorrent behavior is not of importance and certainly should not the subject of governmental definition and intuition.  As far as speech is concerned, the Constitution is clear on it being allowed.  I certainly would allow action to recover provable injury from such speech...as long as it was in civil court and the judgment made by a jury.

Hate Speech statutes seem only to be a means for the Federal Government to "pile on" for largely political purposes when some crimes are committed.  That is not reason to create more power and put it in the hands of the level of government most removed from the people.

A Government may be legal...and still be illegitimate

The United States has just gone through an intense election and the European Union is seeing its member nations involved in an almost universal crisis of confidence in membership in that union.

Most of us have been angry, disturbed or perhaps just uncomfortable with actions that have been judged by our respective national justice systems to be legal even as we "knew" that they were wrong.  Sometimes this has been because of badly worded laws, sometimes because of very good defenses coupled with inadequate or inept prosecutions (or the reverse), and sometimes because it seemed as everyone was so very worried about the individual tree as the forest was left to burn or wither.

In America Free Speech, originally defined to mean that there could, with rare exceptions, not be prevention of the right to say something, has become defined as meaning that whatever and however something is said, there shall be no consequences for it.  That is just a perversion of the original intent.  No longer is it necessary to be certain that your speech is a truthful statement lest you be brought into court for libeling someone...say whatever you want.  This may be legal...but any sane person would suggest that such action should be judged as illegitimate.

The legal system in America has become a tool to enable people to avoid consequences for doing and saying illegitimate things.  Just one example is the treatment of those entering and remaining in our country illegally.  Our Constitution is a contract between its government and its citizens;  it basically establishes that the government will protect its citizens and the country's borders and the citizens will obey the laws that govern the land.  How on earth does any person or group who has NOT obeyed the laws of the United States get the right to claim that the government provide them the protections promised to its citizens?  Those here illegally come to the table as non-parties to the contract and, moreover, they come with unclean hands, having already broken the laws that a citizen, as part of the contract, agrees to obey and abide by.

In France, the people voted NOT to join the European Union...but somehow (who know by what technical legal maneuvers) they are a member.  The fact that France's politicians have done something that they argue was legal, does not make it legitimate.  All over the world, the increased ability to communicate without prior constraint by governments is revealing to the people that their governments are run for the self-defined elites of each country, that the citizens are being made to support the lives of elites who care not one wit for the citizenry.

Strange that the elites seem unable to understand why the people are upset, angry and growing closer and closer to violence each day.  How quickly the elites around the world forget the lessons of the Russian and French revolutions, among many others.  When the government(s) show contempt for the law or use it for their own privileged purposes,  why should they not understand that the citizens will see that they need to act in their own interests regardless of the laws, in the same way that the politicians have done to mistreat the citizens, to regain control of their own lives.

Those in power can only avoid "consequences" for so long before they must account.  And the longer they delay that accounting, the more extreme the consequences.

Is Change possible without admitting Error?

What a question..."Is change possible without admitting error!"  Is it an important question?

To define the discussion, let us assume that change made as a result of our own evaluation process is a change made by choice.  That is not strictly true, but space requires a condensing of the discussion. And let us also stipulate that change imposed by other people or outside events  are not "choice" driven.  With those boundaries in place, let us consider the question again.

There are two different kinds of changes we make in our lives;  First, we change to choose a better path or result; Second, we change to avoid a bad result that is contrary to our intention.  The first is an improvement and the second is an avoidance.  That is all well and good...but do we have to acknowledge that fact?  I would suggest that the change to improve the result often is not consciously acknowledged...unless it is in the business world.  If it is in the business world, that evaluation is often trumpeted as proof of ability to evaluate and succeed, so not only is it acknowledged, it is headlined to the public as well as in our own consciousness, and is not seen as labeling the initial direction as "wrong" but merely as an "interim" step in "doing the job right."

But...what if the change is imposed upon you by your superior at work?  Now the change is not your discovery or choice at all.  Yes, of course you will (it is your bosses command, after all) make the change and you will attempt to do your best to make it happen...but will your effort be the same 110% that you would have put in if it had been your discovery?  I would argue that it depends on whether you are able to admit that the first direction was in error, even if only by degree, acknowledge that fact, and commit to the new process or goal.  Otherwise, your effort will be something less than it could be.

So...when a change is imposed upon you it is logical that it will be less than optimally successful unless you can see that the original direction was in error.  Applied to the current discussion, "No, change is not possible without admitting error!"

What about our private life decisions and paths?  Those changes which we determine are appropriate...all by ourselves (or, at least not imposed by others) are likely to be successful.  But...do we acknowledge that the original path or choice was "wrong?"  No...I suggest that does not often happen.  But our subconscious mind does play games with us, doesn't it?  The "new" choice is better and the "old" one abandoned...at least in part...as "no longer being optimum!"  Isn't that just a polite way of saying that the "old" choice is now seen as "wrong?"  I think the answer is, "Yes, we do acknowledge error in the original choice and once again optimize the change because we do see the improvement and accept responsibility for ourselves to make the change happen.

However, now the trick question: "Does this apply to politics and voting?"

I argue that not only does it apply, but that history proves that it applies.  Just looking at the current administration (one could make the same observations about each and every other one, with the same result) we can see that a choice of who to vote for had been made twice.  The first was by and large an acceptance of a promise for "Hope and Change" in which specifics were never provided; each of us imagined that the definitions of "Hope" and of "Change" by the candidate were the same as ours.  For many, that was clearly not so.  Yet at the next election, the result was the same.  And dialogues after the second election showed that most people were unable to admit that their expectations were in error.  The majority of voters were not able to come to terms with their own error in evaluating campaign promises and character, much less commit to any change.  Only now, after almost 7 years of facing the facts on a daily basis does it appear from polls that the majority of voters are beginning to admit "error" to any degree, no matter how small.

Many in our country prefer that our subconscious deal with admitting error and putting it in an acceptable format before bringing it to consciousness.  Perhaps all of us do!  Either way, I suggest that no change is ever possible or successful without admitting error in the preceding choice, and denial only slows the correction.

Does anyone in the West WANT to understand Islam?

When politicians, heads of State, and pundits speak of events in the Middle East and terrorist acts around the world, their statements never agree when talking about motivation...and President Obama even refuses to consider Islam as any portion of the motivation.  Now, generally speaking, it is actors themselves who declare their motivation, not the victims or observers.  So...why is there confusion?

I suggest it is not because answers don't exist, but that each speaker is more motivated by their own political and ideological needs than by the desire to develop facts.  So...how does one get facts?  I suggest that a careful reading of the Qur'an (many translations are readily available on line and you can order a hard copy of you like books), listening to various Imams as they explain their religion and talking to Muslims in your community readily provide an understanding sufficient to our purposes.

The Qur'an commands its followers to strive for political power.  While doing that, followers are commanded to respect all other religions and their practices while Islam is in the minority.  If Muslims become equal in number and power, then they should demand equality of respect of Islam with any and all other religions.  Significantly, if Muslims do acquire political power and control, they are commanded to institute Islam as the only recognized religion, to impose Sharia Law and punish all violations as laid out therein.  Those who refuse to convert are then declared "dhimmi" or...and the circumstances are not entirely clear...killed.  There is a presumption that such an imposition is "Peaceful" since it is done by a gradual process of gaining power, although the imposition itself may involve violence, hence the claim that Islam is a peaceful religion.

One may logically ask,..."...but, what about the terrorists?"

Good question.  Islam countenances quite a bit of violence, for a variety of reasons.  Insulting the Prophet, as we have seen recently, can motivate Muslims to murder.  Simply the presence of behavior that is not acceptable under Islamic Law is enough to motivate some Muslims.  ISIS and other Islamic-based (as defined by the actors themselves) terrorist organizations and their members do not see any prohibition against establishing political power and control by gradual, much less peaceful, means and wish to make their supremacy happen NOW!

All of these statements and facts come out of the Qur'an, hadith, and Sharia Law.  They are remarkably easy to research, read and study, and I have found all Muslims prepared to speak of the contents and their beliefs.

When listening to all manner of people speaking of the terrorist actions as being totally outside acceptable Islamic behavior, and pointing to surveys of Muslims living in the West as proof, it is probably a good idea to be aware of the concepts within Islam of "Taqiyya." "idtirar," "kitman," "hiyal" which relate to different Islamic sects and allow dissemination (lying) to protect the faith or the practitioner.  So, any reliance on such polls or surveys is questionable at the very least.

Islam is the only "religion" that I have found that advocates achieving dominance here on earth by force.  Because it is so firmly based on a political goal, I have always believed that the only way for the politically correct West to fight this threat (very real if numerical and political supremacy is ever achieved in any country) is to use this ideological focus as a reason to define Islam as a political ideology with a religious base.  Such a view would allow control of its precepts, and prevention of adoption of its exclusive views of behavior without violating our concepts of freedom of religion.  I seriously question that non-Muslims would see required conversion as an acceptable practice of Freedom of Religion.  Nor would I.

But wouldn't it be logical, responsible and responsive...so say nothing about nice...if our leaders and our pundits did a little research on their own and present us with all the facts, instead of ill-based opinions?  It would be refreshing...and reassuring that our leaders can actually look our for our country and its citizens.

Changing Definitions just confuse me...and I get no response when I ask...

I have written before...and will not repeat it here...about the changing definitions of such things as "Right", "Progressive", "Fascist", etc., and whether they are "good" or "bad." But I was surprised these last few days by a chance foray into just what "Liberalism" meant...and how long it had meant what I (and, apparently, it's advocates)understand it to be (basically,being in alignment with Barack Obama, progressivism, Occupy Wall Street, and the Democratic National Committee).

But...back in the days of the Revolution the attitude was a bit different: American patriots rallied around the cause of “No taxation without representation,” there was fear of centralized governments that ruled with great authority, and a great desire for the relationship that people have with their government to forever change to one of the people holding their government in check. American liberals then, the most famous of which are known as the Founding Fathers, supported limiting the power of government as much as possible. They believed that government power would naturally and inevitably corrupt and needed checks at every turn. They did not subscribe to the view that empowering the government with more and more power would lead to a better society. They stood against such expansions as they already knew what happened when the government’s size and scope was beyond control. That is why the Constitution was designed the way it was, pitting each branch of government against the other, so that no one branch would grow powerful beyond control. I forget where I got the quote, but Economics Professor Don Boudreaux said, "Experience and reason recommended to liberalism’s founders (that) restraining the power of government might not be sufficient to ensure harmony and widespread wealth, but it is certainly necessary.”

Try running that by some of your Liberal friends and watch their minds self-destruct...if they even acknowledge these very real facts from the past. So...what happened between then and now? Just consider that Ludwig Heinrich Edler Von Misis, a noted Austrian-American economist, philosopher, and classical liberal who had a significant influence on the modern Libertarian movement and the Austrian School and who lived from 1881 to 1973, wrote, "Imagine a world order in which liberalism is supreme . . . there is private property in the means of production. The working of the market is not hampered by government interference. There are no trade barriers; men can live and work where they want.” Clearly if he were alive today, he would be declared a Libertarian, not a Liberal. Again...what happened and How...and Why? 

I, for one, have no idea. I wonder if today's Liberals do...or care. 

I read an interesting thought earlier today by Ronald R. Cherry :

"A natural equal right to the creative pursuit of happiness can only be secured by equal law which results in natural unequal outcome. Some individuals will attain superior achievement through greater creativity or greater labor, while others work less or with lesser creativity which naturally leads to unequal outcome."


 As a thoughtful observation made, perhaps, from a quiet study or in a University setting, I found it curiously calming and reassuring.  But a sense of disquiet followed that made me sit back and mull a bit on the comment, and then on the exact words used and finally on what was NOT said.

I concluded that there are a number of problems with the proposition.

First, there is no such thing as equal law.  By its very nature, it is always attempting to reach and equality, to be sure, but that definition is always changing in a dynamic society.    It is not a separate absolute knowable goal exactly because of that dynamic.

Secondly, the law in any event is not controlling, responding after the events where a perceived desirable outcome is not reached or reachable.The second sentence, while accurate, leads the trusting reader to assume definitions of terms where the definitions are not present, making it possible to adopt the premise of the thought...a mistake indeed.  For example, what some people will define as a "greater creativity" would be defined by others as a "con" or "twisting the rules."  As an example, how do you define the creation of default swaps in the midst of the run-up to the economic turmoil in which we find ourselves struggling today?  What about the definition of government decisions and collective bargaining agreements which results in protecting the incomes and fortunes of those clearly not earning and deserving of such benefits?

And finally (for now), it is not at all clear that there is any "natural" equal right to the pursuit of happiness.  Our Fore-fathers declared it so...and attempted to protect it in the Constitution.  But consider:  If it is a natural right, why does it need artificial protection in any government document and why hasn't it been evident in other ages and other countries down through history?

More logically it can be identified as a desirable privilege founded in moral thought and principle...but certainly not evident in history as having the standing of being "natural", much less a "right."  Humans with a sense of purpose, a competitive spirit, a moderate willingness to and understanding of  "taking a chance" and, most importantly, an understanding and belief in and willingness to accept consequences will always act and support a sytem that allows for the pursuit of happiness as a right, natural or otherwise.  But there are many of the human persuasion who prefer to be cared for, to not make hard decisions, to not take chances, and to accept a lower level of happiness (for now, at least) that is guaranteed and not the product of taking chances and of hard work.

The mutual existence of these groups is made problematic by the fact that the product of the first group must of necessity by taken, at least in part, to fund the existence of the second, but...details, details, details.

The quote is useless and irrelevant to any practical application to the human condition in America. The fact that it can be read by anyone and interpreted by them to support any particular vision of life is the very fault that would make it the centerpiece of virtually universal disagreement  in any attempt to apply it to real life.  It's sole benefit is as a centerpiece for discussion in a University or professorial setting...a good mental exercise indeed.

What is Religion and Why Should We Care...

What constitutes a religion? What are the requirements? Is it reference to a higher power? Is it spirituality? Is it in the necessity of faith? Just what makes us refer to any belief system as a “religion?”

There are multitudes today that consider themselves spiritual yet would object to being labeled as part of religion. They believe in a higher power identified by a seemingly inexhaustible number of terms but emphasize an individual relationship with that power...not one dependent on organization. So, apparently, in addition to the belief in a higher power there is a requirement of organization.

But it appears that there is more. Arguably there must be a “faith” quotient. Belief systems based on proofs and demonstrable facts may be organized and numerous, but they universally refer to their organizations as “scientifically” based or “logic” based “societies,” not religions. There is, in all religions, a inherent need for “faith,” a total belief in something not proven and not provable.

So...how are we doing so far. We need a belief in a “higher power”(by any definition), an organization, and “faith.” Are there any other factors?

I suggest there is one more...a governing code that separates religious excellence or success from secular or human-based measurements of success. There is a disconnect between the two even as each can co-exist. For example, someone who's religion judges him to be a successful believer, may be successful in business and in life, but while that is considered part of his religious standing, should it be absent...if he is poor and unsuccessful in business...he would still be held in high esteem within his religion. In other words, the two existences (religious and secular) are not causal.

So now we need independence from secular success indicators, a higher power, an organization and faith. How about power, as part of a group, and organization or in governance of a political entity? Certainly that has been present over the ages. The Crusades were a prime example of power being used to further a religious belief and try to minimize a competing religious belief.

Curiously, while every religion that has ever found itself in power has never failed to use that power to further its own vision of “truth,” it has never been a requirement for the religious existence...never...save for one: Islam.

While all religions revel in the ownership, no matter how brief, of power the absence of that power does not cause the religion to shrivel up and disappear. It may go underground, as happened in the USSR for decades. Governmental persecution of Christians and Jews over the ages failed to wipe these belief systems from the planet.

So...what are we to make of Islam. Interestingly, the Koran begins, not with Mohammed's birth or "conversion", but with his rise to power...political power, military power, power to rule over others, not by faith, but by force. There is no separation of “church” and “state” in Islam...they are one. There is Sharia law which is to govern the people, there are codes of conduct to control people...even people who are non-believers...all people.

Upon reflection, it is difficult not to come to the conclusion that Islam is a political system of governance, a political ideology that boosts its right to power by the declared support of a higher power. And such a declaration tends to put its implied “rightness” at a higher level than those solely secular-based...People-based, if you will. Once you call God by any name into the equation you are declaring a superiority of standing. And that is what Islam does. Think of it as a representational dictatorship where the dictator class rules as the self-declared spokesmen for a higher, infallible entity that may never be challenged. Pretty neat, huh? Wish I had thought of that (but I digress).

But, once political power is removed, it cannot function and achieve its stated purposes and goals, which is to rule all, not just believers. That is the difference. Judaism has many rules for living and conduct...but these are not imposed on others, only on the members of their faith. Certainly they may look down on unbelievers, but the instances are rare indeed of their killing non-believers because of their non-belief.

Yes, I know that the forces of the Crusades certainly did kill un- or non-believers. But that was at least as motivated by desire of conquest and to put down armed resistance as it was to decrease the number of or punish the beliefs of non-believers...and it has never been a constant or even a declared intention of that or other true religions over the centuries.

My conclusion is that Islam is more appropriately defined as a political ideology than as a religion. While there faith based tenets, an organization and a higher power, there is also an inseparable political power element that does not appear in religions generally. It is akin to the Monarchy based governments of old with the Monarch claiming power derived from God in some form or other.

And, in light of its declared intention of eliminating all other forms of worship and governance from the planet, it would seem to be likely to look upon it as a threat to any democratic-based governance...including, most specifically, the United States.

In light of this, it seems most logical to track its existence in the United States as we did the Communist party and any other organization dedicated to the overthrow of our form of government...and the Koran specifically calls for such overthrow in any non-Islamic-ruled country.

Perhaps our “leaders” might “get a clue”, “take a hint”, “get on the ball”, or maybe just do their damn jobs and start protecting our way of life, our borders and our system of government.

Or not.