Feb 4, 2016 | Business, Politics
[Institute for Justice] Arlington, Va.—This week a federal court handed down a long-awaited decision vindicating Lyndon McLellan in his fight against the IRS.
Lyndon’s case came to the nation’s attention after the IRS seized his entire bank account in July 2014 using civil forfeiture for the innocent act of depositing his hard-earned money in the bank in amounts under $10,000. The Institute for Justice took Lyndon’s case to clear his name and get back his property, and in June 2015, the government finally returned Lyndon’s money.
In returning Lyndon’s money, however, the government sought to avoid its obligation under federal law to pay Lyndon’s attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest. Lyndon racked up nearly $20,000 in fees owed to his accountant and lawyer before the Institute for Justice took his case on a pro bono basis.
The district court’s decision rejected the government’s maneuver, stating:
Certainly, the damage inflicted upon an innocent person or business is immense when, although it has done nothing wrong, its money and property are seized. Congress, acknowledging the harsh realities of civil forfeiture practice, sought to lessen the blow to innocent citizens who have had their property stripped from them by the Government. . . . This court will not discard lightly the right of a citizen to seek the relief Congress has afforded.
“Today’s decision recognizes that Lyndon should not have to pay for the government’s outrageous use of civil forfeiture laws against a totally innocent property owner,” said IJ Attorney Robert Everett Johnson. “The government took Lyndon’s property even though he did nothing wrong, forcing him into a prolonged and expensive legal nightmare. Now the government will have to comply with its obligation to make Lyndon at least partly whole.”
The decision comes just as the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit prepares to consider the government’s similar attempt to avoid paying fees, costs, and interest to Carole Hinders—an Iowa restaurant owner who also had her entire bank account seized and then returned. The Eighth Circuit will hold oral argument in that case on February 9 in St. Paul, MN.
“The government cannot turn a citizen’s life upside down and then walk away as if nothing happened,” said IJ Attorney Wesley Hottot, who will argue the case for Carole Hinders. “Now that Lyndon has been vindicated, we look forward to holding the government to account in Carole’s case as well.”
Jan 22, 2016 | Politics
From Oscars’ Diversity Controversy: Michael Caine Speaks Out : People.com
As the diversity debate embroiling the Academy Awards continues, Michael Caine is the latest star to speak out – and he’s not holding back. For the second year in a row, no actors of color received Oscar nominations, a reality that has prompted some stars to boycott the show and examine the deeper issues surrounding race and the entertainment industry.
When asked to address the controversy during a BBC Radio 4 interview this week, Caine said, per The Hollywood Reporter: “There’s loads of black actors. You can’t vote for an actor because he’s black. You got to give a good performance, and I’m sure there were very good [performances].”
[…]
Caine’s comments come around the same time current Best Actress Oscar nominee Charlotte Rampling raised eyebrows for telling French Radio network Europe 1 on Friday morning that the Oscars are “racist to whites” and speaking out against the possibility of a quota system to ensure [racial] diversity. Her comments stand in contrast to other actors who have spoken out, including fellow nominee Mark Ruffalo, past winner George Clooney and Jada Pinkett Smith.
Grammys host LL Cool J has also added his voice to the debate. Speaking to the Associated Press Thursday after receiving his star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, he said his advice to fellow African America actors is, “Don’t get bitter, get better.” “Is there room for improvement? Yes,” he said. “But let’s just put the work in. And ultimately, if the work is good enough, and it’s great enough and there’s enough of it, the door gets kicked in.”
On the issue of race quotas the philosopher Ayn Rand had this to say almost a half century ago:
Instead of fighting against racial discrimination, they are demanding that racial discrimination be legalized and enforced. Instead of fighting against racism, they are demanding the establishment of racial quotas. Instead of fighting for “color-blindness” in social and economic issues, they are proclaiming that “color-blindness” is evil and that “color” should be made a primary consideration. Instead of fighting for equal rights, they are demanding special race privileges.
They are demanding that racial quotas be established in regard to employment and that jobs be distributed on a racial basis, in proportion to the percentage of a given race among the local population. For instance, since Negroes constitute 25 percent of the population of New York City, they demand 25 percent of the jobs in a given establishment.
Racial quotas have been one of the worst evils of racist regimes. There were racial quotas in the universities of Czarist Russia, in the population of Russia’s major cities, etc. One of the accusations against the racists in this country is that some schools practice a secret system of racial quotas. It was regarded as a victory for justice when employment questionnaires ceased to inquire about an applicant’s race or religion.
Today, it is not an oppressor, but an oppressed minority group that is demanding the establishment of racial quotas. (!)
The call for “diversity” — racial quotas — in awards based on the color of ones’ skin is racist. The only thing that should matter is the performance. Imagine if such a standard were applied to the NBA? Would that be justice?
Jan 21, 2016 | Politics
By Dr. Michael Hurd
We keep hearing that Muslims are the greatest victims of hate crimes and prejudice.
But the FBI’s own statistics state just the opposite.
Of the 1,149 anti-religious hate crimes reported in the United States in 2014, only 16.1% were directed against Muslims, according to the FBI. By contrast, over half of all anti-religious hate crimes were directed against Jews – 56.8%. The fewest, 8.6% of anti-religious hate crimes, were directed against Christians (Protestants and Catholics).
My concern is with individuals more than groups. However, the politically correct – including the current U.S. President and his Attorney General – have repeatedly expressed grave concern over an epidemic of “hate crimes” and prejudice against Muslims, contrary to the evidence of their very own FBI.
They will argue that since the events of Paris and San Bernardino, it’s getting worse. This may be their fear; but shouldn’t their fear first be supported by facts? Or are facts irrelevant when it comes to pushing a particular, politically correct point-of-view?
It gets worse. Eighty-two leading Democrats have cosponsored a House Resolution (H.Res. 569), “Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States”.
The Resolution was introduced in the House of Representatives by Democrat Donald S. Beyer (Virginia) on December 17, 2015 — a mere 15 days after Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook gunned down 14 innocent Americans and wounded 23 in an ISIS-inspired terror attack at a Christmas party in San Bernardino, California.
The House Resolution states, “The victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes and rhetoric have faced physical, verbal, and emotional abuse because they were Muslim or believed to be Muslim,” and the House of Representatives “expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes.”
Given that Jews experience 3.5 the number of hate crimes as Muslims, shouldn’t the House of Representatives be advancing a resolution in defense of Jews? It will never happen.
Keep in mind that House Resolutions, while not binding as law, are often introduced as a “trial balloon” for future legislation.
What kind of legislation do the advocates of this resolution have in mind? What would a law against anti-Muslim bigotry even look like?
“Bigotry,” when rationally and objectively defined, is an ugly thing. The basic error of bigotry involves lumping people as a group while evading their individual identities, in order to support or advance an irrationally based prejudice.
By this definition, Islam is a notorious form of bigotry, every bit as bad (if not even worse) than Nazism. The fact that not all Muslims practice it consistently does not alter the nature of the ideology.
However, even when bigotry is rationally defined, it should not be against the law. People are entitled to hold whatever bigoted views they wish, and to express those views on their own private property, airwaves, or websites to any willing or interested parties.
“Stop making it about us versus them.” Those who criticize Islam in any way, shape or form are labeled bigots. Yet what about the advocates of Islam who call anyone who disagrees with them infidels deserving of slavery or death?
People who call you “racist” for challenging the rationality of Islam presume Islam is a racial characteristic. It’s not. It’s a social-political-religious ideology. Islam’s central purpose is to merge church and state according to barbaric and mind-numbingly conservative values about sex, gender, and practices of daily living. These are things leftist progressives claim to oppose, but when it comes to Islam, they sure change their tune.
The only way to fight militant Islam is by championing the causes of freedom, individualism and strict separation of church and state. If we defended these ideals with even one-tenth the intensity with which Muslims attack them, the world would be a much safer and better place right now.
You can follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1
Jan 3, 2016 | Education
From Denmark’s prime minister says Bernie Sanders is wrong to call his country socialist – Vox
[I]n a speech Friday evening at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said that while he’s flattered to see Denmark discussed in a widely watched US presidential debate he doesn’t think the socialist shoe fits. “I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism,” he said. “Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.” In Rasmussen’s view, “The Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens, but it is also a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish.”
Here is Lars Løkke Rasmussen, Prime Minister of Denmark addressing the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum on a range of Nordic solutions and challenges affecting the state of Denmark.
From Danes Rethink a Welfare State Ample to a Fault – The New York Times
It began as a stunt intended to prove that hardship and poverty still existed in this small, wealthy country, but it backfired badly. Visit a single mother of two on welfare, a liberal member of Parliament goaded a skeptical political opponent, see for yourself how hard it is. It turned out, however, that life on welfare was not so hard. The 36-year-old single mother … had more money to spend than many of the country’s full-time workers. All told, she was getting about $2,700 a month, and she had been on welfare since she was 16.
[…] Denmark’s long-term outlook is troubling. The population is aging, and in many regions of the country people without jobs now outnumber those with them. Some of that is a result of a depressed economy. But many experts say a more basic problem is the proportion of Danes who are not participating in the work force at all — be they dawdling university students, young pensioners or welfare recipients like Carina who lean on hefty government support.
[…] Denmark has among the highest marginal income-tax rates in the world, with the top bracket of 56.5 percent kicking in on incomes of more than about $80,000. But in exchange, the Danes get a cradle-to-grave safety net that includes free health care, a free university education and hefty payouts to even the richest citizens.
[…] But few experts here believe that Denmark can long afford the current perks. So Denmark is retooling itself, tinkering with corporate tax rates, considering new public sector investments and, for the long term, trying to wean more people — the young and the old — off government benefits. “In the past, people never asked for help unless they needed it,” said Karen Haekkerup, the minister of social affairs and integration, who has been outspoken on the subject. “My grandmother was offered a pension and she was offended. She did not need it. “But now people do not have that mentality. They think of these benefits as their rights. The rights have just expanded and expanded….”
[…] Robert Nielsen, 45, made headlines last September when he was interviewed on television, admitting that he had basically been on welfare since 2001. Mr. Nielsen said he was able-bodied but had no intention of taking a demeaning job, like working at a fast-food restaurant. He made do quite well on welfare, he said. He even owns his own co-op apartment. … “Luckily, I am born and live in Denmark, where the government is willing to support my life,” he said.
Also worth reading: Why Denmark isn’t the utopian fantasy Bernie Sanders describes – The Washington Post
Dec 31, 2015 | Politics
By Dr. Michael Hurd
Maybe you’re tired of hearing about the Paris attacks, ISIS and all the rest. If so, save this for when – not if, but when – the next Islamic-inspired attack against civilians in Europe or America occurs.
I keep hearing that Islam does not hold a monopoly on religious brutality. “Look at the Crusades and the Christians. They’re no better.”
OK, then. Let’s say the Crusades were happening today. Let’s say thousands of Christians rose up and declared war on anyone who’s not a Christian, and any government which refuses to enforce Christian rules and beliefs by force.
Which of the following approaches would you take, in response?
Approach # 1: Do absolutely nothing, while condemning as barbaric, medieval and racist anyone who says a critical thing about Christianity. In the meantime, the barbaric Christian Crusaders gradually overrun the world, terrorizing peaceful people and reducing civilization to a shambles. Elect a moronic president, and send him overseas to tell the world that the real problem is not the killing of innocents in the name of religion, but man’s refusal to stop using fossil fuels.
Approach # 2: Blast Christian crusaders, as well as their governments (the equivalent of Iran and ISIS), to Kingdom Come, pulverizing them until there’s nothing left for them to do but start over with their Crusades (at which time we’ll blast them again). Also, along with the entirely justified use of physical force against these barbaric Christian crusaders, challenge their belief system at its core, demanding to know why a religion of brotherly love is engaged in so much brutality against those who do not share the same point-of-view.
This is the problem with the argument, “Christians did it in the Crusades.” It puts Christians on the defensive. They get sidetracked about historical details. But the people who should be on the defensive are the ones engaged in the violence and brutality now, not the ones who did it 1,000 or more years ago.
The fact of the matter is that Christians, regardless of what you claim is historically the case, eventually submitted to the separation of church and state. The most dramatic example of this was the United States of America. Thousands of Christians came to the U.S., often to escape religious persecution, and willingly agreed to live in a country where no religion (their own, or anyone else’s religion) was the rule of the land. Some submit to separation of church and state more willingly than others, and debates remain about matters such as abortion and gay marriage. But while important, those matters are marginal compared to the lethal and unyielding opposition Islam presently poses to separation of church and state on principle. If you don’t believe me, simply read the headlines about the last Islamic-inspired terrorist bombing – or the next one. (It may have happened by the time you read this.)
I’m not aware of any Christian movement dedicated, on a worldwide and ruthlessly, savagely violent scale, to decimating everyone who disagrees with them. If there were such a Christian, or Jewish, or any other sort of movement on the scale of present-day Islam, then believe me, I would oppose it with the same strength and for the same reasons as I oppose Islam’s quest to take over the world.
People keep saying, “You can’t criticize someone for their religion.” Why not? At least when the primary (or only) leaders of that religion favor annihilating innocent people who do not agree with them? Nazism was a form of religion, in the sense of being an ideology with a call to action – brutal, rights-violating action. Ditto for Communism. If someone is a Nazi or Communist, it’s reasonable to ask them, “What’s wrong with you for endorsing such a twisted, evil viewpoint?”
It really does not matter whether a movement violates the rights of individuals in the name of Allah, God, Jesus, the State, the Public Good or “The Man” (e.g., Hitler, or Mao); the end result is always the same.
The moral and physical force with which we should oppose all such movements should be the same. Which kind of force, and when or how to use it, can be a matter of reasonable debate; but the principle that we must fight back with all our ability cannot be in question.
There’s no reason Islam should get a free pass for this any more than Communism or Nazism did. Yet Islam does get a free pass from our highest officials, and that’s why terrorists – ISIS, Iran, as well as less organized Muslim fanatics – are presently winning.
I’m not aware of a Christian regime talking openly about wiping Israel off the map. I do not know of a Christian or Jewish organization training suicide bombers, strapping bombs to children and indoctrinating those children to hate anyone of a different religion to the point of murdering them. Some level of such irrationality is found in all religions, to be sure; but Islam is the one who is best at it, at least right now.
The world has not, quite frankly, seen anything of this magnitude since Hitler’s attempt to impose his ideology on everyone. Incredibly, those who draw the parallel of today’s Islamic militants to Hitler’s Nazis are the ones called hateful, racist Nazis. This takes blaming the victim to almost inconceivable and absurd levels.
It’s time to stop putting Christians, or others, on the defensive for what they wrongly did 1,000 or 1,500 years ago. Call evil what it is, whenever it happened. But the Christian Crusades are not what’s threatening rational civilization and political liberty today; the worldwide Islamic jihad is. Face reality, people!
Instead of Christians, Jews, atheists and agnostics constantly being on the defensive for “not being nice about Islam,” we have to put Islam’s apologists on the defensive. People like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and others maintain that we are doing enough to fight back against this threat, when we’re doing absolutely nothing worth mentioning militarily. Anyone suggesting otherwise is lectured at like a child.
Those of you who scream “racist” and all the other labels when anyone suggests we should take a stronger military and verbal stand against militant Islam … what is it you’re really defending? Who or what are you protecting?
It cannot be tolerance and diversity. Islam is the ultimate “religious right wing.” I don’t care if there are moderates; the ones running the show are the militants, and the moderates are silent.
Most of you who defend Obama’s refusal to fight (or even name) the Islamic enemy are secular, agnostic progressive leftists. You favor abortion rights, gay marriage, feminism and things that could not be more at odds with the edicts and attitudes of Islam. I know it’s not the religious beliefs of Islam – even the alleged moderates – that you progressive/liberal types are endorsing. It cannot be tolerance or diversity, because Islam is more against tolerance and diversity than any ideological movement ever known to man. So what is it you’re protecting?
Instead of bringing up the Christian Crusades, why don’t you explain and defend your hero Obama’s claim that Islam’s brutal (and serious) call for Jihad is not about religion? You are the ones requiring that we say and do nothing in response to events like 9/11, the recent ISIS attacks on Paris, everything in between and everything yet to come. What would YOU do, if not respond militarily with everything we have to respond? I suppose Obama’s policy is your answer. Do nothing, and lecture Americans about being nice to Muslims, and to stop using fossil fuels.
If Islam is not the problem, then what is? And if we are not at war with Islam, then how in the world are we supposed to respond to religious warriors who most certainly are at war with us?
When Hitler declared war on America and the entire world, the world did not reply, “We’re not at war with Hitler. We’re not at war with the Germans. We won’t harm a single German person. Targeted bombings at most – if that. Not a single civilian will die. In fact, we will do everything we can to embrace and show love and respect for German culture, even if Hitler’s armies proceed to invade and take over Europe.”
This would have been suicidal insanity.
And if you’d like to draw the parallel with the Christian Crusades, how would you respond to Christian violence and terrorism today against gays, women or anyone else who was not following the rules they want them to follow? Why would you rightly condemn hatred and violence when proposed by Christian fundamentalists, but not when proposed by Muslims? Christians may have done these things; it’s Muslims who are actually doing it now.
I’m still waiting for an answer from these Obama-loving progressives who claim to support separation of church and state. They will have to come up with something better than “racist” and “hater.” These terms are tacit admissions of having no rational answer. You better believe I’m a hater – of anyone who wants to destroy me. How sad that you don’t value your own lives as much. Why should the rest of us – who do want to go on living – have to endure the pathetic, morally anemic response of someone like Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton?
I don’t claim to know what the ultimate outcome of all this will be. I honestly have no idea. America has been on the brink before, and has always come around, in the end, to victory over its enemies. On our present course, we will certainly go down. Even if we go down, it will happen with some us still fighting. At least so long as we have free speech.
It’s sad that so many Americans remain passive, helpless and clueless about Islam, not to mention all the other reckless and irresponsible things our federal government does every day. As Islam advances its holy war across the world, the President of the United States tells us to use less oil, hunker down, be humble and sacrifice – something he and his most ardent supporters will never do, by the way.
In the end, you have to blame the people who tolerate and keep electing such “leadership” in a time of crisis. They must really loathe their country and even themselves, probably more than we realize. But many of us do not loathe America or ourselves.
If we do go down – and we do not have to – then let’s at least go down fighting.
You can follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1
Dec 8, 2015 | Politics
Ex-Muslim Suraiya Simi Rahman MD on Moderate Muslims Have Hit Their “Wall”:
….when it comes to being able to tell a moderate from a radical in Islam, you can’t.
You really can’t tell until the moment before they pull the trigger, who is moderate and who is jihadi. Tashfeen has broken our moderate backbone, by revealing that she lived among us, unnoticed, normal, experiencing motherhood, enveloped in our secure community and yet, had radicalized.
And that’s the problem, that there are many others like her with exactly the same beliefs, who may not have been ignited yet by a radical cleric, but if the opportunity presented itself, they would follow. They’re like a dormant stick of dynamite, waiting for the fuse to be lit. The TNT is already in there.
What’s it made of? Not the 5 pillars, belief, charity, prayer, fasting and pilgrimage. Not the sayings of the prophet as to how to lead a good and just life. Not the celebration of Eid ul Fitr.
[…]
I went deep into the Midwest, wore a hijab for a year and lived there for 8 years. In that time, I attended ISNA gatherings, met with educated, professional people like myself who were also asking the same questions. They were looking to their faith for answers. And sure, there were efforts made to modernize Islam, but they were only superficial. We couldn’t do it. We couldn’t do it because there is a logical dilemma at the core of Islam. And that is, that the Quran is the last word of God, that it is perfect and unchangeable. And to even suggest such a thing is blasphemy and apostasy.
And so, to understand the moderate mind, you have to envision it on a continuum from radical to middle, but the closer you get to liberal, there is a wall. It creeps up on you, in the condemnation of homosexuality, in the unequal treatment and subjugation of women, but it’s there. Beyond that wall that they are afraid to look over, for fear of eternal hell fire and damnation, is where the answer lies though. So being a Muslim moderate these days is like running a race with a ball and chain attached to your feet. A handicap. Unless you can imagine what the world beyond that wall looks like, you can’t really navigate it. If you’re so terrified of blasphemy that you refuse to look over, you’re forever stuck. Right here. And behind you is the jihadi horde, laying claim to real Islam, practicing it to perfection, as it is laid out in the Quran. A veritable rock and a hard place. I feel your pain. I’ve been there. And it was untenable.
