Category Archives: Commentary

Why Won’t We Call This Islamist Terrorism?

by Victor Davis Hanson // Politico (Europe Edition)

President Obama summed up the jihadist killing in Paris asan attack not just on Paris. But rather, he assured us, This is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values we share.

People place flowers and light candles in tribute for the victims of the 13 November Paris attacks at the foot of the statue on Place de la Republique in Paris, France, 14 November 2015. At least 120 people have been killed in a series of attacks in Paris on 13 November, according to French officials. EPA/IAN LANGSDON

But is that assumption true?

Certainly, the president seems as unable to utter the targeted West and Western as he is the targeter radical Islam or jihadist.

Were the suicide bombers and the AK-47 shooters whoslaughtered the innocent in Paris seeking to destroy the ideology of communist China?

Islamic Refugee Crisis: Good Samaritan or Maccabean Response? Or both

What would Saint Thomas Aquinas say about the Refugee Crisis?

We as Christians are debating among ourselves aboutwhether or not we have a moral duty to receive refugees fleeing Muslim nations.

This article is politically incorrect and says things that might shock you. Please read the entire articleuntil the very last two paragraphs before making a judgment or writingincendiary comments. This might be one of theclearest things you’ve read on the topic, because it draws on virtue ethics ofThomas Aquinas – something generally ignored in our day and age. –Godspeed,Taylor Marshall

10 historical facts about Memorial Day

 

ARLINGTON, VA – MAY 24:Members of the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment place American flags at the graves of U.S. soldiers buried in Section 60 at Arlington National Cemetery in preparation for Memorial Day May 24, 2012 in Arlington, Virginia. ‘Flags-In’ has become an annual ceremony since the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard) was designated to be an Army’s official ceremonial unit in 1948. Every available soldier in the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment participates in these events.(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)(Photo: Win McNamee Getty Images)

Alexander Hamilton’s Warning to Fans of Trump and Sanders

Populism is in. Reason is out. That picture seems to characterize contemporary American politics. While Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are campaigning for two different parties’ presidential nomination, the two men share in common an incoherent populism. Whether it’s Trump’s tirades about China or Senator Sanders’ insistence that the government can do just about everything and anything, both follow the classic populist playbook. Among other things, this involves identifying the evil-doers (China, the one percent, etc.) supposedly responsible for all our woes and proposing simplistic solutions that will be accomplished, apparently, because they say so.

This is not our first fight with Populism’s bitter battle.

After returning from the Revolutionary War in 1783, Hamilton began his legal practice in New York by defending Tories threatened with banishment and confiscation of property by populist politicians swept into office by New Yorkers determined to vent their anger on those on the Revolution’s losing side. The British had done terrible things during their occupation of New York. Yet in his First Letter from Phocion (1784), Hamilton noted that “nothing is more common than for a free people, in times of heat and violence, to gratify momentary passions, by letting into the government, principles and precedents which afterwards prove fatal to themselves.” Hamilton then highlighted the dangerous precedent that would be created by evicting and expelling an entire category of people without fair hearings and trials. Should this occur, Hamilton wrote, “no man can be safe, nor know when he may be the innocent victim of a prevailing faction. The name of liberty applied to such a government would be a mockery of common sense.”

Ignoring the Law

The Obama administration’s hilarious commerce-clause argument against Arizona’s immigration law was too much even for U.S. District Judge Susan “Rubber Stamp” Bolton. The Justice Department had maintained that the Arizona statute’s ban on smuggling illegal aliens while committing another crime — a provision targeting drug dealers — violates the Constitution’s assignment of the regulation of interstate commerce to the federal government. The federal interest in the unimpeded transport of drug runners and scouts across state lines, one must infer from the department’s brief, trumps a state’s interest in keeping drug dealing away from its residents.

Displaying a judicial acumen otherwise lacking in her opinion, Judge Bolton noted that the United States had not “provided a satisfactory explanation for how [the anti-smuggling section], which creates parallel state statutory provisions for conduct already prohibited by federal law, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.” Moreover, noted the judge, one must weigh the burden on “interstate commerce” against the putative local benefits from its regulation.