14 August 2010


I belonged to and was married in a small church in the shadow of the World Trade Center. St. Nicholas had been a former tavern and was rectangular in shape, made a perfect form fill between the two WTC towers. If there were fifty people in it, it was crowded, but it was a charming little space in the midst of great towers. That church was destroyed on September 11 along with the World Trade Center.

To me the building of a mosque on this hallowed ground is doubly offensive and I think we must be prepared to prevent it by whatever means necessary. It is a desecration and offense to the memory of all those who died that day as well as all those who continue to die in the fight against radical Islam. It belongs there about as much as a cathedral in Mecca.

Yes despite overwhelming public opposition the political class is supporting this abomination in the name of religious freedom. Mayor Bloomberg, Governor-in-waiting Andrew Cuomo, and President Obama have all expressed support for this project, and deserve to be turned out of office on this basis alone. For implicit in their position is a contempt for public opinion similar to the attitude taken by elites towards the tea party protests. They “know better” than the ignorant mass of people who have been led astray by right-wing cheerleaders to upend the “proper” world view. This is how things work in Europe, where elites govern as they see fit, largely ignoring the public will. For example the public in many countries supports capital punishment, but the ruling class opposes it so it is banned.

There are even some “conservatives” who share this elitist world view, i.e. when it comes to someone like Sarah Palin. But never has the gap been wider between the government and the people on a whole range of issues. These rascals deserve to be voted out in November producing a clear message.

I would argue further that the mosque supporters, who generally are the same people quick to ban Christian symbols from the public square, show the need for a constitutional amendment. This amendment would explicitly recognize the Christian foundation of this nation. I advocate this even though I am personally agnostic, because it is an undeniable part of our heritage. In the past it was not necessary to state the obvious, but as liberals have chiseled away at our traditional foundations, largely through the courts, it has become necessary to restate the basic tenets of America.

05 August 2010


Yesterday’s ruling by federal district judge in California overturning Proposition 8, which denied gay marriage rights is a travesty beyond measure. This basically denies the fact that society has the authority to define marriage, rendering it meaningless. You can be sure the nutty 9th Circuit Court of Appeals covering the area will rule along similar lines, and the Supreme Court is uncertain as it may decide to grab the power to decide this itself. Leaving aside the issue of gay marriage itself, what we have here is a judge overruling a sovereign vote of the people. This passed as a public referendum in California. No court should have the authority to overrule a referendum.

What will follow soon is a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman whatever the courts do, but this is a tedious process. We also need a constitutional amendment banning judges from overruling the results of a referendum period. No individual or court should possess such authority, and the judiciary has no right to grab it for itself.

04 August 2010


We live in an upside-down country today where the prudent are penalized and the profligate are rewarded. The traditional wisdom about saving for a rainy day and retirement has virtually been abandoned by the government. By keeping interest rates so low for so long the Federal Reserve has been punishing savers while printing money to satisfy an omnivorous government, which can borrow for virtually nothing and continue to spend beyond its income putting the burden on future generations.

It is also harming the present older generation, particularly those at or near retirement. As one gets older the prudent thing to do is avoid riskier investments and keep money in safer places such as savings accounts. But with interest rates so low the yield is insufficient to provide an adequate income for most people. As a result in order to try and achieve returns that were projected years ago people continue to invest in riskier assets like stocks. Long term this can pay off, but perhaps not in time for retirees.

Policies currently in place basically steal from those who have done the right thing in favor of those who have been profligate or are dependent upon the government for support. This can only get worse down the road as soaring debt leads to hyperinflation and the value of money declines. Inflated currency over centuries has long been the government way to work out debts, which is basically theft from those who have put their trust in it. Thus savers lose either way, with either diminished asset value or low to no returns. The only beneficiaries are the government, all those connected to it financially, and the big banks, which are able to borrow for virtually nothing from the government and earn returns from debt instruments with little risk.

Thus what it cannot get through taxation the government takes anyway through other means. If we are to avoid being left poorer in the future the government must be limited. This means slashing spending, reducing bloated government payrolls, cutting taxes and an end to currency manipulation. It cannot happen too soon.