Australia gets the big picture

AUSTRALIA'S Muslim leaders have been "read the riot act" over the need to denounce any links between Islam and terrorism.

The Howard Government's multicultural spokesman, Andrew Robb, yesterday told an audience of 100 imams who address Australia's mosques that these were tough times requiring great personal resolve.
Mr Robb also called on them to shun a victim mentality that branded any criticism as discrimination.

"We live in a world of terrorism where evil acts are being regularly perpetrated in the name of your faith," Mr Robb said at the Sydney conference.

"And because it is your faith that is being invoked as justification for these evil acts, it is your problem.

"You can't wish it away, or ignore it, just because it has been caused by others.

"Instead, speak up and condemn terrorism, defend your role in the way of life that we all share here in Australia."

Mr Robb said unless Muslims took responsibility for their destiny and tackled the causes of terrorism, Australia would become divided.

Mr Robb, the parliamentary secretary for immigration and multicultural affairs, said it was important for migrants to learn English.

"I see as critical the need for imams to have effective English language skills -- it is a self-evident truth that a shared language is one of the foundations of national cohesion," he said.

On the eve of Mr Robb's release today of a discussion paper on a new citizenship test, the chairman of the Government's Muslim Reference Group, Dr Ameer Ali, said Opposition Leader Kim Beazley's idea of a values test was silly, as was the need for a universal English test.

He called for an orientation program for new migrants akin to a university student's orientation week.

Worst Onwer in the NHL

After seeing Rick DiPietro getting a 15 year, $60 million contract, I can now unequiocably say that Islander's owner Charles Wang has surpassed Bill Wirtz of the Chicago Blackhawks as the worst owner in the NHL. With this type of stupidity, I know that shorting Wang's company, Computer Associates (CA/NYSE) is a sure money maker.

They're still Communists

Check out Steven Taylor's site for updates on the NDPs convention. Some of their policy proposals read out of good ol Marx: Collective ownership of the means of production; collective ownership of all natural resourses.

People, if you don't think they're Commies, I don't know what will change you mind. They are against liberty as we know.

End of the Westphalian age

Earlier this week, I was reading a post on the Corner which revived some thoughts I had during the Israeli incursion into Lebanon last week regarding the Treaty of Westphalia. I had mentioned during that time that based on the conventions of the Treaty of Westphalia, that the Lebanese government is ultimately responsible for the actions of all actors within its borders and must deal with the consequences of such actions.

The Treaty of Westphalia ushered the age of the nation state, whereby governments were ultimately held sovereignty over the actions of those within its borders. This notion helped keep a certain degree of peace within the Western world, and prevented the spread of anarchy. However, it seems that we have started to evolve full circle.

We have a state in Iran which does not recognize international borders (see Mark Steyn's article in the City Journal for more on this). Syria can somewhat be lumped in with Iran on this. Lebanon is incapable of asserting it's sovereignty, allowing Hezbollah to become a state within a state.

Finally, we have the West, being so emasculated from it's knee jerk multi-culturalism and anti-military psychoses, unable to assert the need for these states to behave within this system. We are also seeing Europe unable to deal with unassimilated radical Mohammedan populations within its borders, which pose the possibility of becoming a state within a state unless put in check.

So we could see in the long run the disintegration of many nation states as we know it, in the sense that they are able to assert any control within their own borders.

More Frederic Bastiast

I spent the long weekend re-reading Frederic Bastiat's "Free Markets, Free Men". I grow more impressed with this man every time I read it, and the wisdom his insights hold still today. Passages such as this:

The oppressor no longer acts directly and with his own powers upon his victim. No, our conscience has become too sensitive for that. The tyrant and his victim are still present, but there is an intermediate person between them, which is the State - that is, the Law itself. What can be better calculated to silence our scruples, and, which is perhaps better appreciated, to overcome all resistance? We all therefore, put in our claim, under some pretext or other, and apply to the State. We say to it, "I am dissatisfied at the proportion between my labor and my enjoyments. I should like, for the sake of restoring the desired equilibrium, to take a part of the possessions of others. But this would be dangerous. Could not you facilitate the thing for me? Could you not find me a good place? or obstruct the industry of my competitors? or, perhaps, lend me gratuitously some capital which, you may take from its possessors? Could you not bring up my children at the public expense? or grant me some prizes? or secure me a competence when I have attained my fiftieth year? By this mean I shall reach my end with an easy conscience, for the law will have acted for me, and I shall have all the advantages of plunder, without its risk or its disgrace!"

Fifth Column in our Midst

I'm not talking about the MSM in this case. Rather, it is the disturbing pattern of home grown Mohammedans (I've decided to take a break from the word "Muslim" for a bit) in Western countries turning to jihad. Based on the arrests in the U.K. the other day, and the events in the U.S. and in Canada with home grown terror cells, perhaps people are waking up to the fact that we do have a fifth column in our midsts. What doesn't help on this matter are Mohammedan groups like CAIR with their lukewarm semi-condemnation of violence. Couple this with the support of Hezbollah by many of these groups, it is hard not to conclude that there is a real fifth column withing the Mohammedan community.

I am starting to think that it will become necessary to put real pressure on them to change their way and help purge their ranks of the jihadists. Some of this behavior can be construed as treason or sedition, and ultimately should treated as such. Our squishy, multi-culti elites don't like the concepts of treason or sedition, but it is the only way to drive the point home that aid, comfort, and active support for the enemy will lead to the gallows pole.

25 Years ago today - I became Reagan-phile

This is the seminal event that cemented my conservatism and transformed my admiration of Ronald Reagan. Now if only other politicians had this courage, like Mike Harris 10 years ago.

Twenty-Nine Seconds That Changed History

Twenty-five years ago today, Ronald Reagan set aside conventional political wisdom for the betterment of the country. In just 29 seconds, he told federal air traffic controllers to end their strike or find a new job. In so doing, he showed principled leadership, reminding the Washington elite that sound policy is indeed sound politics.

President Reagan took office in the cold of winter in 1981. The country was still reeling from the meltdown of President Nixon and from a weak economy. Though Reagan had enjoyed electoral success, many Americans still simply thought of him as an actor who had been in the right place at the right time. The media-enhanced perception was that Ronald Reagan was a lightweight, and this view came at a time when “news” came almost exclusively from the big three TV broadcast networks or from radio news.

In 1981, the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization represented the nation’s 17,000 air traffic controllers. PATCO was familiar to Reagan. During the heat of the campaign, he had offered support to PATCO, arguing that the Carter administration had failed to act responsibly. If elected president, Reagan said, he would “take whatever steps are necessary to provide our air traffic controllers with the most modern equipment available and to adjust staff levels and work days so that they are commensurate with achieving a maximum degree of public safety.”[1] Reagan, like many others, felt the air traffic controllers had some legitimate complaints.

Robert Poli, the president of PATCO, was seemingly in a strong political position to see these complaints addressed and to gain new advantages for his membership. Organized labor was much stronger in 1981 than it is today, and the union’s political power ensured that many members of the U.S. Congress would be sympathetic. So when PATCO and the Federal Aviation Administration were unable to come to terms by August 1981, 13,000 PATCO members chose to strike.

Reagan was not in a good position. He was a new president in heated negotiations with Congress. Crossing organized labor was generally considered to be political suicide. Neither American business nor the public would tolerate a total disruption of the nation’s air transportation system. In fact, the public would sympathize with the controllers; who could argue with making the skies “safer”?

But Reagan saw the big picture.

The air traffic controllers were under an obligation not to strike. It was a condition of their employment, and it was the law. The nation, in the end, would gain little if anything from ignoring this.

On August 3, Reagan took just 29 seconds to explain his argument on national television: “Let me read the solemn oath taken by each of these employees: ‘I am not participating in any strike against the government of the United States or any agency thereof.’ It is for this reason that I must tell those that fail to report for duty this morning that they are in violation of the law and if they do not report for work within 48 hours they have forfeited their rights and will be terminated.”[2]

Then the nation waited — but it didn’t wait long. On August 5, Reagan fired more than 11,000 controllers.

Many Americans admired Reagan’s handling of the situation, but the impact did not stop there. Edwin Meese, Reagan’s attorney general, has noted that this incident “convinced people in other capitals around the world, including Soviet leaders, that they had a person of real substance that they were dealing with here.”[3]

One of Reagan’s greatest gifts was his ability to understand that sound policy is sound politics. He realized that the American people appreciated integrity and that they would support his decision if they knew that the controllers were violating an oath.

August 3, 1981, could have been a very different day. Reagan could have appointed commissions. He could have passed the buck to Congress.

But instead, he did what he knew was right. In the present political world of instant polling, flip-flopping and blame-placing, we need to remember that real leadership comes from deeply embedded principles that can be tapped to tackle the serious issues confronting us as a nation, as a state or as a local community.

H/T The Corner from the Mackinac Institute

Major tax bill delyed by House of Representatives

The house of Representatives pulled H.R. 1956 before going to a vote on Wednesday because of insufficient support to get it passed. This is major tax news that has gone largely unreported. The significance of this bill is it would change the way states can tax out-of-state companies doing business in their jurisdictions. The term that is used to describe whether a company is liabile to pay taxes in a given state is called Nexus.

Under the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, the Federal government essentially sets the rules on how a state can tax an out of state entity doing business. There are different standards for sales taxes and income taxes. For income taxes, the law states that sellers of goods (tangible perdional property) who sell goods in a state, but do not have employees or own property in that state, from being liable for INCOME tax in that state. In the 1950's when this law (P.L. 86-272) was passed, it covered most economic activity. Today, it has less significance because services and intangibles make up a large portion of economic activity, and many states have moved away from income taxes towards gross receipts or franchise taxes, which are not covered by the law.

Congress decided to address this inequity by proposing H.R. 1956, which would have ammended the law that would say all companies would be exempt from income or any other type of entity level tax provided they did not have property or payroll in that state. While this did address the inequity, it rose fierce opposition from state governors, who would lose significant tax revenues. State governments like the status quo because they can tax people who cannot vote in their respective states. This bill, if passed would mean substantial tax savings for many entities that do business in multiple states.

I am of two opinions on this matter. I like the fact that it levels the playing field and it starves state governments of money - which coincides of my 'starve the beast' limited government philosophy. However, the states have a legitimate point regarding tax revenues and fundamental fairness in taxing business directed to the state.

The solution to this is to pass H.R. 1956, but also change the rules for sales tax nexus, allowing the states to have out-of-state companies collect sales tax (especially on internet sales) with a more liberal interpretation of substantial nexus that has been used by scholars. This would address another fairness issue, the taxability of internet based companies versus bricks and mortar companies, and allow states to recoup some of their lost revenues. It would also have the benefits of states working to streamline their sales and use tax policies (National Sales Tax Project) and would turn the tax systems of many states from an income base to a consumption base.

Handicapping the Michigan Governor's Race

In the lazy days of August, Republican challenger Dick DeVos has a 4-5 percentage point lead against incumbant governor Jennifer Granholm. Generally, I would be excited about the idea of a Republican challenger defeating a Democratic incumbent for the governorship of the state of the Michigan, but I'm rather ambivalent.

The reason for my ambivalence is my gut feeling that Dick DeVos is an empty suit, or as conservatives would say, a "country-club" Republican. He talks about being a "successful businessman" (heir of AmWay - take that for what it's worth) and a "problem-solver", but he has not given anything on a substantive or a philisophical basis on how he sees the problems ailing Michigan or how he would govern. No talk anywhere about how he would reduce the size of government or even an outline of how he sees the structural issues that have led to Michigan's economy lagging the rest of the country. Based on this, I would have to say DeVos is closer to Bob Taft (current tax and spend governor of OH) than John Engler (former slash and burn governor of MI).

As for Granholm, she hasn't done that bad of a job. With a Republican house tempering her liberal impulses, she has been OK, and her poor poll results are more due to events surrounding the auto industry than anything that the government has done or not done under her stewardship.

I think DeVos has peaked if he continues the campaign on a policy free, persona based image. If he sticks to that, I think Granholm will be able to clobber him on being an empty suit and sqeak in a win.

Here are my "keys to victory" as of today

For DeVos to win, he must:

1. Outline a substantive, conservative based platform to address Michigan's problems.
2. Make the case for change by highlighting the economic record of the state under Granholm.
3. Energize turnout in the Western half of the state.

For Granholm to win, she must:
1. Highlight many of her accomplishments as governor.
2. Show her plan to address the anxieties of the populace.
3. Show Dick DeVos as a silver-spoon "empty suit" who is running for governor as a hobby.
4. Make up with Kwamme Fitzpatrick as the Detroit turnout will be critical for her to win.

No eating at La Shish for me.

Found this today:

OWNER AND FINANCIAL MANAGER OF “LA SHISH” RESTAURANT ARE CHARGED WITH TAX EVASION

U.S. Department of JusticeStephen J. Murphy United States AttorneyEastern
District of MichiganSuite 2001 211 West Fort Street Detroit, Michigan 48226-3277Fax: (313) 226-3561

Federal charges were unsealed today in Detroit against Talal Khalil Chahine, 51, of Dearborn Heights, Michigan and the owner of the “La Shish” restaurant chain, and Elfat El Aouar, 39 of Plymouth, a “La Shish” financial manager and Chahine’s wife. Chahine and El Aouar are charged by the federal grand jury Indictment with four Counts each of Income Tax Evasion, in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Section 7201. Each Count carries a maximum penalty of 5 years’ imprisonment and a $250,000 fine. Elfat El Aouar was arrested earlier today from her home in Plymouth. A bail hearing and arraignment is scheduled to occur at 1:00 p.m. in federal court. Talal Chahine is presently outside the United States and is believed to be in Lebanon. A warrant has been issued for his arrest.

In announcing the Indictment, United States Attorney Stephen J. Murphy commended the work of the Special Agents of the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation Division and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The prosecution is being handled by Assistant United States Attorneys Kenneth R. Chadwell and Julie A. Beck.

As set forth in the Indictment, Talal Khalil Chahine is the sole owner of La Shish, Inc., a Middle Eastern restaurant chain located in the Detroit, Michigan metropolitan area. Elfat El Aouar, who is married to Talal Chahine, has an M.B.A. and has worked at La Shish, Inc. in various capacities including as the company’s Vice President of Finance. The Indictment alleges that Talal Chahine and Elfat El Aouar collaborated in a scheme to skim cash proceeds from the restaurants for the tax years 2000 through 2003. During those tax years, it is alleged, La Shish, Inc. maintained a double set of computerized books, records and balance reports, one actual and one altered. The altered records artificially reduced the amount of cash that was actually received by the restaurants. Talal Chahine and Elfat El Aouar oversaw the maintenance of the double set of books, as well as the skimming and concealment of more than $16,000,000 in cash received by the restaurants. To evade government scrutiny, the skimmed cash was not deposited into U.S. bank accounts, but instead, at the direction of Chahine and El Aouar, converted into cashier’s checks and reduced in physical size by changing small denominations into larger ones. These conversions were made for the purpose of transporting the cash outside the United States to Lebanon, away from U.S. government reach and detection. Cash was also skimmed by paying La Shish, Inc. employees all or partly in cash.

United States Attorney Stephen J. Murphy said, “The charges today highlight the importance of enforcing our tax laws fairly and diligently. The transferring of millions of dollars in cash from the United States to the Middle East in the attempt to evade taxes will not be tolerated. I commend the hard work of the IRS Criminal Division and the FBI that lead to these charges being unsealed today.” Special Agent Aouate said, “The Internal Revenue Service spends a great deal of its resources in identifying individuals who earn their income legitimately yet willfully fail to report and pay their fair share in taxes. We will continue to work with the United States Attorney to make sure that there are consequences to one's willful actions.”

An Indictment is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt. A defendant is entitled to a fair trial in which it will be the government's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

An there is more to the story:

The U.S. government, in a written proffer of evidence (in U.S.A. v. Elfat El Aouar, Cr. No. 06-20248, EDMI, 5/22/2006), states that Chahine and his wife attended a fundraising event in Lebanon in August 2002 with Hizballah Sheikh Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, a Specially Designated Terrorist (see page 8), where the two men were the keynote speakers. The proffer also claims that a search of El Aouar’s residence turned up a “thank you letter” for sponsoring 40 “orphans,” as well as images of Chahine and his family in front of a Hizballah outpost. According to the proffer, “[t]he government is aware that the sponsorship of orphans is a euphemism used by Hizballah to refer to the orphans of martyrs. This is a common public relations and recruitment tool used by Hizballah. Hizballah gains favor with the public in Lebanon by supporting ‘orphans,’ while at the same time recruiting others into the terrorist organization willing to sacrifice their lives in terrorist operations based in part on the promise that Hizballah will take care of their families.” The government has yet to charge Chahine or his wife with any terrorism-related offense.

Interesting.

H/T Counterterorism Blog

Cross Posted at All Things Moot