The Sony cyberattack - apparently state-sponsored - obviously raises solemn concerns, including national…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Google Seeks to Exploit Sony Cyberattack for Its Own Self-Interest

The Sony cyberattack - apparently state-sponsored - obviously raises solemn concerns, including national security and the very safety of American citizens.

Accordingly, immediate public discussion should focus primarily upon the gravity of the attack and how the Internet, one of the most transformative and beneficial innovations in human history, can sometimes become a tool for those with destructive and even deadly intent.  While Sony Pictures, its employees, and its customers were the immediate victims this time, the reality is that this could happen to anyone and any enterprise.  In fact, such attacks on other companies and individuals occur at an alarmingly accelerating pace.

Leave it to Google, however, to attempt to profit from the attack and leverage it on behalf of its own…[more]

December 19, 2014 • 03:09 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
In the Shadow of the Minaret Print
By Troy Senik
Friday, December 11 2009
Placing an arbitrary ban on an object with religious significance will not still the fervor of true believers.

In the six and half decades since the conclusion of World War Two, Europe – the fountainhead of western liberalism – has been slowly but systematically divesting itself of everything that made it the world’s powerhouse continent for most of the second millennium A.D. 
 
The system of nation-states solidified by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 is eroding under the aegis of the European Union and its undemocratic centralization of power.  The market capitalism first comprehensively articulated by the Scottish moral philosopher Adam Smith in 1776’s The Wealth of Nations has given way to the infirmities of social democracy and its attendant welfare states.  And the continent that produced Nelson, Napoleon and Clausewitz has become institutionally pacifistic, laboring under the fantasies of international law, multilateral diplomacy and the United Nations – a delusion subsidized by the hegemonic power of the United States.  
 
Suicide, it turns out, is a difficult process to interrupt in media res.  That’s the lesson to be learned from the November 29 referendum in Switzerland in which 57.5 percent of Swiss voters cast a ballot in favor of prohibiting the construction of minarets, the tall spires that are a hallmark of Islamic mosques. Galvanized by the deluge of Muslim immigrants from the Middle East, Central Asia and North Africa that have poured into European nations in recent years, the Swiss electorate struck back at fears of the continent’s growing Islamization.  
 
European and American elites have been quick to paint the referendum’s results as the result of a xenophobic public insufficiently reconciled to 21st century multiculturalism. The Swiss newspaper Le Temps called the vote a “brutal sign of hostility” to Muslims that was “inspired by fear, fantasy and ignorance.”  Yet with informal polls in Spain, France and Germany showing overwhelming majorities in accord with the Swiss decision, dismissing the minaret ban as mass hysteria is imprudent.  That it should take root in a nation with as long a history of religious tolerance as Switzerland only makes it more salient.
 
Switzerland is not a country with an Islamic minority nearly as pronounced as its neighbors. With an estimated 400,000 worshippers of Allah, the country’s population is only five percent Muslim.   And only four mosques in the nation actually boast the minaret.  By nearly all measures, the diminutive population of Swiss Muslims is not nearly as radicalized or unassimilated as the Islamic populations of nations like England or France. So why all the fuss?
 
The answer is likely that the Swiss are aware of the demographic time bomb that will see Muslim populations explode in Europe through reproduction and immigration while native Caucasians decline as a percentage of the citizenry due to plummeting birth rates. With the Islamist segment of this growing population making itself known through terrorist attacks, street riots and targeted murders, Europeans are beginning to fear that not only are they losing a once-great civilization; they also may be giving it over to the forces of barbarism. 
 
Leading Islam scholar Daniel Pipes has theorized that the collision course between native Europeans and Muslims on the continent will play itself out in one of three ways: (1) harmonious integration; (2) an Islamic triumph in Europe, or (3) a spirit of resistance to the Muslims among native Europeans bearing a resemblance to the continent’s fascist past.  At present, the Swiss vote seems to indicate an inclination towards the third option.  
 
In the end, however, this may be an example of too little, too late.  Placing an arbitrary ban on an object with religious significance will not still the fervor of true believers.  Had Europe seriously considered its cultural trajectory decades ago, it may have been decidedly more circumspect in its immigration policies and less tolerant of ideologies aimed at destroying the continent’s legacy of liberty.  That could have been ample to stave off the forces of decline. With that option foreclosed, however, all that’s left is a rearguard defense.  It’s a battle between those who would gladly die for their beliefs and those whose idea of cultural triumphalism is regulating architecture. Place your bets.

Question of the Week   
Which one of the following Americans was the first to successfully fly a self-propelled, heavier-than-air aircraft?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Obama is hardly the first president to seek rapprochement with our adversaries and reconciliation with our enemies, of course. But his determination to make nice -- even in the face of clear and repeated rejection from the other side -- is unparalleled. For Obama and his team, diplomacy with rogue regimes is an end in itself, and any deal, however one-sided, is a win, especially one that the White…[more]
 
 
—Stephen F. Hayes, The Weekly Standard
— Stephen F. Hayes, The Weekly Standard
 
Liberty Poll   

Do you approve or disapprove of the U.S. opening diplomatic relations with Cuba?