I am grateful to have this opportunity to share my thoughts on the raid by United States forces that resulted in the death of al-Qaeda terrorist founder and leader Osama bin Laden, as an American and as a relative of one of one of the victims of al-Qaeda’s September 11 Attacks.
Upon hearing the news of the raid shortly after midnight, I was jubilant. My jubilation was not out of a sense of vengeance over the death of a human being or any desire that bin Laden be condemned to Hell, but for three reasons: 1) joyfulness that justice was served and that bin Laden knew that he was caught, 2) relief that he is no longer a threat and 3) pride in the U.S. military and intelligence services.
Although I had prayed for bin Laden’s conversion, which is the minimal extent of love for one’s enemy I could possibly have for someone who murdered a family member of mine and as an American, it cannot be ruled out that he responded to Jesus Christ’s call at the moment of death as bin Laden realized that Allah did not favor is evil enterprise. I pray especially for the victims of al-Qaeda.
As I watched the news reports on the raid, I was also proud of the crowds of Americans who took to the streets and the students who went to the grounds of their campuses in celebration of this great victory in the War on Terrorism. I was especially proud of the Phillies fans who chanted “U.S.A.! U.S.A.!” when the news of the raid broke during the baseball game at Citizens Bank Park in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and the Texans who came to the Dallas home of former President George W. Bush to thank him for the policies he put in place as he led America into the War on Terrorism that made the bin Laden raid possible, which was even before reports confirmed that it was intelligence leads that were first gained during the Bush Administration that led to the raid.
I, too, was out in the street after midnight, waiving an American flag, shortly after I had posted about the raid on my blog. Because of the hour and the fact that I did not observe anyone else outside, however, I refrained from making the celebratory noises as I had always intended upon hearing the long-sought news in the moment that came the closest to V.E. Day in my lifetime.
I believe that the photograph of the dead Osama bin Laden must at least be made available to Congress, which has the power to subpoena it as part of its oversight function. It ought to be made available also to the victims of al-Qaeda. By the victims, I mean not only the family of those who were killed in al-Qaeda’s various attacks on Americans, but also those who were wounded. Of course, every American was wounded emotionally by the September 11 Terrorist Attacks in particular, as intended by bin Laden. Therefore, all Americans ought to be allowed to see the photograph. Seeing the photograph will provide some sense of closure to Americans and other victims of bin Laden, but also have a deterrent effect. Throughout the War on Terrorism, I have supported the republishing of the horrible images of the September 11 Attacks, lest we forget the threat our enemies pose. Showing the image of bin Laden with a bullet wound to his head would prevent the Islamist militants from forgetting the reach of the American intelligence and armed services. Thus, showing the photograph would not be done merely as an act of triumphalism that might unnecessarily anger Muslims, but as a necessary act. We must not be intimidated by terrorists into acting according to their wishes instead of doing what is in our interests.
I am not disturbed by the fact that bin Laden was given a funeral according to Muslim tradition. It is good Christian practice to respect the dead, even one who committed such evil acts and who appeared to be unrepentant. I do not see the funeral as politically correct oversensitivity to Muslim reaction, unlike the refusal to show the photograph of bin Laden with the gunshot wound, or even a photograph of his burial at sea. The funeral was necessary, as is publishing the photograph.
In my next post on this subject, I shall provide more political commentary on the bin Laden raid, but wanted to limit the focus of this post to my personal thoughts.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Monday, May 2, 2011
Prime Minister Stephen Harper Wins a Majority as He Steers Canada to the Right
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been reelected as he has won his Conservative Party a majority in Parliament for the first time since he came to power in a coalition in 2006.
Harper was rewarded for his fiscally conservative policies, including lowering taxes, that have helped Canada avoid recession despite the steep global economic downturn. His policies reflect the global trend toward austerity and his election also represents the global rightward shift I have been posting about, as voters recognize the need for less government spending. Harper was also able to convince his countrymen that the Canadian economy needed the stability of a majority government versus the instability of another coalition government, either between his Tories and others or between the opposition Liberals and the leftist New Democratic Party (NDP).
The NDP will be the primary opposition party for the first time, which will also be the first time the Liberals will not be either in government or the main opposition. The separtist Bloc Quebecois suffered a devestating loss of seats.
Harper has increased Canada's military, which had been reduced to a meager force under Liberal government, and has maintained a Canadian force in Afghanistan in the War on Terrorism. Canadians had been rejoicing within the last 24 hours over the killing by United States forces of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, who was responsible for the September 11 Terrorist Attacks in which 24 Canadians were among the nearly 3,000 people who were massacred.
Americans are grateful to have the Canadians as allies. I congratulate Prime Minister Harper and the Canadian people and wish our neighbors to the North all the best.
Harper was rewarded for his fiscally conservative policies, including lowering taxes, that have helped Canada avoid recession despite the steep global economic downturn. His policies reflect the global trend toward austerity and his election also represents the global rightward shift I have been posting about, as voters recognize the need for less government spending. Harper was also able to convince his countrymen that the Canadian economy needed the stability of a majority government versus the instability of another coalition government, either between his Tories and others or between the opposition Liberals and the leftist New Democratic Party (NDP).
The NDP will be the primary opposition party for the first time, which will also be the first time the Liberals will not be either in government or the main opposition. The separtist Bloc Quebecois suffered a devestating loss of seats.
Harper has increased Canada's military, which had been reduced to a meager force under Liberal government, and has maintained a Canadian force in Afghanistan in the War on Terrorism. Canadians had been rejoicing within the last 24 hours over the killing by United States forces of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, who was responsible for the September 11 Terrorist Attacks in which 24 Canadians were among the nearly 3,000 people who were massacred.
Americans are grateful to have the Canadians as allies. I congratulate Prime Minister Harper and the Canadian people and wish our neighbors to the North all the best.
President George W. Bush's Interrogations Policies Led to the Killing of Bin Laden
Although United States President Barak Obama deserves credit for authorizing the mission that resulted in the killing of Osama bin Laden by U.S. forces, the credit for the intelligence lead that led to the raid belongs to former President George W. Bush. The lead was developed several years ago as a result of Bush's policy of interrogating terrorist detainees. Bush's policy reflected his strategy of recognizing that Islamists were at war with the U.S.
Obama thus benefitted from the Bush lead, even though he weakened U.S. interrogation practices. Like President Bill Clinton, Obama has often treated terrorism like a criminal matter, not a war crime, as Bush did. Terrorists captured in the U.S. have been read their rights under the Obama Administration, including the right to remain silent, and criminally charged before proper interrogations could be conducted, while terrorists caught on the battlefield are subject to the same interrogation policy as in the U.S. Army Field Manual. The manual is published, which allows the terrorists to practice interrogation resistance techinques.
Liberals and some libertarians had harshly criticized Bush for not criminally charging the terrorists or treating them as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention, which would have protected the terrorists from interrogations, even though they are war criminals, not regular soldiers, who were the only ones intended to be covered under the Convention. The weakening of U.S. interrogations was the main policy difference between Obama and Bush on the War on Terrorism, as Obama has followed nearly every other Bush policy in the War, despite his previous criticisms of his predessor.
It is doubtful, therefore, that the human intelligence, which had been drastically cut under the Clinton Administration, that resulted in bin Laden's death would have been acquired under Clinton or Obama interrogation policies, or those advocated by their liberal supporters in Congress and in the general public. The killing of bin Laden by the American military as a result of the work of U.S. intelligence services represents the fruition of Bush's policies.
As I noted in my last post, the War on Terrorism is not yet won, but a major victory has been achieved by the U.S. Nevertheless, the greatness of President Bush on the War on Terrorism now is becoming increasingly apparent. I have repeatedly praised President Obama on this blog for continuing Bush's other policies in the War, but I now call upon him to return to Bush's interrogation policies which have proven to be successful.
I congratulate President Obama, President Bush, the U.S. military and intelligence services for the successful raid on bin Laden's compound. As a member of a family of one of the victims of the September 11 Terrorist Attacks, I especially thank you for bringing justice to bin Laden. May we always remember the victims of all of the al-Qaeda attacks. May God Bless America.
Please visit the website listed on my blog, 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America.
Obama thus benefitted from the Bush lead, even though he weakened U.S. interrogation practices. Like President Bill Clinton, Obama has often treated terrorism like a criminal matter, not a war crime, as Bush did. Terrorists captured in the U.S. have been read their rights under the Obama Administration, including the right to remain silent, and criminally charged before proper interrogations could be conducted, while terrorists caught on the battlefield are subject to the same interrogation policy as in the U.S. Army Field Manual. The manual is published, which allows the terrorists to practice interrogation resistance techinques.
Liberals and some libertarians had harshly criticized Bush for not criminally charging the terrorists or treating them as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention, which would have protected the terrorists from interrogations, even though they are war criminals, not regular soldiers, who were the only ones intended to be covered under the Convention. The weakening of U.S. interrogations was the main policy difference between Obama and Bush on the War on Terrorism, as Obama has followed nearly every other Bush policy in the War, despite his previous criticisms of his predessor.
It is doubtful, therefore, that the human intelligence, which had been drastically cut under the Clinton Administration, that resulted in bin Laden's death would have been acquired under Clinton or Obama interrogation policies, or those advocated by their liberal supporters in Congress and in the general public. The killing of bin Laden by the American military as a result of the work of U.S. intelligence services represents the fruition of Bush's policies.
As I noted in my last post, the War on Terrorism is not yet won, but a major victory has been achieved by the U.S. Nevertheless, the greatness of President Bush on the War on Terrorism now is becoming increasingly apparent. I have repeatedly praised President Obama on this blog for continuing Bush's other policies in the War, but I now call upon him to return to Bush's interrogation policies which have proven to be successful.
I congratulate President Obama, President Bush, the U.S. military and intelligence services for the successful raid on bin Laden's compound. As a member of a family of one of the victims of the September 11 Terrorist Attacks, I especially thank you for bringing justice to bin Laden. May we always remember the victims of all of the al-Qaeda attacks. May God Bless America.
Please visit the website listed on my blog, 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America.
OSAMA BIN LADEN HAS BEEN KILLED
Al-Qaeda terrorist leader Osama bin Laden has been killed by United States forces. Bin Laden had issued a fatwah in 1996 calling upon all Muslims to kill Americans. In 1998, his terrorist organization, al Qaeda, bombed the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Al-Qaeda bombed the U.S.S. Cole in 2000. Al-Qaeda's September 11, 2001 Attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon were the bloodiest in history. Al-Qaeda has been responsible for numerous other terrorist and guerilla attacks around the world.
Although these jihadist Islamist terrorists are likely to continue their ways, which will require our continued vigilance, bin Laden's death deprives them of their spiritual leader. The killing of bin Laden by the U.S. also proves that Allah did not favor bin Laden to be the next Caliph.
May God Bless America.
Although these jihadist Islamist terrorists are likely to continue their ways, which will require our continued vigilance, bin Laden's death deprives them of their spiritual leader. The killing of bin Laden by the U.S. also proves that Allah did not favor bin Laden to be the next Caliph.
May God Bless America.
Friday, April 22, 2011
William Rusher, In Memoriam
One of the co-founders of the American conservative movement, William A. Rusher, passed away this week at the age of 87. Rusher was a political advisor, debater, publisher, columnist, author and founder of a number of conservative organizations.
Rusher served in the Army Air Corps during World War II. He became an attorney while active in New York politics and was appointed associate counsel of the United States Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, a position that suited his anti-Communist views.
William F. Buckley hired Rusher as publisher of the National Review. Serving as the link between the magazine and conservative and Republican politics, he emphasized the need for National Review to be the leader of the conservative movement. Rusher strove for unity within the movement, i.e. of both fiscal and social conservatives.
In the 1960s, Rusher helped found Young Americans for Freedom, the New York State Conservative Party and the American Conservative Union, the oldest conservative lobbying organization in the U.S. He played a major role in the drafting of conservative Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater for President. Goldwater’s nomination by the Republican Party marked the first nomination of a modern conservative for president by a major American political party.
Meanwhile, Rusher became a political advisor of Ronald Reagan. He encouraged Reagan’s campaigns for the Republican nomination for president in 1968 and 1976. Rusher’s efforts paid off at long last in 1980 with the nomination and election of Reagan as President. He regarded the Reagan Presidency the greatest success of the conservative movement.
Rusher was a highly skilled debater on radio and television and popular syndicated columnist. He skewered the left thoroughly, exposing the fallacy of its arguments without conceding any good intentions on the part of liberals for their support of bad policies.
William Rusher has left the conservative movement a great legacy. May Rusher’s example of intellectual integrity and confidence inspire us to continue to promote conservative principles of good government.
Rusher served in the Army Air Corps during World War II. He became an attorney while active in New York politics and was appointed associate counsel of the United States Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, a position that suited his anti-Communist views.
William F. Buckley hired Rusher as publisher of the National Review. Serving as the link between the magazine and conservative and Republican politics, he emphasized the need for National Review to be the leader of the conservative movement. Rusher strove for unity within the movement, i.e. of both fiscal and social conservatives.
In the 1960s, Rusher helped found Young Americans for Freedom, the New York State Conservative Party and the American Conservative Union, the oldest conservative lobbying organization in the U.S. He played a major role in the drafting of conservative Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater for President. Goldwater’s nomination by the Republican Party marked the first nomination of a modern conservative for president by a major American political party.
Meanwhile, Rusher became a political advisor of Ronald Reagan. He encouraged Reagan’s campaigns for the Republican nomination for president in 1968 and 1976. Rusher’s efforts paid off at long last in 1980 with the nomination and election of Reagan as President. He regarded the Reagan Presidency the greatest success of the conservative movement.
Rusher was a highly skilled debater on radio and television and popular syndicated columnist. He skewered the left thoroughly, exposing the fallacy of its arguments without conceding any good intentions on the part of liberals for their support of bad policies.
William Rusher has left the conservative movement a great legacy. May Rusher’s example of intellectual integrity and confidence inspire us to continue to promote conservative principles of good government.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
The Pennsylvania House Approves Tort Reform
The Pennsylvania House of Representatives approved a reform of the Commonwealth's tort law in regard to joint and several liability. Joint and several liability means that if one defendant cannot pay money to satisfy a judgment against him, the other defendants must.
Pennsylvania is one of only a few states that lacks proportional liability, meaning that a defendant who is only 1% liable can end up paying 100% of the judgment. The unfair lack of proportionality encourages the naming of “deep pockets,” i.e. businesses that are only tangentially related to the cause of action, but have more money than the primary defendant who is 99% liable. The Keystone State's lack of proportional joint and several liability is regarded as an anti-business policy that harms its economic competitiveness.
The bill approved by the majority Republican House introduces a degree of proportionality by protecting defendants less than 20% liable from being required to pay the full amount of the judgment. The majority-Republican Senate is expected to approve the measure and Governor Tom Corbett, a Republican, is expected to sign it into law.
Pennsylvania is one of only a few states that lacks proportional liability, meaning that a defendant who is only 1% liable can end up paying 100% of the judgment. The unfair lack of proportionality encourages the naming of “deep pockets,” i.e. businesses that are only tangentially related to the cause of action, but have more money than the primary defendant who is 99% liable. The Keystone State's lack of proportional joint and several liability is regarded as an anti-business policy that harms its economic competitiveness.
The bill approved by the majority Republican House introduces a degree of proportionality by protecting defendants less than 20% liable from being required to pay the full amount of the judgment. The majority-Republican Senate is expected to approve the measure and Governor Tom Corbett, a Republican, is expected to sign it into law.
Update: Pennsylvania Senate and House Pass the Castle Doctrine Bill
The Pennsylvania House of Representatives has joined the state Senate in passing a bill that extends the Castle Doctrine beyond a person's home. I have posted about this proposal several times since last year. The measure, which would allow a person to defend himself with with a deadly weapon anywhere he has a legal right to be (e.g. in a car, at work, etc.) without first being obligated to retreat, was overwhelmingly approved last year by the then-Democratic House and Republican Senate, but vetoed by former Governor Ed Rendell, a Democrat. Governor Tom Corbett, a Republican, is expected to sign the Castle Doctrine bill into law.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Foreign Updates: Portugal, the European Monetary Union, Ivory Coast
As expected, Portugal has asked for a financial bailout from the European Union. The Portuguese are joining the Greeks and Irish in being bailed out by the European Monetary Union from debts, thereby putting more pressure on the E.U. Portugal, Greece and Ireland all use the Euro as their monetary unit. The E.U. is under pressure because of the bailouts of these smaller economies, but the ongoing crisis could impact the much larger economy of Spain, which could, in turn, trigger the collapse of the euro, even if its survives all the bailouts.
The recent rise of the Euro relative to the dollar is more of a sign of a weaker dollar than a stronger Euro.
The opposition forces, with the help of the French, have captured the former president of Ivory Coast, Laurent Gbagbo, who had refused to concede election defeat four months ago in the former French West African colony. A Muslim won the election over the Christian Gbagbo, but not one who is an Islamist. Ivory Coast, which had been a stable, relatively developed and prosperous state thanks to its leading global rank in exporting cocoa, has been beset by an intermittent civil war over its north-south/Muslim-Christian divide. Both sides have been accused of atrocities in the conflict. It is hoped that the Republic of Ivory Coast will soon enjoy peace, order, justice, healing, freedom and representative democracy.
The recent rise of the Euro relative to the dollar is more of a sign of a weaker dollar than a stronger Euro.
The opposition forces, with the help of the French, have captured the former president of Ivory Coast, Laurent Gbagbo, who had refused to concede election defeat four months ago in the former French West African colony. A Muslim won the election over the Christian Gbagbo, but not one who is an Islamist. Ivory Coast, which had been a stable, relatively developed and prosperous state thanks to its leading global rank in exporting cocoa, has been beset by an intermittent civil war over its north-south/Muslim-Christian divide. Both sides have been accused of atrocities in the conflict. It is hoped that the Republic of Ivory Coast will soon enjoy peace, order, justice, healing, freedom and representative democracy.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
The Legacy of the Congressional Lame Duck Session: Military Trials and the 2011 Budget Deal
Now that the deal has been reached on the 2011 federal budget, which I analyze in my last post, it is possible to consider more fully the legacy of the 2010 Lame Duck Session of Congress.
As I mentioned in my post in January of this year, Conservative Analysis of the Congressional Lame Duck Session, the then-minority Republicans won a concession from the majority Democrats and the President that a continuing resolution be approved for the 2011 federal budget, which left open the door for the Republicans, once they gained the majority in January, to approve a final budget that would include domestic spending cuts the liberal Democrats and President were unwilling to make. As a result, the deal reached last night accomplishes the conservative GOP goal.
Another conservative legacy of the Lame Duck Session was the Congressional defunding of civilian trials for the September 11 terrorist attack conspirators currently being held at a prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Obama Administration had intended to try these war criminals in civilian courts. The Administration has now reversed itself, as it has in other policies in the War on Terrorism, and will now keep Guantanamo Bay's prison camp open and try the terrorists there.
As I mentioned in my post in January of this year, Conservative Analysis of the Congressional Lame Duck Session, the then-minority Republicans won a concession from the majority Democrats and the President that a continuing resolution be approved for the 2011 federal budget, which left open the door for the Republicans, once they gained the majority in January, to approve a final budget that would include domestic spending cuts the liberal Democrats and President were unwilling to make. As a result, the deal reached last night accomplishes the conservative GOP goal.
Another conservative legacy of the Lame Duck Session was the Congressional defunding of civilian trials for the September 11 terrorist attack conspirators currently being held at a prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Obama Administration had intended to try these war criminals in civilian courts. The Administration has now reversed itself, as it has in other policies in the War on Terrorism, and will now keep Guantanamo Bay's prison camp open and try the terrorists there.
Conservative Commentary on the 2011 Federal Budget Deal
Conservatives won a significant victory in the deal struck between Congressional leaders and the President for the 2011 budget for the United States federal government. Led by the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, conservative Republicans won $38 billion of spending cuts.
The deal was necessary because the liberal Democratic Congress had failed to pass a budget last year. It had passed continuing resolutions, which maintained funding levels at the current rate. When Republicans gained the majority in January, they approved short-term continuing resolutions with $10 billion of spending cuts. The uncertainty because of the constant need for continuing resolutions was economically harmful and made weary legislators eager for a bill to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year (through the end of September). Without a budget, the authority for the federal government to make expenditures would have ended, thereby causing a government shutdown, as I explained in my last post.
The deal mostly cuts domestic spending. Although it does not end federal funding of Planned Parentood, the largest provider of abortions in the U.S., it ends the funding of abortions in the District of Columbia. It also provides vouchers for students to attend private schools in the District. Although it does not defund Barak Obama's federalization of health insurance, it prohibits the hiring of the requisite Internal Revenue Agents. There will be votes in the Senate, however, on defunding Planned Parenthood and the federalization of health insurance.
Nevertheless, the deal represented a lopsided victory for conservatives, as the Republicans had initially proposed $32 billion in spending cuts and the liberal Democrats none. The figure of $38 billion in annual savings represents the largest post-World War II cut in American history. These spending cuts and the compromises on the policy riders are especially amazing considering that Republicans control only one half of Congress, while the Democrats have not only the other half, but also the Executive Branch.
Moreover, the spending cuts in this budget deal represent an acknowledgment of the need for austerity, without raising taxes. In other words, conservatives, bolstered by the Republican victories in the 2010 Congressional elections, are winning the policy debate. Conservatives will now have the momentum going into the next two debates, both of which are coming soon, on raising the federal debt limit and on the 2012 budget.
The deal was necessary because the liberal Democratic Congress had failed to pass a budget last year. It had passed continuing resolutions, which maintained funding levels at the current rate. When Republicans gained the majority in January, they approved short-term continuing resolutions with $10 billion of spending cuts. The uncertainty because of the constant need for continuing resolutions was economically harmful and made weary legislators eager for a bill to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year (through the end of September). Without a budget, the authority for the federal government to make expenditures would have ended, thereby causing a government shutdown, as I explained in my last post.
The deal mostly cuts domestic spending. Although it does not end federal funding of Planned Parentood, the largest provider of abortions in the U.S., it ends the funding of abortions in the District of Columbia. It also provides vouchers for students to attend private schools in the District. Although it does not defund Barak Obama's federalization of health insurance, it prohibits the hiring of the requisite Internal Revenue Agents. There will be votes in the Senate, however, on defunding Planned Parenthood and the federalization of health insurance.
Nevertheless, the deal represented a lopsided victory for conservatives, as the Republicans had initially proposed $32 billion in spending cuts and the liberal Democrats none. The figure of $38 billion in annual savings represents the largest post-World War II cut in American history. These spending cuts and the compromises on the policy riders are especially amazing considering that Republicans control only one half of Congress, while the Democrats have not only the other half, but also the Executive Branch.
Moreover, the spending cuts in this budget deal represent an acknowledgment of the need for austerity, without raising taxes. In other words, conservatives, bolstered by the Republican victories in the 2010 Congressional elections, are winning the policy debate. Conservatives will now have the momentum going into the next two debates, both of which are coming soon, on raising the federal debt limit and on the 2012 budget.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Only Presidents, Not Congress, Have Shut Down the Government
Government shutdowns occur when government no longer has any legal authority to spend. When United States President George H.W. Bush vetoed the deficit-spending bills of the liberal Democratic-controlled Congress, Democrats and their allies in the liberal media blamed him for the brief government shutdown that ensued.
But when Bush’s successor, Bill Clinton, vetoed the spending reductions of the Republican-controlled Congress, the Democrats and the liberal media blamed the Congress instead of the President. Their only consistency was in blaming the Republicans for shutting down the government as a result of the fiscal dispute.
Constitutionally, in disputes between the Executive and Legislative Branches of the federal government, only a president can shut down the government because only he has the power to veto spending bills or an increase in the debt ceiling approved by Congress.
The only way Congress could ever be responsible for a government shut-down is if it were to fail to pass a bill authorizing spending, which would be unprecedented. Such a contingency would only be possible in two ways: either the House fails to approve a fiscal bill to prevent the shutdown or the Senate disagrees with the House bill.
After the Republicans won the majority in Congress in the 1994 elections, they proposed spending reductions in order to balance the budget. At the time, Clinton had raised taxes, dramatically cut the military and intelligence budget and yet increased the deficit (which, as I have noted previously, liberals in politics and the media referred to as his “deficit reduction plan”). Clinton projected $200 billion deficits indefinitely and was non-committal on how long it would take to balance the budget. In the meantime, he was well on his way to adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the federal debt, an increase that was not undone by the later temporary annual budget surpluses that have obscured his earlier spendthrift ways.
The Republicans in Congress adopted the strategy of passing spending cuts in order to present Clinton with the choice of vetoing the bill or shutting down the government, just as the Democrats had done with their deficit-spending proposals under his predecessor. The GOP strategy was not to shut down the government, but to force Clinton into the spending reductions. The liberal Democrats falsely portrayed the Republican strategy as intending to shut down the government. To liberal Democrats, government is the greatest force for good in the world and shutting it down, even temporarily in order to reduce the deficit, is a catastrophe. They employed the usual scare tactics that government spenders do by focusing on the most sensational aspects of the government shutdown while portraying the Republicans as “mean” for not wanting to spend more than the government took in while passing off the bill to future generations. For a time, the liberal scare tactics seemed to be working.
Then, despite the way it is still portrayed in the liberal media, public opinion began to turn against Clinton and the liberal Democrats as the American people began to regard the shutdown as the result of a lack of presidential leadership. In other words, they were increasingly recognizing Clinton’s veto as the cause of the government shutdown. The Republicans blinked first and compromised, although it was far short of their goals. Later, however, they built on their momentum and succeeded in forcing significant domestic spending cuts while increasing spending for the military and lowering some taxes. The reduction in the capital gains tax was particularly stimulative of the economic growth of the late 1990s that was the main cause of the later budget surpluses, not Clinton’s earlier tax increase which had slowed growth.
I raise the point that it is only the President or the Senate who can trigger a government shutdown in the current fiscal dispute. There is a possibility of a veto by President Barak Obama of any spending cuts approved by the Republican House of Representatives and agreed to by the Democratic Senate. This time, however, there could be a congressional failure to act if the Senate does not agree to the House’s spending cuts before there were any possibility of a presidential veto. Then, it would be the Senate’s fault for shutting down the government.
The consistent point is that regardless of the political party or motivation, only the President or the Senate can by their actions legally trigger the federal government to shut down for a lack of spending authority, as long as the representatives of the people do act.
At this time, the House wants to act, but is trying to approve a bill it knows the Senate and President would accept. If a compromise cannot be reached soon, the House will likely approve the spending cuts it wants and force the Senate or President to choose between reducing the deficit or shutting down the government. Conservatives must explain that the blame would lie with the liberal Democrats in the White House or Senate for failing to pass a fiscal bill, regardless of whether one agrees with the proposed Republican spending cuts or not. But given the fiscal crisis, conservatives ought to promote the cuts as the only fiscally, economically and morally responsible action.
But when Bush’s successor, Bill Clinton, vetoed the spending reductions of the Republican-controlled Congress, the Democrats and the liberal media blamed the Congress instead of the President. Their only consistency was in blaming the Republicans for shutting down the government as a result of the fiscal dispute.
Constitutionally, in disputes between the Executive and Legislative Branches of the federal government, only a president can shut down the government because only he has the power to veto spending bills or an increase in the debt ceiling approved by Congress.
The only way Congress could ever be responsible for a government shut-down is if it were to fail to pass a bill authorizing spending, which would be unprecedented. Such a contingency would only be possible in two ways: either the House fails to approve a fiscal bill to prevent the shutdown or the Senate disagrees with the House bill.
After the Republicans won the majority in Congress in the 1994 elections, they proposed spending reductions in order to balance the budget. At the time, Clinton had raised taxes, dramatically cut the military and intelligence budget and yet increased the deficit (which, as I have noted previously, liberals in politics and the media referred to as his “deficit reduction plan”). Clinton projected $200 billion deficits indefinitely and was non-committal on how long it would take to balance the budget. In the meantime, he was well on his way to adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the federal debt, an increase that was not undone by the later temporary annual budget surpluses that have obscured his earlier spendthrift ways.
The Republicans in Congress adopted the strategy of passing spending cuts in order to present Clinton with the choice of vetoing the bill or shutting down the government, just as the Democrats had done with their deficit-spending proposals under his predecessor. The GOP strategy was not to shut down the government, but to force Clinton into the spending reductions. The liberal Democrats falsely portrayed the Republican strategy as intending to shut down the government. To liberal Democrats, government is the greatest force for good in the world and shutting it down, even temporarily in order to reduce the deficit, is a catastrophe. They employed the usual scare tactics that government spenders do by focusing on the most sensational aspects of the government shutdown while portraying the Republicans as “mean” for not wanting to spend more than the government took in while passing off the bill to future generations. For a time, the liberal scare tactics seemed to be working.
Then, despite the way it is still portrayed in the liberal media, public opinion began to turn against Clinton and the liberal Democrats as the American people began to regard the shutdown as the result of a lack of presidential leadership. In other words, they were increasingly recognizing Clinton’s veto as the cause of the government shutdown. The Republicans blinked first and compromised, although it was far short of their goals. Later, however, they built on their momentum and succeeded in forcing significant domestic spending cuts while increasing spending for the military and lowering some taxes. The reduction in the capital gains tax was particularly stimulative of the economic growth of the late 1990s that was the main cause of the later budget surpluses, not Clinton’s earlier tax increase which had slowed growth.
I raise the point that it is only the President or the Senate who can trigger a government shutdown in the current fiscal dispute. There is a possibility of a veto by President Barak Obama of any spending cuts approved by the Republican House of Representatives and agreed to by the Democratic Senate. This time, however, there could be a congressional failure to act if the Senate does not agree to the House’s spending cuts before there were any possibility of a presidential veto. Then, it would be the Senate’s fault for shutting down the government.
The consistent point is that regardless of the political party or motivation, only the President or the Senate can by their actions legally trigger the federal government to shut down for a lack of spending authority, as long as the representatives of the people do act.
At this time, the House wants to act, but is trying to approve a bill it knows the Senate and President would accept. If a compromise cannot be reached soon, the House will likely approve the spending cuts it wants and force the Senate or President to choose between reducing the deficit or shutting down the government. Conservatives must explain that the blame would lie with the liberal Democrats in the White House or Senate for failing to pass a fiscal bill, regardless of whether one agrees with the proposed Republican spending cuts or not. But given the fiscal crisis, conservatives ought to promote the cuts as the only fiscally, economically and morally responsible action.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
A Conservative Refutation of Isolationists on the Libyan Civil War, Part I
In my first post on the Libyan Civil War, Conservative Commentary on the Libyan Crisis, I made the case that the Libyan Civil War was of international interest. In addition to the need to rescue foreign citizens from Libya, I cited the problem of refugees, political instability, the necessity to avoid moral complicity in crimes against humanity and the disruption of trade as concerns of the United States and its allies. In raising these points, I was mainly making the case of U.S. interest in the Libya, not the prudence of intervening beyond the imposition of economic sanctions and the freezing of assets.
The case for military intervention, however, was made particularly by my observation of the increasing fear that if Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi, who had retained some of his chemical weapons, had held onto power, he would return to terrorism against the U.S. and its Western allies.
The U.S. has global interests and Americans have a global presence. It also has the technical ability to intervene effectively, which imposes a moral duty on it to act to protect human lives. The U.S. military needs not serve as the “policeman of the world,” as isolationists on both the left and the right claim it would be if it intervenes, as they do every time. In fact, it does not serve as the policeman of much of the world, which is peaceful. Indeed, the American military does not even serve as the policeman of the United States! But U.S. interests and capabilities often compel it to act, sometimes non-militarily, sometimes militarily.
To isolationists, only one motive at a time is possible for any U.S. action. Thus, for example, if an intervention has a humanitarian aspect, they focus on that aspect alone and argue that the U.S. ought not to intervene militarily for humanitarian reasons. If an action benefits an ally, isolationists argue that it our alliance is “entangling” us in a war for our ally’s benefit, as if it is necessarily not in our interests. The motive of acting on additional interests is ignored.
In fact, whenever the U.S. acts in one way or another on behalf of its interests, isolationists oppose such intervention because they argue that it is not taken on behalf of a “vital interest,” which they insist is the standard for justifying intervention. Isolationists never have to explain what they mean by the term “vital interest,” which is not a term found in the U.S. Constitution they claim to follow strictly.
A closer examination of the term would be illuminating. “Vital interest” implies that there are interests less than vital, but isolationists never distinguish between the two. They always dismiss any interests as not being “vital interests” because they regard them as insignificant or illegitimate (e.g. they regard any economic interest, like stopping a thief, as illegitimate, while contradicting themselves by complaining about the economic cost of war). They declare a priori the lack of any “vital interests” that would justify action in defense of Americans or its interests or allies. Thus, isolationists conveniently do not have to make judgments about whether or not the U.S. has any interests, and, if so, whether they are truly vital.
Isolationists thereby fail to explain what criteria would make an interest vital. Does “vital” refer to the United States itself or to the lives of individual Americans? The responsibility of the U.S. is to protect not only the Union itself, but the American people. See my post, An Attack on Americans Anywhere Is an Attack on Us from September of 2009. If “vital” refers to the existence of the U.S., as opposed to the lives of individual Americans, then the September 11 Attacks did not threaten U.S. vital interests. Nearly three thousand people were killed in the attacks, but they argue that there was no direct threat to the viability of the Union. It was not an invasion, as the attackers were dead and al-Qaeda lacked even the potential for an invasion, they argue. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan did not commit the attacks, only certain members of al-Qaeda were allegedly responsible for the attacks whom could have been prosecuted or sued instead, and so on go their arguments.
Does “vital” mean an immediate interest, or the potential of one? If it means only the potential interest, then even the Pearl Harbor attack was not of “vital” U.S. interest, as the States were not yet under invasion. Remember, isolationists opposed even U.S. involvement in the Second World War.
Isolationists are always able to come up with an argument that there is no threat to U.S. “vital interest,” other than a theoretical invasion by foreigners, which is conveniently unlikely. Even then, they would likely minimize the threat. Indeed, isolationists never seem capable of recognizing any truly “vital” threats, while conveniently blaming the U.S. for causing the threats in the first place, as if to argue that it would not need to act if only it would withdraw from the world. They even cite Pearl Harbor and September 11 as proof of their theory. The term “vital interest,” therefore, and their insistence on it as a standard for intervention, is only an excuse for isolationists to oppose any action taken in defense of Americans and American interests or allies.
In short, the only “vital” threat isolationists see to the U.S. is the U.S. itself. Any foreign malevolence against Americans is blamed by them on American intervention, which they regard as the source of the problems in the world, in order to validate their theory. Isolationists fail to recognize the evil intent of an enemy whose ideology requires it to conquer as the source of the problems in the world.
Moreover, isolationists fail to see that the world does not want the U.S. to withdraw. It wants the U.S. to use its economic, technological or military resources to act for good.
In Part II, I shall explore recent examples of U.S. intervention and compare them to the Libyan Civil War.
The case for military intervention, however, was made particularly by my observation of the increasing fear that if Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi, who had retained some of his chemical weapons, had held onto power, he would return to terrorism against the U.S. and its Western allies.
The U.S. has global interests and Americans have a global presence. It also has the technical ability to intervene effectively, which imposes a moral duty on it to act to protect human lives. The U.S. military needs not serve as the “policeman of the world,” as isolationists on both the left and the right claim it would be if it intervenes, as they do every time. In fact, it does not serve as the policeman of much of the world, which is peaceful. Indeed, the American military does not even serve as the policeman of the United States! But U.S. interests and capabilities often compel it to act, sometimes non-militarily, sometimes militarily.
To isolationists, only one motive at a time is possible for any U.S. action. Thus, for example, if an intervention has a humanitarian aspect, they focus on that aspect alone and argue that the U.S. ought not to intervene militarily for humanitarian reasons. If an action benefits an ally, isolationists argue that it our alliance is “entangling” us in a war for our ally’s benefit, as if it is necessarily not in our interests. The motive of acting on additional interests is ignored.
In fact, whenever the U.S. acts in one way or another on behalf of its interests, isolationists oppose such intervention because they argue that it is not taken on behalf of a “vital interest,” which they insist is the standard for justifying intervention. Isolationists never have to explain what they mean by the term “vital interest,” which is not a term found in the U.S. Constitution they claim to follow strictly.
A closer examination of the term would be illuminating. “Vital interest” implies that there are interests less than vital, but isolationists never distinguish between the two. They always dismiss any interests as not being “vital interests” because they regard them as insignificant or illegitimate (e.g. they regard any economic interest, like stopping a thief, as illegitimate, while contradicting themselves by complaining about the economic cost of war). They declare a priori the lack of any “vital interests” that would justify action in defense of Americans or its interests or allies. Thus, isolationists conveniently do not have to make judgments about whether or not the U.S. has any interests, and, if so, whether they are truly vital.
Isolationists thereby fail to explain what criteria would make an interest vital. Does “vital” refer to the United States itself or to the lives of individual Americans? The responsibility of the U.S. is to protect not only the Union itself, but the American people. See my post, An Attack on Americans Anywhere Is an Attack on Us from September of 2009. If “vital” refers to the existence of the U.S., as opposed to the lives of individual Americans, then the September 11 Attacks did not threaten U.S. vital interests. Nearly three thousand people were killed in the attacks, but they argue that there was no direct threat to the viability of the Union. It was not an invasion, as the attackers were dead and al-Qaeda lacked even the potential for an invasion, they argue. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan did not commit the attacks, only certain members of al-Qaeda were allegedly responsible for the attacks whom could have been prosecuted or sued instead, and so on go their arguments.
Does “vital” mean an immediate interest, or the potential of one? If it means only the potential interest, then even the Pearl Harbor attack was not of “vital” U.S. interest, as the States were not yet under invasion. Remember, isolationists opposed even U.S. involvement in the Second World War.
Isolationists are always able to come up with an argument that there is no threat to U.S. “vital interest,” other than a theoretical invasion by foreigners, which is conveniently unlikely. Even then, they would likely minimize the threat. Indeed, isolationists never seem capable of recognizing any truly “vital” threats, while conveniently blaming the U.S. for causing the threats in the first place, as if to argue that it would not need to act if only it would withdraw from the world. They even cite Pearl Harbor and September 11 as proof of their theory. The term “vital interest,” therefore, and their insistence on it as a standard for intervention, is only an excuse for isolationists to oppose any action taken in defense of Americans and American interests or allies.
In short, the only “vital” threat isolationists see to the U.S. is the U.S. itself. Any foreign malevolence against Americans is blamed by them on American intervention, which they regard as the source of the problems in the world, in order to validate their theory. Isolationists fail to recognize the evil intent of an enemy whose ideology requires it to conquer as the source of the problems in the world.
Moreover, isolationists fail to see that the world does not want the U.S. to withdraw. It wants the U.S. to use its economic, technological or military resources to act for good.
In Part II, I shall explore recent examples of U.S. intervention and compare them to the Libyan Civil War.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Two-Year Blog Visit Report
I am pleased to report that in the two years since Statcounter has tracked my blog, there have been well over 2,800 visits, not counting my own and only counting hits from individuals at least one hour apart as separate visits. Thank you for your patronage!
Here are the latest statistics. Visits to my blog have come from 85 foreign states, as well as Hong Kong and the Palestinian Territories. My blog has been visited from all 50 American states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam. In addition to those who landed on or viewed my blog homepage, visitors have landed on over 170 posts and viewed over 30 more.
The most visitors have come from Malaysia, Algeria, Canada, United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Australia and Russia. The most visited post is The Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization, which has been viewed over 600 times. The next most visited, with over 200 visits, is The Economy, Deficit and Debt and George W. Bush's Inaguration; followed by Radicals in the Obama Administration; Obama Did Not Inherit the Economy from Bush; Follow-up on the Fall of Islamic Civilization; Misleading Media Phrases; Lepanto, by G.K. Chesterton; Commentary on the Roman Influence on America Exhibit at the National Constitution Center; A Comparison of the Federal Response to the Hurricane Katrina and the Haitian Earthquake and Herb Denenberg, In Memoriam, all of which were visited 50-100 times.
Since I have also been tracking visits to my blog recorded by Blogger in November, I have noticed far more visits that are not tracked by Statcounter, although the latter picked up some that the former did not. Nevertheless, Statcounter's statistics, which are much more specific than Blogger's, suggest a level of readership of my blog that is much appreciated.
Again, thank you for your patronage. Please visit my blog once or twice a week. As always, your questions, comments or suggestions are always welcome.
Here are the latest statistics. Visits to my blog have come from 85 foreign states, as well as Hong Kong and the Palestinian Territories. My blog has been visited from all 50 American states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam. In addition to those who landed on or viewed my blog homepage, visitors have landed on over 170 posts and viewed over 30 more.
The most visitors have come from Malaysia, Algeria, Canada, United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Australia and Russia. The most visited post is The Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization, which has been viewed over 600 times. The next most visited, with over 200 visits, is The Economy, Deficit and Debt and George W. Bush's Inaguration; followed by Radicals in the Obama Administration; Obama Did Not Inherit the Economy from Bush; Follow-up on the Fall of Islamic Civilization; Misleading Media Phrases; Lepanto, by G.K. Chesterton; Commentary on the Roman Influence on America Exhibit at the National Constitution Center; A Comparison of the Federal Response to the Hurricane Katrina and the Haitian Earthquake and Herb Denenberg, In Memoriam, all of which were visited 50-100 times.
Since I have also been tracking visits to my blog recorded by Blogger in November, I have noticed far more visits that are not tracked by Statcounter, although the latter picked up some that the former did not. Nevertheless, Statcounter's statistics, which are much more specific than Blogger's, suggest a level of readership of my blog that is much appreciated.
Again, thank you for your patronage. Please visit my blog once or twice a week. As always, your questions, comments or suggestions are always welcome.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Useless Cabinet Departments
Presidential Cabinet-level Departments have grown in both number and size over the last 150 years, while they have generally become more and more useless even as they grow more burdensome.
Beginning in the mid-Nineteenth Century, more and more departments have been created by the federal government and the secretaries who head them made part of the Cabinet. Few of these beyond the original five created by President George Washington, the Departments of State, War (now Defense), Treasury, Justice, Post Office (now an independent agency), are tasked with constitutional federal functions and even of those few that are, none of them ought to rise to the level of the Cabinet.
In fact, much of the work of these Cabinet Departments is not even appropriate for government, let alone the federal government. There is nothing federal about housing or agriculture, for example.
These Cabinet Departments were often created as boondoggles for patronage jobs for political parties. They were created as such or later elevated to cabinet status in order to please some political constituency.
The Cabinet is supposed to advise the President on matters of state. But, does it matter what the Secretary of Education thinks of the latest international crisis? Furthermore, each Cabinet Secretary, no matter how insignificant, inexperienced or unknown to the public is in line to the presidency, according to the Presidential Succession Act.
Cabinet Departments are headquartered in Washington, D.C. in massive buildings full of bureaucrats. It is striking how wasteful they are, considering they serve no valid purpose:
No commerce takes place at the Department of Commerce, except maybe if office vending machines are counted.
No agriculture takes place at the Department of Agriculture.
No one is educated at the Department of Education.
No healthcare is administered regularly at the Department of Health and Human Services.
No housing is provided at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
No energy is produced at the Department of Energy. In fact, it uses energy.
I propose the downgrading to the level of agencies the few Cabinet Departments that manage appropriate federal functions and the elimination of most of the rest of them that have been created since George Washington.
Beginning in the mid-Nineteenth Century, more and more departments have been created by the federal government and the secretaries who head them made part of the Cabinet. Few of these beyond the original five created by President George Washington, the Departments of State, War (now Defense), Treasury, Justice, Post Office (now an independent agency), are tasked with constitutional federal functions and even of those few that are, none of them ought to rise to the level of the Cabinet.
In fact, much of the work of these Cabinet Departments is not even appropriate for government, let alone the federal government. There is nothing federal about housing or agriculture, for example.
These Cabinet Departments were often created as boondoggles for patronage jobs for political parties. They were created as such or later elevated to cabinet status in order to please some political constituency.
The Cabinet is supposed to advise the President on matters of state. But, does it matter what the Secretary of Education thinks of the latest international crisis? Furthermore, each Cabinet Secretary, no matter how insignificant, inexperienced or unknown to the public is in line to the presidency, according to the Presidential Succession Act.
Cabinet Departments are headquartered in Washington, D.C. in massive buildings full of bureaucrats. It is striking how wasteful they are, considering they serve no valid purpose:
No commerce takes place at the Department of Commerce, except maybe if office vending machines are counted.
No agriculture takes place at the Department of Agriculture.
No one is educated at the Department of Education.
No healthcare is administered regularly at the Department of Health and Human Services.
No housing is provided at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
No energy is produced at the Department of Energy. In fact, it uses energy.
I propose the downgrading to the level of agencies the few Cabinet Departments that manage appropriate federal functions and the elimination of most of the rest of them that have been created since George Washington.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Foreign Updates: Portugal, Haiti, Italian Crucifixes in Schools
The opposition of the minority conservative party to the Portuguese government's austerity plan will plunge Portugal into a political crisis. As I had posted previously, the conservatives objected to the Socialist-led coalition government's plan to raise taxes on the poorer classes. The political crisis will probably tip Portugal toward asking for a financial bailout from the European Union.
Haiti's former dictator, Jean Bertrand Aristide, has returned to his home country from exile. I hope that he will share the same fate as Jean Claude Duvalier, who was arrested by the Haitians, as I noted in my post in February.
Italy won its appeal to the full panel of the European Court of Human Rights on the issue of crucifixes in public schools. I had posted about this subject several times. Backed by numerous predominately Catholic and Orthodox secular states, the Italians were successful in arguing that the crucifix is a symbol of Western Civilization, from which European values arise, not the imposition of any religious belief. The Holy See had argued that Europe needs to reaffirm the Christian roots of its culture.
Haiti's former dictator, Jean Bertrand Aristide, has returned to his home country from exile. I hope that he will share the same fate as Jean Claude Duvalier, who was arrested by the Haitians, as I noted in my post in February.
Italy won its appeal to the full panel of the European Court of Human Rights on the issue of crucifixes in public schools. I had posted about this subject several times. Backed by numerous predominately Catholic and Orthodox secular states, the Italians were successful in arguing that the crucifix is a symbol of Western Civilization, from which European values arise, not the imposition of any religious belief. The Holy See had argued that Europe needs to reaffirm the Christian roots of its culture.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Conservative Commentary on the Libyan Crisis
The United Nations Security Council has just approved the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya. The unprecedented support for such an action by the Arab League against a fellow Arab state made the difference in the international organization's opinion. The measure had been introduced by the British and French in response to the indiscriminate bombing of cities by Libyan dictator Colonel Muamar Qaddafi.
Contrary to the claims of isolationists, domestic strife is often a cause of international concern, in addition to the necessity of evacuating fellow countrymen. The Libyan Civil War is an example. Libyan refugees have overburdened neighboring Tunisia. Libyans have joined Tunisians and Egyptians who have poured into Italy's Lampedusa Island, between North Africa and Sicily. Italy has gained a committment from the European Union to share the burden for the North African refugees. Also, international trade has been interrupted as Libya's oil production has plummeted while oil speculaters have taken advantage of fears of further supply decreases in order to increase the price of oil. A general international concern is that instability is a danger to peace and commerce, especially in Muslim countries where al-Qaeda or other Islamists might try to take advantage.
Moreover, foreign states must not become morally complicit in crimes against humanity such as are being committed by Qaddafi's regime, which is why they have imposed economic sanctions on Libya, frozen its assets imposed bans on travel by members of its regime, or withdrawn their diplomats. The United States Navy is enforcing the arms embargo on Libya. The French and British even recognized the Libyan opposition government. Meanwhile, the international community is threatening the prosecution of the Qaddafi regime for crimes against humanity, as is its responsbility in order to deter such abuses in the future. There has also been an international effort at humanitarian aid for the Libyan people in the rebel-held areas.
Qaddafi's regime has lost any legitamacy it might have had. After taking power from King Idris al-Sanusi in a military coup d'etat in 1969, Qaddafi became a Soviet client state and a state sponsor of terrorism. The U.S. listed it as a terrorist sponsor and imposed economic sanctions. After a U.S. bombing in 1986, in retaliation for a deadly Libyan bombing in Germany that targeted American soldiers, a member of the Libyan regime orchestrated the bombing of an American civilian airline over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. The terrorist was caught and later succesfully prosecuted, but any orders from Qaddafi were never proven, although recent defectors are now claiming that he was behind the terrorist attack that killed hundreds. Libya did agree to pay reperations for the bombing, as well as a bombing of a French airliner. After the Liberation of Iraq, Libya agreed to give up its weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which included a nuclear program and chemical weapons and materials. It also renounced terrorism.
The international community legitimatized Qaddafi's regime by establishing diplomatic relations and ending its sanctions. However, Qaddafi's regime continued to be problematic. Its human rights record was horrendous, it lashed out at Switzerland over a minor private matter and engineered the early release of the Lockerbie bomber. Meanwhile, it failed to eliminate all of its chemical weapons, as it had promised. The Western hopes that Qaddafi's son would be a more moderate successor have been thoroughly dahsed by his support for his father's brutal crackdown on the opposition. Indeed, there has been a growing fear that if Qaddafi vanquished the opposition, he would revert to terrorism and devloping WMDs.
The actions approved by the U.N. Security Council are serious and risky and may not succeed in protecting Libyan civlians or the rebels, let alone liberating Libya from its tyrant. The no-fly zone may be too late. But the world could not turn its back on the slaughter of innocents and the brutal suppression of a legitimate opposition while leaving such a despot in power. It is hoped that the U.N. action will end the bloodshed and deter further crimes against humanity. The sale of arms to the Libyan rebels ought to be considerd, in addition to sharing intelligence with them.
I hope that the American and other pilots participating in the no-fly zone will be safe and that the nightmare of the Qaddafi regime will end for the people of Libya with the dream of liberty.
Contrary to the claims of isolationists, domestic strife is often a cause of international concern, in addition to the necessity of evacuating fellow countrymen. The Libyan Civil War is an example. Libyan refugees have overburdened neighboring Tunisia. Libyans have joined Tunisians and Egyptians who have poured into Italy's Lampedusa Island, between North Africa and Sicily. Italy has gained a committment from the European Union to share the burden for the North African refugees. Also, international trade has been interrupted as Libya's oil production has plummeted while oil speculaters have taken advantage of fears of further supply decreases in order to increase the price of oil. A general international concern is that instability is a danger to peace and commerce, especially in Muslim countries where al-Qaeda or other Islamists might try to take advantage.
Moreover, foreign states must not become morally complicit in crimes against humanity such as are being committed by Qaddafi's regime, which is why they have imposed economic sanctions on Libya, frozen its assets imposed bans on travel by members of its regime, or withdrawn their diplomats. The United States Navy is enforcing the arms embargo on Libya. The French and British even recognized the Libyan opposition government. Meanwhile, the international community is threatening the prosecution of the Qaddafi regime for crimes against humanity, as is its responsbility in order to deter such abuses in the future. There has also been an international effort at humanitarian aid for the Libyan people in the rebel-held areas.
Qaddafi's regime has lost any legitamacy it might have had. After taking power from King Idris al-Sanusi in a military coup d'etat in 1969, Qaddafi became a Soviet client state and a state sponsor of terrorism. The U.S. listed it as a terrorist sponsor and imposed economic sanctions. After a U.S. bombing in 1986, in retaliation for a deadly Libyan bombing in Germany that targeted American soldiers, a member of the Libyan regime orchestrated the bombing of an American civilian airline over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. The terrorist was caught and later succesfully prosecuted, but any orders from Qaddafi were never proven, although recent defectors are now claiming that he was behind the terrorist attack that killed hundreds. Libya did agree to pay reperations for the bombing, as well as a bombing of a French airliner. After the Liberation of Iraq, Libya agreed to give up its weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which included a nuclear program and chemical weapons and materials. It also renounced terrorism.
The international community legitimatized Qaddafi's regime by establishing diplomatic relations and ending its sanctions. However, Qaddafi's regime continued to be problematic. Its human rights record was horrendous, it lashed out at Switzerland over a minor private matter and engineered the early release of the Lockerbie bomber. Meanwhile, it failed to eliminate all of its chemical weapons, as it had promised. The Western hopes that Qaddafi's son would be a more moderate successor have been thoroughly dahsed by his support for his father's brutal crackdown on the opposition. Indeed, there has been a growing fear that if Qaddafi vanquished the opposition, he would revert to terrorism and devloping WMDs.
The actions approved by the U.N. Security Council are serious and risky and may not succeed in protecting Libyan civlians or the rebels, let alone liberating Libya from its tyrant. The no-fly zone may be too late. But the world could not turn its back on the slaughter of innocents and the brutal suppression of a legitimate opposition while leaving such a despot in power. It is hoped that the U.N. action will end the bloodshed and deter further crimes against humanity. The sale of arms to the Libyan rebels ought to be considerd, in addition to sharing intelligence with them.
I hope that the American and other pilots participating in the no-fly zone will be safe and that the nightmare of the Qaddafi regime will end for the people of Libya with the dream of liberty.
Italians Celebrate 150 Years of Unity
Today, Italians are celebrating the 150th anniversary of the Risorgimento, the “resurgence,” the Unification of Italy. The Italian Republic is planning to observe this major event in world history with a series of commemorations this year.
It may be surprising to many Americans to learn that there had never been an independent state ruled by Italians covering the Italian peninsula until 1861. From the Fall of Roman Empire in 476 A.D. until then, Italy was dominated by foreigners while Italians were also divided into many independent Italian states ruled by, nobles, the Pope or by the people in the form of small republics.
Italians like Dante and Macchiavelli dreamed of a unified Italy. There was a feeling among the people of the Italian peninsula and Sicily of geographical, religious and cultural unity from their common ancient heritage, despite some differences in culture because of foreign influences. Meanwhile, Dante and Petrarch had helped to unify Italy linguistically by establishing the Tuscan dialect as a literary language instead of Latin. Tuscan, with influence from the Sicilian School of Poetry, thus gradually became the modern “Italian” language.
Napoleon established a “Kingdom of Italy” that included northern Italy, but it was ruled by the French. Nevertheless, the idea of a foreign-ruled Italian state only increased Italian nationalism, the object of which was to unite the Italians.
The revolt intended to unify Italy led by Giuseppe Mazzini in 1848 against the Austrians, who were dominating much of northern Italy by that point, failed. Eleven years later, however, the Savoyard King of Sardinia-Piedmont, Vittorio Emanuele II, began a new effort at unification when he traded Savoy to France for French help in driving the Austrians out of Lombardy. Other northern Italian states soon joined to his side, while Giuseppe Garibaldi and his Thousand overthrew the Spanish-ruled Kingdom of the Two Sicilies based in Naples by 1861. Garibaldi saluted Vittorio Emanuele as the first King of Italy. The Kingdom of Italy was declared on March 17, 1861.
Venezia and the Tyrol were won from Austria in 1866 and the Papal States were added in 1870, at which point all Italian states were unified except for San Marino.
The Unification of Italy served as a model for the reunification of Germany ten years later.
After 1946, the monarchy was abolished and Italy became a Republic.
I congratulate the Italians on their accomplishment and wish them continued unity.
It may be surprising to many Americans to learn that there had never been an independent state ruled by Italians covering the Italian peninsula until 1861. From the Fall of Roman Empire in 476 A.D. until then, Italy was dominated by foreigners while Italians were also divided into many independent Italian states ruled by, nobles, the Pope or by the people in the form of small republics.
Italians like Dante and Macchiavelli dreamed of a unified Italy. There was a feeling among the people of the Italian peninsula and Sicily of geographical, religious and cultural unity from their common ancient heritage, despite some differences in culture because of foreign influences. Meanwhile, Dante and Petrarch had helped to unify Italy linguistically by establishing the Tuscan dialect as a literary language instead of Latin. Tuscan, with influence from the Sicilian School of Poetry, thus gradually became the modern “Italian” language.
Napoleon established a “Kingdom of Italy” that included northern Italy, but it was ruled by the French. Nevertheless, the idea of a foreign-ruled Italian state only increased Italian nationalism, the object of which was to unite the Italians.
The revolt intended to unify Italy led by Giuseppe Mazzini in 1848 against the Austrians, who were dominating much of northern Italy by that point, failed. Eleven years later, however, the Savoyard King of Sardinia-Piedmont, Vittorio Emanuele II, began a new effort at unification when he traded Savoy to France for French help in driving the Austrians out of Lombardy. Other northern Italian states soon joined to his side, while Giuseppe Garibaldi and his Thousand overthrew the Spanish-ruled Kingdom of the Two Sicilies based in Naples by 1861. Garibaldi saluted Vittorio Emanuele as the first King of Italy. The Kingdom of Italy was declared on March 17, 1861.
Venezia and the Tyrol were won from Austria in 1866 and the Papal States were added in 1870, at which point all Italian states were unified except for San Marino.
The Unification of Italy served as a model for the reunification of Germany ten years later.
After 1946, the monarchy was abolished and Italy became a Republic.
I congratulate the Italians on their accomplishment and wish them continued unity.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Conservative Commentary on the Pennsylvania Special Election
Because the Democratic candidate won yesterday's Special Election in Pennsylvania's 11th Senatorial District, liberals are potraying it as a referendum on Governor Tom Corbett. They are exaggerating the significance of the election.
The District, wherein I reside, has a nearly two-to-one Democratic voter registration advantage over Republicans. It had been held for 38 years by the late Democratic Senator whose death created the vacancy. The Democratic candidate was a popular former Berks County Commissioner who was known for preserving farmland. She had escaped criticism for her votes to increase taxes 18% and 34%, which have resulted in an unnecessary surplus of $100 million, as well as her votes to increase spending, until the Special Election.
The Republican effort to inform the voters about her taxing and spending record resulted in her underperformance of the voter registration margin by several percentage points. The fact that she was not pro-life, unlike the late Democratic Senator who held the seat, might have contributed to some degree, although it was not a major overt part of the GOP campaign.
Governor Corbett's budget only came out a week before the election, after he had made a campaign appearance for the Republican candidate. In it, he proposes to cut spending without raising taxes, as he had promised during his campaign. However, the Reading Eagle, the only daily newspaper in the district, focused on the cuts to education while largely ignoring the many other, often less controversial, cuts in his budget. Additionally, one of its reporters then took the GOP candidate's remarks (at the appearance I had posted about of Lieutenant Governor Jim Cawley) about Governor Corbett keeping his campaign promises out of context in order to make it appear as if he were gleeful about the painful cuts.
Another factor in the background was fear among organized labor that Pennsylvania would see a replay of the reduction of collective bargaining rights for workers as in Wisconsin, even though Governor Corbett had firmly declared that it would not happen in the Keystone State. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker had explained that his state enjoyed the strongest civil protection law in the Union. Moreover, both the Democrats and labor were motivated to regain momentum after the 2010 Elections.
Given the Democratic voter registration advantage and the popularity of the Democratic incumbent, the results of the Pennsylvania Special Election for the 11th Senatorial District suggest that Pennsylvanians prefer cutting spending to raising taxes, despite the negative portrayal of Governor Corbett's proposed budget.
The District, wherein I reside, has a nearly two-to-one Democratic voter registration advantage over Republicans. It had been held for 38 years by the late Democratic Senator whose death created the vacancy. The Democratic candidate was a popular former Berks County Commissioner who was known for preserving farmland. She had escaped criticism for her votes to increase taxes 18% and 34%, which have resulted in an unnecessary surplus of $100 million, as well as her votes to increase spending, until the Special Election.
The Republican effort to inform the voters about her taxing and spending record resulted in her underperformance of the voter registration margin by several percentage points. The fact that she was not pro-life, unlike the late Democratic Senator who held the seat, might have contributed to some degree, although it was not a major overt part of the GOP campaign.
Governor Corbett's budget only came out a week before the election, after he had made a campaign appearance for the Republican candidate. In it, he proposes to cut spending without raising taxes, as he had promised during his campaign. However, the Reading Eagle, the only daily newspaper in the district, focused on the cuts to education while largely ignoring the many other, often less controversial, cuts in his budget. Additionally, one of its reporters then took the GOP candidate's remarks (at the appearance I had posted about of Lieutenant Governor Jim Cawley) about Governor Corbett keeping his campaign promises out of context in order to make it appear as if he were gleeful about the painful cuts.
Another factor in the background was fear among organized labor that Pennsylvania would see a replay of the reduction of collective bargaining rights for workers as in Wisconsin, even though Governor Corbett had firmly declared that it would not happen in the Keystone State. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker had explained that his state enjoyed the strongest civil protection law in the Union. Moreover, both the Democrats and labor were motivated to regain momentum after the 2010 Elections.
Given the Democratic voter registration advantage and the popularity of the Democratic incumbent, the results of the Pennsylvania Special Election for the 11th Senatorial District suggest that Pennsylvanians prefer cutting spending to raising taxes, despite the negative portrayal of Governor Corbett's proposed budget.
Monday, March 14, 2011
A Severance Tax Would Be an Extra Tax on Marcellus Shale
Proponents of a severance tax on natural gas drillers in the Marcellus Shale formation in Pennsylvania are implying that the gas drillers are not currently paying any state tax. They claim, for example, that Governor Tom Corbett and the Republicans in the General Assembly would not tax the gas drillers. However, their claim is false because the proposed severance tax would be in addition to the corporate taxes the drillers already pay, like all other Pennsylvania corporations.
The severance tax proponents argue that because most other states in the American Union impose a severance tax, Pennsylvania should, too. However, they do not consider that the Commonwealth’s corporate income tax is among the highest in the United States and the world. Pennsylvania is unusual in that it taxes both income and assets (i.e. the Corporate Net Income Tax and the Capital Stock and Franchise Tax). The lack of a severance tax, therefore, helps to balance the high corporate taxes, thus making Pennsylvania attractive enough for gas drillers, who could take their rigs to more competitive states, to operate in the Keystone State.
As I have noted in previous posts, severance tax proponents would kill the goose that laid the golden egg by imposing a severance tax in addition to Pennsylvania’s high corporate taxes. Natural gas drillers operating in the Marcellus formation not only pay corporate taxes to the Commonwealth, they employ tens of thousands of workers who, in turn, pay state and municipal income taxes. The drillers also pay royalties to landowners, thereby increasing the value of land, which, in turn, increases the amount of county, municipal and school real estate taxes paid. In addition, the drillers improve roads, which lessens the need for government to expend public money for that purpose.
Environmental violations, which are usually cited as an excuse to impose a severance tax on Marcellus gas drillers, may be addressed by lawsuits or civil fines, as with any other industry.
Indeed, proponents of a severance tax on top of the taxes corporations already pay would unfairly impose a special tax on one industry that no other industry pays. In short, no one is proposing that gas drillers not be taxed, only that they not pay an additional tax.
The severance tax proponents argue that because most other states in the American Union impose a severance tax, Pennsylvania should, too. However, they do not consider that the Commonwealth’s corporate income tax is among the highest in the United States and the world. Pennsylvania is unusual in that it taxes both income and assets (i.e. the Corporate Net Income Tax and the Capital Stock and Franchise Tax). The lack of a severance tax, therefore, helps to balance the high corporate taxes, thus making Pennsylvania attractive enough for gas drillers, who could take their rigs to more competitive states, to operate in the Keystone State.
As I have noted in previous posts, severance tax proponents would kill the goose that laid the golden egg by imposing a severance tax in addition to Pennsylvania’s high corporate taxes. Natural gas drillers operating in the Marcellus formation not only pay corporate taxes to the Commonwealth, they employ tens of thousands of workers who, in turn, pay state and municipal income taxes. The drillers also pay royalties to landowners, thereby increasing the value of land, which, in turn, increases the amount of county, municipal and school real estate taxes paid. In addition, the drillers improve roads, which lessens the need for government to expend public money for that purpose.
Environmental violations, which are usually cited as an excuse to impose a severance tax on Marcellus gas drillers, may be addressed by lawsuits or civil fines, as with any other industry.
Indeed, proponents of a severance tax on top of the taxes corporations already pay would unfairly impose a special tax on one industry that no other industry pays. In short, no one is proposing that gas drillers not be taxed, only that they not pay an additional tax.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Pennsylvania State Senate Special Election
There will be a Special Election for the 11th Senatorial District of Pennsylvania on Tuesday, March 15 in order to fill a vacancy created by the death of a Democratic Senator who held the seat for 38 years. The seat is based around Reading and much of the greater Reading area in Berks County.
The current composition of the Senate, with the vacancy, is 30 Republicans, 19 Democrats. State Senate seats seldom change party hands in the Keystone State. This election is the only one in the Commonwealth scheduled until the General Election in November, other than the Primary Election.
The Republican nominee is Larry Medaglia, who serves as the Berks County Register of Wills, and is a cousin of mine. He is fiscally conservative, pro-life, pro-gun and committed to advocating for the City of Reading.
It was his candidacy for which the Lieutenant Governor, Jim Cawley, appeared in Reading last week, which I posted about.
Vote on Tuesday, March 15.
The current composition of the Senate, with the vacancy, is 30 Republicans, 19 Democrats. State Senate seats seldom change party hands in the Keystone State. This election is the only one in the Commonwealth scheduled until the General Election in November, other than the Primary Election.
The Republican nominee is Larry Medaglia, who serves as the Berks County Register of Wills, and is a cousin of mine. He is fiscally conservative, pro-life, pro-gun and committed to advocating for the City of Reading.
It was his candidacy for which the Lieutenant Governor, Jim Cawley, appeared in Reading last week, which I posted about.
Vote on Tuesday, March 15.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Abolish Daylight Saving Time
Daylight Saving Time should be abolished. It is not only inconvenient, dangerous and costly, but unnecessary.
It is inconvenient to have to change the clocks twice a year, but this inconvenience extends to the disruption of sleeping and eating patterns. Many people forget to change their clocks, which presents other sorts of inconveniences.
The disruption of sleep is also dangerous in many ways. A further danger to safety is the increase in darkness in the morning hours, which leads to more traffic accidents.
As a conservative, I am particularly disturbed by the costliness, in terms of time and production, to business and even to government of all the clock-changing, which is especially magnified nowadays with computerization. Much unnecessary computer programing and operation is necessitated by this outdated custom.
But my biggest reason for opposing Daylight Saving Time is that it does not save any daylight, as even the most arrogant government cannot change the rising or the setting of the sun. There is still the same amount of daylight under Daylight Saving Time as under Standard time, just at a different time. Moreover, it is implemented at the wrong season, as the time when more daylight in the morning would be appreciated would be in the wintertime, not the summertime.
I propose a common-sense solution: adjust work or school schedules seasonally instead.
It is inconvenient to have to change the clocks twice a year, but this inconvenience extends to the disruption of sleeping and eating patterns. Many people forget to change their clocks, which presents other sorts of inconveniences.
The disruption of sleep is also dangerous in many ways. A further danger to safety is the increase in darkness in the morning hours, which leads to more traffic accidents.
As a conservative, I am particularly disturbed by the costliness, in terms of time and production, to business and even to government of all the clock-changing, which is especially magnified nowadays with computerization. Much unnecessary computer programing and operation is necessitated by this outdated custom.
But my biggest reason for opposing Daylight Saving Time is that it does not save any daylight, as even the most arrogant government cannot change the rising or the setting of the sun. There is still the same amount of daylight under Daylight Saving Time as under Standard time, just at a different time. Moreover, it is implemented at the wrong season, as the time when more daylight in the morning would be appreciated would be in the wintertime, not the summertime.
I propose a common-sense solution: adjust work or school schedules seasonally instead.
Friday, March 11, 2011
March of 2011 Personal Notes
I apologize, dear readers, for not having posted as frequently as usual during the last several weeks, as I have been unusually preoccupied with local political matters.
One major example is that I have decided to seek election to the Reading School Board again, but will hold off on commenting further until I have more time.
Also, I had the honor of introducing the Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania, Jim Cawley, whom I have known since our time in the College Republicans, at tonight's Spring Dinner of the Berks County Republican Committee.
I did, however, post a response to a comment that I appreciated from a visitor from the Philippines to my post from April of 2009, the Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2009/04/my-recent-posts-about-lepanto-and-fr.html. As you can see, I can post the link to previous posts, which I hope will make visitors more likely to view them, instead of relying upon them to use the archive or search functions on the left-hand column, although the link can be established only in posts, not in posted comments.
I hope to post a several more times over the next few days about some timely issues. Please visit again soon. Thank you.
One major example is that I have decided to seek election to the Reading School Board again, but will hold off on commenting further until I have more time.
Also, I had the honor of introducing the Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania, Jim Cawley, whom I have known since our time in the College Republicans, at tonight's Spring Dinner of the Berks County Republican Committee.
I did, however, post a response to a comment that I appreciated from a visitor from the Philippines to my post from April of 2009, the Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2009/04/my-recent-posts-about-lepanto-and-fr.html. As you can see, I can post the link to previous posts, which I hope will make visitors more likely to view them, instead of relying upon them to use the archive or search functions on the left-hand column, although the link can be established only in posts, not in posted comments.
I hope to post a several more times over the next few days about some timely issues. Please visit again soon. Thank you.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Frank Buckles, In Memoriam
Frank Buckles, the last surviving American veteran of World War I, passed away yesterday at the age of 110. He had served as an ambulance driver in France during the “Great War.”
Born in 1901, Buckles had enlisted in the United States Army in 1917 at age 16 by lying about his age after several unsuccessful attempts with the armed services. Buckles was also a civilian prisoner of war for three years in the Philippines after being captured by the Japanese during World War II.
The last surviving “Doughboy” was awarded the Legion of War by the French and honored by President George W. Bush at the White House. Although he did not see combat, Buckles will receive the unusual honor of being buried at Arlington National Cemetery. Representatives of the British and French governments will attend his funeral.
Buckles had campaigned for an American World War I monument on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. Although there is a monument there to District of Columbia veterans of the war, there is no monument for the millions of American veterans of World War I. His family is requesting donations be sent to the National World War One Legacy Project. I hope that his death increases awareness of the need for such a monument.
In a completion ceremony at the Reading-Muhlenberg Vocational-Technical School in 2007, I addressed the graduates as President of the Joint School Committee. I cited the example of Frank Buckles who, although he was 107 at the time, was still reading a book about history, in urging them to “never stop learning.”
Born in 1901, Buckles had enlisted in the United States Army in 1917 at age 16 by lying about his age after several unsuccessful attempts with the armed services. Buckles was also a civilian prisoner of war for three years in the Philippines after being captured by the Japanese during World War II.
The last surviving “Doughboy” was awarded the Legion of War by the French and honored by President George W. Bush at the White House. Although he did not see combat, Buckles will receive the unusual honor of being buried at Arlington National Cemetery. Representatives of the British and French governments will attend his funeral.
Buckles had campaigned for an American World War I monument on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. Although there is a monument there to District of Columbia veterans of the war, there is no monument for the millions of American veterans of World War I. His family is requesting donations be sent to the National World War One Legacy Project. I hope that his death increases awareness of the need for such a monument.
In a completion ceremony at the Reading-Muhlenberg Vocational-Technical School in 2007, I addressed the graduates as President of the Joint School Committee. I cited the example of Frank Buckles who, although he was 107 at the time, was still reading a book about history, in urging them to “never stop learning.”
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, Rest in Peace
Dr. Bernard Nathanson died yesterday at the age of 84. He was famous as a leading abortionist who converted to the pro-life cause.
Dr. Nathanson, an atheist who was an ethnic Jew, had founded the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (known today as NARAL ProChoice America). He personally conducted or oversaw thousands of abortions. Dr. Nathanson was the first to argue that the child in the womb is only part of “a woman's body,” and was among those who coined the word “choice” to describe the abortion of one's child.
With the advent of modern technology, however, Dr. Nathanson began to have a change of heart. His famous 1985 film, Silent Scream, depicted sonogram images of a real abortion, the first major use of technology on behalf of the pro-life cause. Dr. Nathanson produced another film and authored a number of books. In one of them, he lamented his responsibility for ushering in a “barbaric age” through abortion.
Dr. Nathanson later converted to Catholicism and conducted much penance to atone for his sins. His conversion from the Culture of Death to the Culture of Life was also made by the two women, Jane Roe and Jane Doe, whose United States Supreme Court cases, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton led to legalized abortion in the U.S., meaning that all three of the most important pro-abortion pioneers all converted to the pro-life cause. Dr. Nathanson's testimony inspired many others to convert or to become active on behalf of the Culture of Life.
May the example of Dr. Bernard Nathanson continue to inspire us to defend life and to use technology to better serve God and man. May Dr. Nathanson rest in peace.
Dr. Nathanson, an atheist who was an ethnic Jew, had founded the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (known today as NARAL ProChoice America). He personally conducted or oversaw thousands of abortions. Dr. Nathanson was the first to argue that the child in the womb is only part of “a woman's body,” and was among those who coined the word “choice” to describe the abortion of one's child.
With the advent of modern technology, however, Dr. Nathanson began to have a change of heart. His famous 1985 film, Silent Scream, depicted sonogram images of a real abortion, the first major use of technology on behalf of the pro-life cause. Dr. Nathanson produced another film and authored a number of books. In one of them, he lamented his responsibility for ushering in a “barbaric age” through abortion.
Dr. Nathanson later converted to Catholicism and conducted much penance to atone for his sins. His conversion from the Culture of Death to the Culture of Life was also made by the two women, Jane Roe and Jane Doe, whose United States Supreme Court cases, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton led to legalized abortion in the U.S., meaning that all three of the most important pro-abortion pioneers all converted to the pro-life cause. Dr. Nathanson's testimony inspired many others to convert or to become active on behalf of the Culture of Life.
May the example of Dr. Bernard Nathanson continue to inspire us to defend life and to use technology to better serve God and man. May Dr. Nathanson rest in peace.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Bush Promoted Freedom, Not Democracy
In one of his last State of the Union Addresses, United States President George W. Bush declared that the policy of the United States would be to promote “freedom.” He did not say that it was the policy of the U.S. to promote “democracy.” These words are incorrectly being used interchangeably by the politicians, the media and other commentators.
Freedom is a state of being. Specifically, it is the state of being free. Democracy, rule of the people, is a form of government. There may be freedom with or without democracy, and democracy with or without freedom.
There is a difference between a democracy and a representative republic. The American Founding Fathers distinguished between these two forms of government (See Federalist #14 by James Madison). Democracy is the direct rule of the people, whereas a representative republic is ruled by representatives. Representatives may be appointed or elected. If they are elected, the form of government is sometimes called “representative democracy.”
When the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq were overthrown in 2001 and 2003, respectively, by coalitions led by the U.S., the Afghan and Iraqi peoples were thereby liberated. Democracy was not “imposed” upon them; they were allowed to be free. Indeed, it is impossible to “impose” freedom, for it is the natural state of being. Although provisional governments were established, as is necessary under a military occupation once major combat operations cease, the Afghans and Iraqis then exercised self-determination in choosing a parliamentary democratic republican forms of government. But they were already free from oppression once their oppressors were no longer in power.
Although freedom is usually associated with democratic states, some rulers get elected and then usurp democracy and govern as tyrants, often much more less free than the non-democratic regime they replace, as I have noted repeatedly. Napoleon and Hitler are infamous examples in world history. There have been numerous examples in the post-colonial period in Africa, most notably Robert Mugabe, who is still in power. Haiti’s John Baptiste Aristide and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez are recent examples about whom I have posted. In 2009, the Honduran President, inspired by Chavez, intended to usurp democracy, but was thwarted constitutionally by the Honduran government (See my post, A Coup for Democracy, from June of 2009).
This phenomenon has also occurred in the Islamic World. The Iranian Revolution was ostensibly democratic, but led to a despotic regime far more brutal than the one it replaced – one that became the greatest state sponsor of terrorism. Lebanon became democratic, but the Iranian-backed Hezbollah terrorist organization first became part of the governing coalition, and, as I mentioned in my last post, has now become the governing majority of the Lebanese republic. It remains to be seen whether or not it will govern democratically.
It also remains to be seen whether the Tunisian and Egyptian democratic Revolutions I have posted about have been successful. They were ostensibly democratic, but included a significant number of anti-democratic Islamists among the opposition who could get elected like Hezbollah in Lebanon. Whether these revolutions lead to freedom will be the measure of their success, not whether they lead to democracy – especially one that allows anti-democratic forces to usurp freedom.
There have been protests in the republics of Algeria and Yemen and in the absolute monarchies of Jordan and Bahrain, all of which are allies of the United States in the War on Terrorism, as well as in the dictatorships of Syria and Iran, which are both state sponsors of terror. Libya, where there have also been protests, renounced terrorism, but is still ruled by an authoritarian dictator.
I hope that these protests lead to freedom in all of those states, especially if they do not replace allies with foes and do replace foes with allies. If they do lead to freedom, they will represent the fulfillment of Bush’s policy regardless of the forms of government they produce, for it is better to be ruled by a benign dictator while free than to be enslaved by a democrat. Therefore, his successor must take care to focus more on freedom than on the forms of government these regime changes produce.
Freedom is a state of being. Specifically, it is the state of being free. Democracy, rule of the people, is a form of government. There may be freedom with or without democracy, and democracy with or without freedom.
There is a difference between a democracy and a representative republic. The American Founding Fathers distinguished between these two forms of government (See Federalist #14 by James Madison). Democracy is the direct rule of the people, whereas a representative republic is ruled by representatives. Representatives may be appointed or elected. If they are elected, the form of government is sometimes called “representative democracy.”
When the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq were overthrown in 2001 and 2003, respectively, by coalitions led by the U.S., the Afghan and Iraqi peoples were thereby liberated. Democracy was not “imposed” upon them; they were allowed to be free. Indeed, it is impossible to “impose” freedom, for it is the natural state of being. Although provisional governments were established, as is necessary under a military occupation once major combat operations cease, the Afghans and Iraqis then exercised self-determination in choosing a parliamentary democratic republican forms of government. But they were already free from oppression once their oppressors were no longer in power.
Although freedom is usually associated with democratic states, some rulers get elected and then usurp democracy and govern as tyrants, often much more less free than the non-democratic regime they replace, as I have noted repeatedly. Napoleon and Hitler are infamous examples in world history. There have been numerous examples in the post-colonial period in Africa, most notably Robert Mugabe, who is still in power. Haiti’s John Baptiste Aristide and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez are recent examples about whom I have posted. In 2009, the Honduran President, inspired by Chavez, intended to usurp democracy, but was thwarted constitutionally by the Honduran government (See my post, A Coup for Democracy, from June of 2009).
This phenomenon has also occurred in the Islamic World. The Iranian Revolution was ostensibly democratic, but led to a despotic regime far more brutal than the one it replaced – one that became the greatest state sponsor of terrorism. Lebanon became democratic, but the Iranian-backed Hezbollah terrorist organization first became part of the governing coalition, and, as I mentioned in my last post, has now become the governing majority of the Lebanese republic. It remains to be seen whether or not it will govern democratically.
It also remains to be seen whether the Tunisian and Egyptian democratic Revolutions I have posted about have been successful. They were ostensibly democratic, but included a significant number of anti-democratic Islamists among the opposition who could get elected like Hezbollah in Lebanon. Whether these revolutions lead to freedom will be the measure of their success, not whether they lead to democracy – especially one that allows anti-democratic forces to usurp freedom.
There have been protests in the republics of Algeria and Yemen and in the absolute monarchies of Jordan and Bahrain, all of which are allies of the United States in the War on Terrorism, as well as in the dictatorships of Syria and Iran, which are both state sponsors of terror. Libya, where there have also been protests, renounced terrorism, but is still ruled by an authoritarian dictator.
I hope that these protests lead to freedom in all of those states, especially if they do not replace allies with foes and do replace foes with allies. If they do lead to freedom, they will represent the fulfillment of Bush’s policy regardless of the forms of government they produce, for it is better to be ruled by a benign dictator while free than to be enslaved by a democrat. Therefore, his successor must take care to focus more on freedom than on the forms of government these regime changes produce.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)