In his column in Human Events today, Michael Barone, author of The Almanac of American Politics, writes that he has produced a map of the 50 American states showing which political party leads in public opinion polls in each of the states, with the Republican-leaning states colored in blue and the Democratic-leaning ones colored in red. Thus, he has reversed the color designation practice that has been used by the media and political commentators since 2000. This welcome shift is long overdue.
Red and blue are symbolic opposites, as they are two of the three primary colors (with yellow) and are nearly at opposite ends of the visible light spectrum. Blue is symbolically associated with good and red with evil. For example, in a blockbuster film released just three years before that watershed election, the hero of Star Wars used a blue light saber, while the villain working for the evil “Empire” (like the “red” Union of Soviet Socialist Republics United States President Ronald Reagan referred to as the “Evil Empire”) used a red one. Throughout the Cold War between the Soviets and the West, the Catholic Blue Army fought the Communist Red Army through prayer for the conversion of communist Russia from atheism to Christianity.
The media, especially the three television broadcast networks, began coloring the states whose presidential electors were won by each of the parties either blue or red on maps at least as early as 1980. Although not all of the broadcasters used the same color designation, the majority colored the states won by Republicans blue and Democrats red. This designation seemed fitting at the time because the GOP’s Reagan-Bush ticket made the media’s maps turn mostly blue, while the Democratic Party’s Carter-Mondale ticket succeeded in turning only a few states red, the color of socialism and communism, as their party platform favored welfare statism and a more conciliatory approach to the Soviet menace.
The liberal media was not indicating any support for Reagan in its blue coloration for him, as it did not expect him to win, especially with such a large 40-state electoral mandate. Indeed, it established a practice of alternating color designation in order to be fair to the parties, so that each election year the designation would be reversed, with the Democrats represented by blue and the Republicans red, and so on. The new cable television networks joined in participating in the alternating color designation custom, which continued through the 2000 election.
The disputed 2000 election for presidential electors significantly raised the public consciousness of the color designation as the media and political commentators referred to this or that states as “blue” or “red.” Such references to the states continued over the next election cycle. In 2004, the media and political commentators ended the practice of alternating the color designation. They have now permanently fixed the color designation as blue for Democrats and red for Republicans, thereby abandoning all fairness.
Republicans and conservatives should demonstrate their independence of the liberal media by following Barone’s example and coloring Republican states blue and Democratic states red, especially now that the creeping socialist platform of the latter party is becoming ever more clear.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
More Language for Conservatives to Avoid
“Progressives” vs. “Liberals”
Liberals prefer to refer to themselves as “Progressives,” as if to imply that while they are in favor of progress, conservatives are against it. By progress, however, they do not necessarily mean improvement, but sometimes mean any kind of change, regardless of whether that change represents reform, while they sometimes oppose changes that conservatives support which do represent reform. While conservatives favor conserving that which is good, they also favor reform that causes progress, whereas liberals are for radical changes (e.g. statism), regardless of whether such a change represents an improvement over what it replaces. Gradually over the decades, liberals have become relatively conservative and anti-progressive by supporting the welfare state or public education, for example, while resisting any significant reforms. Although the words liberal and conservative are not accurate, they are less misleading than progressive and anti-progressive. Furthermore, conservatives ought not to oblige liberals by using the left’s name for itself of choice.
“Gaming” vs. “Gambling”
Those who support the legalization of gambling refer to it euphemistically as “gaming.” At first, gaming was a shibboleth for supporters, but they have succeeded in incorporating the word into legislation and public discourse to such a degree that often those who favor more restrictions and regulations on gambling or even those who oppose it altogether have been using the word, as well. However, gaming is less accurate than gambling. Gaming refers to hunting (the prey is referred to as “game”), but also can mean the playing of any game, not necessarily for money, but for entertainment. It is not the playing of these games, but the betting on them, that causes concerns. Therefore, “gaming” is not the issue, but “gambling.”
“Resignations/Vacancies” for Congressional Retirements
A member of the United States Congress, or, indeed any public officeholder, who chooses not to seek reelection, but continues to hold his office until the expiration of the term, is properly said “to retire,” not “to resign” from office. A public announcement of such a choice creates not a “vacancy” in the office but only an “open seat” for the congressional election. Both errors have been committed in the media, which increases confusion.
“Lame Duck” for Officeholders Who Have Not Been Defeated for Reelection
A lame duck is a public officeholder who has been defeated for reelection, but who is continuing in office until the expiration of the term. He is said to be “lame” because of his loss of political legitimacy, even though he retains his legal powers until he completes his term of office. Lame duck has been increasingly expanded to the point that it has come to mean the opposite of what it was intended. At first, the term was expanded to refer to elected officials continuing to serve in office after the election, but before their successors take office upon the expiration of the term, including officeholders who were reelected to that term but chose not to seek reelection or who were term limited. Gradually, lame duck has been expanded even further to refer to any public officeholder during his final term, or at least to the final two years of a president’s term, instead of referring to such an officeholder as an “outgoing” official. Thus, instead of referring only to defeated officeholders, lame duck is now being used to refer even to reelected officeholders – the opposite of its meaning. Liberals called former U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush “lame ducks” in order to delegitmatize them during their second terms, for example, even though they were never lame ducks because they were both reelected. Thus, as soon as a term-limited president wins a popular mandate for continuing his policies into a second term, he is being deligitimatized, as if the results of the election are being dismissed.
Lame duck has been misused to such a degree that these expanded uses of it appear in modern dictionaries. Defenders of non-standard usages of words cite dictionaries as authoritative legitimacy for the non-standard usage. However, lexicographers must include non-standard words and usages. The inclusion of such words and usages does not make them standard. The first usage listed, like the first pronunciation, is the preferred one. It is especially important for conservatives to defend the language against liberals who change the meaning of words in order for activist liberal judges to change the meaning of the written law by ignoring the principal of original intent instead of winning the public discourse and elections. No one has a right to change the language for such a purpose. Additionally, the more clarity in language there is, the easier it is to communicate and the better informed the people will be.
Liberals prefer to refer to themselves as “Progressives,” as if to imply that while they are in favor of progress, conservatives are against it. By progress, however, they do not necessarily mean improvement, but sometimes mean any kind of change, regardless of whether that change represents reform, while they sometimes oppose changes that conservatives support which do represent reform. While conservatives favor conserving that which is good, they also favor reform that causes progress, whereas liberals are for radical changes (e.g. statism), regardless of whether such a change represents an improvement over what it replaces. Gradually over the decades, liberals have become relatively conservative and anti-progressive by supporting the welfare state or public education, for example, while resisting any significant reforms. Although the words liberal and conservative are not accurate, they are less misleading than progressive and anti-progressive. Furthermore, conservatives ought not to oblige liberals by using the left’s name for itself of choice.
“Gaming” vs. “Gambling”
Those who support the legalization of gambling refer to it euphemistically as “gaming.” At first, gaming was a shibboleth for supporters, but they have succeeded in incorporating the word into legislation and public discourse to such a degree that often those who favor more restrictions and regulations on gambling or even those who oppose it altogether have been using the word, as well. However, gaming is less accurate than gambling. Gaming refers to hunting (the prey is referred to as “game”), but also can mean the playing of any game, not necessarily for money, but for entertainment. It is not the playing of these games, but the betting on them, that causes concerns. Therefore, “gaming” is not the issue, but “gambling.”
“Resignations/Vacancies” for Congressional Retirements
A member of the United States Congress, or, indeed any public officeholder, who chooses not to seek reelection, but continues to hold his office until the expiration of the term, is properly said “to retire,” not “to resign” from office. A public announcement of such a choice creates not a “vacancy” in the office but only an “open seat” for the congressional election. Both errors have been committed in the media, which increases confusion.
“Lame Duck” for Officeholders Who Have Not Been Defeated for Reelection
A lame duck is a public officeholder who has been defeated for reelection, but who is continuing in office until the expiration of the term. He is said to be “lame” because of his loss of political legitimacy, even though he retains his legal powers until he completes his term of office. Lame duck has been increasingly expanded to the point that it has come to mean the opposite of what it was intended. At first, the term was expanded to refer to elected officials continuing to serve in office after the election, but before their successors take office upon the expiration of the term, including officeholders who were reelected to that term but chose not to seek reelection or who were term limited. Gradually, lame duck has been expanded even further to refer to any public officeholder during his final term, or at least to the final two years of a president’s term, instead of referring to such an officeholder as an “outgoing” official. Thus, instead of referring only to defeated officeholders, lame duck is now being used to refer even to reelected officeholders – the opposite of its meaning. Liberals called former U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush “lame ducks” in order to delegitmatize them during their second terms, for example, even though they were never lame ducks because they were both reelected. Thus, as soon as a term-limited president wins a popular mandate for continuing his policies into a second term, he is being deligitimatized, as if the results of the election are being dismissed.
Lame duck has been misused to such a degree that these expanded uses of it appear in modern dictionaries. Defenders of non-standard usages of words cite dictionaries as authoritative legitimacy for the non-standard usage. However, lexicographers must include non-standard words and usages. The inclusion of such words and usages does not make them standard. The first usage listed, like the first pronunciation, is the preferred one. It is especially important for conservatives to defend the language against liberals who change the meaning of words in order for activist liberal judges to change the meaning of the written law by ignoring the principal of original intent instead of winning the public discourse and elections. No one has a right to change the language for such a purpose. Additionally, the more clarity in language there is, the easier it is to communicate and the better informed the people will be.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
More Lessons from Abroad for Obama and the Congressional Liberal Democrats
In my August post, A Lesson from Italy for Obama and the Congressional Liberal Democrats, I observed how Italian voters had voted for Italy’s conservative government in local elections as a referendum on its pledge of reducing its budget deficit without raising taxes.
In Sweden, the liberal party that has ruled that most famous welfare state for most of the last several decades failed to win a majority in the recent parliamentary election over the ruling conservatives. The Swedish conservatives had succeeded in cutting taxes and spending, as they had promised during the previous election. However, they were unable to win an electoral majority this time, which has resulted in a hung parliament. A handful of Green party and independent members of parliament holding the balance of power are likely to join the minority liberals in a leftist coalition government.
The results in Sweden were similar to the election last month in Australia, where the ruling liberals failed to win a majority in parliament. The liberals had promised to raise taxes on Australia’s significant mining industry to finance welfare. Three independents and one Green party member broke the tie and formed a leftist coalition with the minority liberals in order to form a government. Thus, in both Sweden and Australia, the main liberal parties were unable to win a majority outright and had to depend upon a coalition in order to govern.
These results, combined with the elections earlier this year in the United Kingdom, where the ruling liberal party lost to a conservative party that was able to form a coalition government that pledged to reduce the British deficit, suggest public anxiety over excessive government spending, borrowing and taxing, and the willingness of an increasing number of voters to elect conservatives promising to reduce spending.
It is not surprising then, that there has been a rise of tea party movements abroad, as the Conservative News Service recently reported. According to CNS, Tea party protests against big government welfare statism have occurred in Italy, Australia and the United Kingdom, along with the Netherlands.
United States President Barak Obama and the liberal Democratic majority in Congress should draw the lesson from these developments that the governed no longer consent as they once did to the redistribution of their wealth through government confiscation. If Obama and his allies truly want the U.S. to be more like Europe – especially Sweden – then they should start to reduce the size of government, or lose elections.
In Sweden, the liberal party that has ruled that most famous welfare state for most of the last several decades failed to win a majority in the recent parliamentary election over the ruling conservatives. The Swedish conservatives had succeeded in cutting taxes and spending, as they had promised during the previous election. However, they were unable to win an electoral majority this time, which has resulted in a hung parliament. A handful of Green party and independent members of parliament holding the balance of power are likely to join the minority liberals in a leftist coalition government.
The results in Sweden were similar to the election last month in Australia, where the ruling liberals failed to win a majority in parliament. The liberals had promised to raise taxes on Australia’s significant mining industry to finance welfare. Three independents and one Green party member broke the tie and formed a leftist coalition with the minority liberals in order to form a government. Thus, in both Sweden and Australia, the main liberal parties were unable to win a majority outright and had to depend upon a coalition in order to govern.
These results, combined with the elections earlier this year in the United Kingdom, where the ruling liberal party lost to a conservative party that was able to form a coalition government that pledged to reduce the British deficit, suggest public anxiety over excessive government spending, borrowing and taxing, and the willingness of an increasing number of voters to elect conservatives promising to reduce spending.
It is not surprising then, that there has been a rise of tea party movements abroad, as the Conservative News Service recently reported. According to CNS, Tea party protests against big government welfare statism have occurred in Italy, Australia and the United Kingdom, along with the Netherlands.
United States President Barak Obama and the liberal Democratic majority in Congress should draw the lesson from these developments that the governed no longer consent as they once did to the redistribution of their wealth through government confiscation. If Obama and his allies truly want the U.S. to be more like Europe – especially Sweden – then they should start to reduce the size of government, or lose elections.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Federal Updates on Constitution Day: The Impeachment Trial of a Federal Judge and the State Lawsuit against the Federal Government
Today is the 223rd anniversary of the signing of the Constitution of the United States of America in 1787 in Philadelphia, a day in which that great document is celebrated across the Union. It is a fitting time to provide updates on federal matters about which I have posted previously.
The Impeachment Trial of a Clinton-Appointed Federal Judge
U.S. Federal District Judge Thomas Porteous of Louisiana’s impeachment trial began in the Senate. See my post from March, House Impeaches Clinton-Appointed Judge. His defense has argued that his alleged misconduct occurred before his appointment as a federal judge. However, the pattern of conduct continued after Porteous joined the federal bench. He took federal office under the false pretenses of not having accepted gifts and not being a heavy drinker and gambler. For example, one witness who was later convicted of providing gifts to Porteous while he had been a state judge admitted to lying to the FBI on behalf of the judge during its background investigation of him. Therefore, Judge Porteous ought to be convicted by the Senate and removed from office.
The same standard ought to have applied to the man who nominated Porteous: former President Bill Clinton. The Electoral College should not have elected someone as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief like Clinton or President Barak Obama who could not have passed even the lowest level of security clearance. Clinton was elected under false pretenses of being a tourist in the Soviet Union in 1970, but likely was there in order to accept the thanks of the Communists for having participated in the KGB’s “Fall Campaign” against the U.S. involvement in the Vietnamese War, a propaganda effort that included anti-American protests on foreign soil. As president, Clinton appeased Communist North Korea and gave missile technology to Communist China. His opposition to the Vietnamese War contributed to his fear of losing popularity because of casualties, which caused him to not provide tanks to U.S. soldiers in Somalia and then to announce a pull-out after the Battle of Mogadishu which resulted in the deaths of 18 American servicemen at the hands of al-Qaeda backed militant Muslims. Al-Qaeda was thus encouraged to continue to inflict casualties on American servicemen as long as Clinton continued to fail to respond adequately to its attacks and those of other militant Muslims. In short, Clinton’s radical views as a youth that he has never renounced, apologized for, or even explained fully, carried over into his presidency, just as the predictions that Obama’s radical views and associations would be manifested in radical policies are being proven accurate.
Clinton and Obama are demonstrating that the American people should expect a minimum standard of character, such as the same standard as for a security clearance, which includes a lack of radical views or associations. Indeed, the only way currently for a radical to have access to U.S. intelligence secrets is to be elected president! Presidential candidates should also be held to the same standard for federal judges. Only a few federal judges have ever been impeached and removed from office in American history. Several of them were convicted on charges of perjury, as lying under oath is incompatible for holding a public office for which an oath is required. The House of Representatives impeached Clinton for perjury, but the Senate acquitted him, under the novel argument that the charge was not a “high crime or misdemeanor,” despite Senate precedent. One good standard for all federal officeholders would be whether or not they revere the Constitution.
Florida’s Lawsuit against the Obama Administration’s Violations of States’ Rights
A federal judge accepted most of Florida’s lawsuit against the federal government over the Obama Administration’s federalization of health insurance. Nineteen states have joined the Sunshine State in the suit. Separately, Virginia has filed its own complaint in federal court.
At issue, among other matters, is the federal mandate to purchase health insurance, which the states argue violates states’ constitutional rights by exceeding federal constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce. The states are seeking to protect their citizens’ freedom by objecting to such an imposition of a federal condition of citizenship to purchase a particular good or service. They argue that the decision to not purchase health insurance is not engaging in commerce, and, therefore, not subject to federal regulation.
The states must not argue only the narrow grounds of whether or not a decision not to engage in commerce constitutes commerce subject to federal regulation, but the broader grounds that the federal power to regulate commerce is limited only to interstate commerce, not intrastate commerce. The Constitution authorizes the United States to regulate interstate commerce in order to prevent states from imposing tariffs on trade between them (i.e. in order to establish a free trade zone across the federal Union). It does not authorize the federal government to regulate intrastate commerce on the theory that such commerce is potentially interstate commerce, by which reasoning all commerce would be subject to federal regulation. The Constitution also does not authorize federal regulation on the theory that because all commerce affects the economy of the states the federal government has authority to regulate it. Commerce does not equate to the economy, which is not the responsibility of government at all, including the federal Union. Government does not have economic responsibility, which is why it has no authority over all economic activity, only indirect power, such as fiscal policy. Only socialist or fascist or other totalitarian governments establish “command” economies.
See my post from December of 2009, The Commerce Clause Limits Federal Power to Mandate the Purchase of Private Health Insurance and my post from January of 2010, the Liberals’ Limitless Limit. At stake in these lawsuits is whether there are limits any longer to federal power, as originally intended by the Framers of The Constitution who established the principle of federalism, which divides power between the federal government and the states for the sake of maintaining the liberty of the people.
The Impeachment Trial of a Clinton-Appointed Federal Judge
U.S. Federal District Judge Thomas Porteous of Louisiana’s impeachment trial began in the Senate. See my post from March, House Impeaches Clinton-Appointed Judge. His defense has argued that his alleged misconduct occurred before his appointment as a federal judge. However, the pattern of conduct continued after Porteous joined the federal bench. He took federal office under the false pretenses of not having accepted gifts and not being a heavy drinker and gambler. For example, one witness who was later convicted of providing gifts to Porteous while he had been a state judge admitted to lying to the FBI on behalf of the judge during its background investigation of him. Therefore, Judge Porteous ought to be convicted by the Senate and removed from office.
The same standard ought to have applied to the man who nominated Porteous: former President Bill Clinton. The Electoral College should not have elected someone as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief like Clinton or President Barak Obama who could not have passed even the lowest level of security clearance. Clinton was elected under false pretenses of being a tourist in the Soviet Union in 1970, but likely was there in order to accept the thanks of the Communists for having participated in the KGB’s “Fall Campaign” against the U.S. involvement in the Vietnamese War, a propaganda effort that included anti-American protests on foreign soil. As president, Clinton appeased Communist North Korea and gave missile technology to Communist China. His opposition to the Vietnamese War contributed to his fear of losing popularity because of casualties, which caused him to not provide tanks to U.S. soldiers in Somalia and then to announce a pull-out after the Battle of Mogadishu which resulted in the deaths of 18 American servicemen at the hands of al-Qaeda backed militant Muslims. Al-Qaeda was thus encouraged to continue to inflict casualties on American servicemen as long as Clinton continued to fail to respond adequately to its attacks and those of other militant Muslims. In short, Clinton’s radical views as a youth that he has never renounced, apologized for, or even explained fully, carried over into his presidency, just as the predictions that Obama’s radical views and associations would be manifested in radical policies are being proven accurate.
Clinton and Obama are demonstrating that the American people should expect a minimum standard of character, such as the same standard as for a security clearance, which includes a lack of radical views or associations. Indeed, the only way currently for a radical to have access to U.S. intelligence secrets is to be elected president! Presidential candidates should also be held to the same standard for federal judges. Only a few federal judges have ever been impeached and removed from office in American history. Several of them were convicted on charges of perjury, as lying under oath is incompatible for holding a public office for which an oath is required. The House of Representatives impeached Clinton for perjury, but the Senate acquitted him, under the novel argument that the charge was not a “high crime or misdemeanor,” despite Senate precedent. One good standard for all federal officeholders would be whether or not they revere the Constitution.
Florida’s Lawsuit against the Obama Administration’s Violations of States’ Rights
A federal judge accepted most of Florida’s lawsuit against the federal government over the Obama Administration’s federalization of health insurance. Nineteen states have joined the Sunshine State in the suit. Separately, Virginia has filed its own complaint in federal court.
At issue, among other matters, is the federal mandate to purchase health insurance, which the states argue violates states’ constitutional rights by exceeding federal constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce. The states are seeking to protect their citizens’ freedom by objecting to such an imposition of a federal condition of citizenship to purchase a particular good or service. They argue that the decision to not purchase health insurance is not engaging in commerce, and, therefore, not subject to federal regulation.
The states must not argue only the narrow grounds of whether or not a decision not to engage in commerce constitutes commerce subject to federal regulation, but the broader grounds that the federal power to regulate commerce is limited only to interstate commerce, not intrastate commerce. The Constitution authorizes the United States to regulate interstate commerce in order to prevent states from imposing tariffs on trade between them (i.e. in order to establish a free trade zone across the federal Union). It does not authorize the federal government to regulate intrastate commerce on the theory that such commerce is potentially interstate commerce, by which reasoning all commerce would be subject to federal regulation. The Constitution also does not authorize federal regulation on the theory that because all commerce affects the economy of the states the federal government has authority to regulate it. Commerce does not equate to the economy, which is not the responsibility of government at all, including the federal Union. Government does not have economic responsibility, which is why it has no authority over all economic activity, only indirect power, such as fiscal policy. Only socialist or fascist or other totalitarian governments establish “command” economies.
See my post from December of 2009, The Commerce Clause Limits Federal Power to Mandate the Purchase of Private Health Insurance and my post from January of 2010, the Liberals’ Limitless Limit. At stake in these lawsuits is whether there are limits any longer to federal power, as originally intended by the Framers of The Constitution who established the principle of federalism, which divides power between the federal government and the states for the sake of maintaining the liberty of the people.
Freedoms, Rights and Prudence in Regard to the September 11 Site Mosque and Koran Burning
This year, the observations of the anniversary of the September 11 Attacks were somewhat overshadowed by the controversies about the Mosque proposed at the site of the attack on the World Trade Center and the plan to burn a Koran, the Islamic holy book. The public debate was focused on freedom, rights and prudence.
Nearly every commentator accepts the rights of the individuals to build a mosque at the September 11 site or to burn the Koran, but many find these actions imprudent. I agree that these actions would be imprudent, but I am among those who doubt these individuals have a right or freedom to do as they wish.
Both individuals enjoy the freedom of religion and speech. They also have property rights. But neither freedoms nor rights are absolute. In these two cases in particular, I do not believe these individuals necessarily have the freedom or right to act in the manner in which they wish.
One cannot have a place of worship wherever one wants. For example, there are local restrictions on the use of buildings, such as zoning laws. In this case, the mosque would symbolize military conquest by militant Islam (See my August post, A Mosque at the September 11 Site Would Represent a Militant Islamic Victory), which would aid the enemy.
Although one also has the freedom to speak, one does not have the right to engage in whatever actions one desires, such as a violent act, in order to express one’s opinion. Like restrictions on property rights, municipalities also ban the burning of materials for safety reasons, regardless of any motivation to express one’s views.
Burning something is not an example of freedom of speech, but an act – a violent one, at that. It is incendiary both literally and figuratively. There is no broad freedom of expression that would include such acts. There is a difference between freedom of expression and specific freedoms to engage in certain forms of expression, such as speech (oral communication) or writing (the freedom of the press), assembly, petitioning, etc. Not all forms of expression are permitted and even the specific acknowledged freedoms may be limited for good reasons.
Some have argued, for example, that burning the Koran is like yelling “Fire!” in a movie theater – a famous example of speech that is prohibited. Because burning something is not speech, but an act, it is easier to make a case that it may be a prohibited form of expression. Nevertheless, the analogy does suggest that inflammatory actions, whether in the forms of spoken words or not, can be prohibited for good reason.
In this case, burning the Koran would aid the militant Muslim enemy, even if unintentionally, by providing it religious justification for opposing the United States for tolerating the desecration of the holy book of Islam.
One right we cannot claim is a right not to be offended. However, it is imprudent and unnecessary to desecrate the holy book of another religion or insulting its figures. Such actions would be true examples of provocations. One can express opposition to Islam without desecrating or insulting its figures. Thus, although one may not have a freedom to physically desecrate by burning, we have the freedom of religious expression, which includes the freedom to oppose another religion. However, one may make a point without going out of one’s way to offend others.
Although the freedom of religious expression may include the freedom to insult venerated religious figures, prudence should be exercised. Regardless of whether one has a freedom or right to say or do something, it may be imprudent to do it. We can acknowledge one’s freedom while expecting one to act responsibly. We have rights not to do what we want, but in order to do what we ought.
Nearly every commentator accepts the rights of the individuals to build a mosque at the September 11 site or to burn the Koran, but many find these actions imprudent. I agree that these actions would be imprudent, but I am among those who doubt these individuals have a right or freedom to do as they wish.
Both individuals enjoy the freedom of religion and speech. They also have property rights. But neither freedoms nor rights are absolute. In these two cases in particular, I do not believe these individuals necessarily have the freedom or right to act in the manner in which they wish.
One cannot have a place of worship wherever one wants. For example, there are local restrictions on the use of buildings, such as zoning laws. In this case, the mosque would symbolize military conquest by militant Islam (See my August post, A Mosque at the September 11 Site Would Represent a Militant Islamic Victory), which would aid the enemy.
Although one also has the freedom to speak, one does not have the right to engage in whatever actions one desires, such as a violent act, in order to express one’s opinion. Like restrictions on property rights, municipalities also ban the burning of materials for safety reasons, regardless of any motivation to express one’s views.
Burning something is not an example of freedom of speech, but an act – a violent one, at that. It is incendiary both literally and figuratively. There is no broad freedom of expression that would include such acts. There is a difference between freedom of expression and specific freedoms to engage in certain forms of expression, such as speech (oral communication) or writing (the freedom of the press), assembly, petitioning, etc. Not all forms of expression are permitted and even the specific acknowledged freedoms may be limited for good reasons.
Some have argued, for example, that burning the Koran is like yelling “Fire!” in a movie theater – a famous example of speech that is prohibited. Because burning something is not speech, but an act, it is easier to make a case that it may be a prohibited form of expression. Nevertheless, the analogy does suggest that inflammatory actions, whether in the forms of spoken words or not, can be prohibited for good reason.
In this case, burning the Koran would aid the militant Muslim enemy, even if unintentionally, by providing it religious justification for opposing the United States for tolerating the desecration of the holy book of Islam.
One right we cannot claim is a right not to be offended. However, it is imprudent and unnecessary to desecrate the holy book of another religion or insulting its figures. Such actions would be true examples of provocations. One can express opposition to Islam without desecrating or insulting its figures. Thus, although one may not have a freedom to physically desecrate by burning, we have the freedom of religious expression, which includes the freedom to oppose another religion. However, one may make a point without going out of one’s way to offend others.
Although the freedom of religious expression may include the freedom to insult venerated religious figures, prudence should be exercised. Regardless of whether one has a freedom or right to say or do something, it may be imprudent to do it. We can acknowledge one’s freedom while expecting one to act responsibly. We have rights not to do what we want, but in order to do what we ought.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Cynicism and September 11
Cynicism helped the terrorists carry out the September 11 Terrorist Attacks nine years ago. Militant Muslims engaged in jihad have continued to rely upon cynicism for their holy war. However, cynics are usually susceptible to the negative consequences of their own cynicism. These jihadis are no exception.
The terrorists who perpetrated the September 11 attacks relied upon cynicism in order to carry out the massacre successfully. Before September 11, 2001, there had not been a hijacking of an American commercial airliner in ten years, but public confidence in airline security remained low.
Contrary to the conclusions of most observers, the attacks suggested that airline safety was adequate at the time. The terrorists were unable to get guns or bombs aboard the planes. Indeed, the hijackers did not even try to get past the airline security measures that were in place at the time, as the terrorists concluded that the risk was unacceptable of trying to smuggle guns or bombs onto the planes. Instead, they feigned having bombs and used boxcutters, martial arts and ruthlessness in order to terrorize the crew and passengers into submission. The terrorists correctly believed that the crew and passengers would accept as true the hijackers’ claims to have managed to get explosives aboard the planes by assuming that airline security had failed – an assumption based upon a cynical lack of confidence in airline security.
Militant Muslims have continued to benefit from cynicism in the West that has caused a loss of public support for the War on Terrorism in a number of ways: 1) Westerners have dropped their security guard to a degree because of a cynical belief that the threat of terrorism was exaggerated in the first place (e.g. that it was the fault of the airlines or United States intelligence agencies or the Administration of President George W. Bush, all of which are based upon a cynical lack of confidence in U.S. and other Western governments and suggest that the terrorist attacks could be thwarted with minimal effort -- i.e. without a war of resistance to militant Islam), 2) Many Westerners have developed cynical conspiracy theories that the U.S. either knew about the September 11 attacks ahead of time and allowed them to occur because of political expedience or that the U.S. or its ally Israel actually perpetrated the attacks themselves; these theories have been used to justify opposition to the War on Terrorism and 3) A majority of Westerners lost confidence in the ability to win both the War on Afghanistan and the Liberation of Iraq, which has caused a loss of public support for these battles in the War on Terrorism, which, in turn, encouraged the enemy to continue to kill Western soldiers for the sake of turning public opinion further against the war; this loss of confidence of victory in these wars is in addition to those who opposed them from the beginning as unnecessary because of various cynical theories about ulterior American motives for the stated goal of removing state sponsors of terrorism from power. The loss of public support for the War on Terrorism attributable to cynicism has made the West more vulnerable to attacks by militant Muslims and encouraged new attempts, despite all of the successes achieved against terrorism because of the war.
On the other hand, cynicism has also hampered the terrorists’ cause, as cynics tend to project evil intent onto others. For example, some of the terrorists detained by the U.S. were made to believe that they were going to be extradited to foreign states that practice torture, or that the Americans themselves would torture them, which gave the terrorists the incentive to reveal intelligence secrets. One example where the U.S. exploited the enemy’s cynicism effectively was the case of a terrorist detainee who had a fear of stinging insects; the Americans put a harmless caterpillar in his cell and told him that it was a stinging insect, which encouraged him to reveal intelligence secrets. The U.S. has been able to take advantage of the cynicism of its terrorist foes who, after all, have been using cynicism to their advantage since September 11.
In general, we Westerners should test our own thoughts for cynicism and be open to the possibility of explanations for the motives of others besides malevolent ones, a practice which would be of particularly beneficial application to the War on Terrorism. As Christians, we especially should avoid being truly judgmental by assuming other people’s willful incompetence or bad intent. A better understanding of the nature of the threat of militant Islam would reduce cynicism about those whose responsibility it is to prevent terrorist attacks and lead to greater public support for effective counterterrorism measures, as well as necessary strategies in the War on Terrorism. Meanwhile, we should creatively find legitimate ways to turn the enemy’s cynicism against it.
The terrorists who perpetrated the September 11 attacks relied upon cynicism in order to carry out the massacre successfully. Before September 11, 2001, there had not been a hijacking of an American commercial airliner in ten years, but public confidence in airline security remained low.
Contrary to the conclusions of most observers, the attacks suggested that airline safety was adequate at the time. The terrorists were unable to get guns or bombs aboard the planes. Indeed, the hijackers did not even try to get past the airline security measures that were in place at the time, as the terrorists concluded that the risk was unacceptable of trying to smuggle guns or bombs onto the planes. Instead, they feigned having bombs and used boxcutters, martial arts and ruthlessness in order to terrorize the crew and passengers into submission. The terrorists correctly believed that the crew and passengers would accept as true the hijackers’ claims to have managed to get explosives aboard the planes by assuming that airline security had failed – an assumption based upon a cynical lack of confidence in airline security.
Militant Muslims have continued to benefit from cynicism in the West that has caused a loss of public support for the War on Terrorism in a number of ways: 1) Westerners have dropped their security guard to a degree because of a cynical belief that the threat of terrorism was exaggerated in the first place (e.g. that it was the fault of the airlines or United States intelligence agencies or the Administration of President George W. Bush, all of which are based upon a cynical lack of confidence in U.S. and other Western governments and suggest that the terrorist attacks could be thwarted with minimal effort -- i.e. without a war of resistance to militant Islam), 2) Many Westerners have developed cynical conspiracy theories that the U.S. either knew about the September 11 attacks ahead of time and allowed them to occur because of political expedience or that the U.S. or its ally Israel actually perpetrated the attacks themselves; these theories have been used to justify opposition to the War on Terrorism and 3) A majority of Westerners lost confidence in the ability to win both the War on Afghanistan and the Liberation of Iraq, which has caused a loss of public support for these battles in the War on Terrorism, which, in turn, encouraged the enemy to continue to kill Western soldiers for the sake of turning public opinion further against the war; this loss of confidence of victory in these wars is in addition to those who opposed them from the beginning as unnecessary because of various cynical theories about ulterior American motives for the stated goal of removing state sponsors of terrorism from power. The loss of public support for the War on Terrorism attributable to cynicism has made the West more vulnerable to attacks by militant Muslims and encouraged new attempts, despite all of the successes achieved against terrorism because of the war.
On the other hand, cynicism has also hampered the terrorists’ cause, as cynics tend to project evil intent onto others. For example, some of the terrorists detained by the U.S. were made to believe that they were going to be extradited to foreign states that practice torture, or that the Americans themselves would torture them, which gave the terrorists the incentive to reveal intelligence secrets. One example where the U.S. exploited the enemy’s cynicism effectively was the case of a terrorist detainee who had a fear of stinging insects; the Americans put a harmless caterpillar in his cell and told him that it was a stinging insect, which encouraged him to reveal intelligence secrets. The U.S. has been able to take advantage of the cynicism of its terrorist foes who, after all, have been using cynicism to their advantage since September 11.
In general, we Westerners should test our own thoughts for cynicism and be open to the possibility of explanations for the motives of others besides malevolent ones, a practice which would be of particularly beneficial application to the War on Terrorism. As Christians, we especially should avoid being truly judgmental by assuming other people’s willful incompetence or bad intent. A better understanding of the nature of the threat of militant Islam would reduce cynicism about those whose responsibility it is to prevent terrorist attacks and lead to greater public support for effective counterterrorism measures, as well as necessary strategies in the War on Terrorism. Meanwhile, we should creatively find legitimate ways to turn the enemy’s cynicism against it.
Friday, September 3, 2010
The Iraqi Economic Stimulus
In my last post, I discussed the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I discussed the cost in blood, but also what was gained from the Liberation of Iraq, especially the victory it represents in the War on Terrorism. The purpose of this post is to discuss the cost and benefits of the war in terms of treasure.
According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the total cost to the federal government of Operation Iraqi Freedom was $700 billion – not the $3 trillion estimated several years ago by critics of the war.
When critics of the Liberation of Iraq discuss the fiscal cost of the war, they only count the expenditure side of the ledger, without mentioning the receipt side, just as they count the lives lost from the war and not the lives saved and the freedom secured. These critics contradict themselves by claiming the war was based upon economic motives, but also arguing that the war was economically costly while dismissing any economic benefit gained from it. They cannot have it both ways.
Although wars are not economically efficient (e.g. creating bombs to explode), they are somewhat stimulative of economic growth – to the extent that spending by government, which must tax or borrow the money, is stimulative at all. World War II famously pulled the economy of the United States out of the Great Depression, for example.
Some people think that all of the money for the Liberation of Iraq was spent “over there,” but much of it was spent in the United States. The materiel was mostly purchased here, for example. More soldiers served in the armed forces, all of whom received combat pay. Much of that extra pay was sent home. In addition, there were thousands of American civilians contracted by the Defense Department working in Iraq, earning money to bring back to the U.S. Meanwhile, private American enterprises won contracts for Iraqi reconstruction projects. The increased spending in the U.S. helped offset the cost of the war to the economy, as well as to the federal treasury, as economic activity generates tax revenue.
When calculating the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom, its expenses must be offset with the change in mission for U.S. troops. The cost of maintaining tens of thousands of troops in Saudi Arabia, other Arab Persian Gulf states and Turkey in order to defend Iraq’s neighbors against Iraqi aggression and to patrol the no-fly zones over both northern and southern Iraq was made no longer necessary by the Liberation of Iraq.
Operation Iraqi Freedom also benefited the American economy directly in a number of ways. The overthrow of the Baathist regime allowed the U.S. to lift the embargo on Iraqi oil. Libya’s resultant renunciation of terrorism and destruction of its weapons of mass destruction also allowed the U.S. to begin importing Libyan oil. The increase of supply from Iraqi and Libyan oil to the U.S. market undoubtedly prevented increases in the price of oil beyond its sharp rise in 2005. That rise matched the rate of inflation, after a long period of below-inflation prices, but the important point is that the price did not rise beyond what would be expected because of inflation. This lack of even higher inflation was not only beneficial for consumers, but allowed the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates at record-low levels in order to stimulate economic growth. Lower interest rates are good for borrowers (not only those who buy homes or cars, but also businesses large and small), which increases economic growth, as well as for the federal government, the largest borrower of all, and state governments. The lower interest rates are credited with contributing to the aversion of a depression in 2008. Americans also earned contracts to refurbish Iraq’s oil infrastructure. Additionally, with the lifting of the trade embargoes on Iraq and Libya are now markets for the importation of all U.S. goods while Americans can enjoy the fruits of Iraq’s Fertile Crescent, the Cradle of Civilization (e.g. Iraq is the world’s largest exporter of dates).
Finally, the prevention of major terrorist attacks in the U.S. since September 11, 2001 allowed the American economy to recover from that trillion-dollar blow and to prosper for several years until the Panic of 2008. Americans enjoyed robust economic growth with low unemployment, low inflation and low interest rates from 2002-2008 in the security that allowed commerce to take place freely. The overthrow of the terrorist-sponsoring regime of Saddam Hussein, the capture of his weapons of mass destruction, the defeat of al-Qaeda and other militant Muslim jihadis in Iraq and Libya’s resultant renunciation of terrorism all contributed incalculably to the prevention of terrorist attacks on Americans abroad and perhaps even domestically.
Just as it is impossible to know with certainty whether more American lives were saved than lost from the Liberation of Iraq, it is impossible to know the net effect of the war economically and fiscally to the U.S. The point is to note both what was lost and what was gained. The prevention of any loss of American freedom because of terrorists and other militant Muslims can, however, be observed and appreciated, thanks to the soldiers who participated in Operation Iraq Freedom.
According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the total cost to the federal government of Operation Iraqi Freedom was $700 billion – not the $3 trillion estimated several years ago by critics of the war.
When critics of the Liberation of Iraq discuss the fiscal cost of the war, they only count the expenditure side of the ledger, without mentioning the receipt side, just as they count the lives lost from the war and not the lives saved and the freedom secured. These critics contradict themselves by claiming the war was based upon economic motives, but also arguing that the war was economically costly while dismissing any economic benefit gained from it. They cannot have it both ways.
Although wars are not economically efficient (e.g. creating bombs to explode), they are somewhat stimulative of economic growth – to the extent that spending by government, which must tax or borrow the money, is stimulative at all. World War II famously pulled the economy of the United States out of the Great Depression, for example.
Some people think that all of the money for the Liberation of Iraq was spent “over there,” but much of it was spent in the United States. The materiel was mostly purchased here, for example. More soldiers served in the armed forces, all of whom received combat pay. Much of that extra pay was sent home. In addition, there were thousands of American civilians contracted by the Defense Department working in Iraq, earning money to bring back to the U.S. Meanwhile, private American enterprises won contracts for Iraqi reconstruction projects. The increased spending in the U.S. helped offset the cost of the war to the economy, as well as to the federal treasury, as economic activity generates tax revenue.
When calculating the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom, its expenses must be offset with the change in mission for U.S. troops. The cost of maintaining tens of thousands of troops in Saudi Arabia, other Arab Persian Gulf states and Turkey in order to defend Iraq’s neighbors against Iraqi aggression and to patrol the no-fly zones over both northern and southern Iraq was made no longer necessary by the Liberation of Iraq.
Operation Iraqi Freedom also benefited the American economy directly in a number of ways. The overthrow of the Baathist regime allowed the U.S. to lift the embargo on Iraqi oil. Libya’s resultant renunciation of terrorism and destruction of its weapons of mass destruction also allowed the U.S. to begin importing Libyan oil. The increase of supply from Iraqi and Libyan oil to the U.S. market undoubtedly prevented increases in the price of oil beyond its sharp rise in 2005. That rise matched the rate of inflation, after a long period of below-inflation prices, but the important point is that the price did not rise beyond what would be expected because of inflation. This lack of even higher inflation was not only beneficial for consumers, but allowed the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates at record-low levels in order to stimulate economic growth. Lower interest rates are good for borrowers (not only those who buy homes or cars, but also businesses large and small), which increases economic growth, as well as for the federal government, the largest borrower of all, and state governments. The lower interest rates are credited with contributing to the aversion of a depression in 2008. Americans also earned contracts to refurbish Iraq’s oil infrastructure. Additionally, with the lifting of the trade embargoes on Iraq and Libya are now markets for the importation of all U.S. goods while Americans can enjoy the fruits of Iraq’s Fertile Crescent, the Cradle of Civilization (e.g. Iraq is the world’s largest exporter of dates).
Finally, the prevention of major terrorist attacks in the U.S. since September 11, 2001 allowed the American economy to recover from that trillion-dollar blow and to prosper for several years until the Panic of 2008. Americans enjoyed robust economic growth with low unemployment, low inflation and low interest rates from 2002-2008 in the security that allowed commerce to take place freely. The overthrow of the terrorist-sponsoring regime of Saddam Hussein, the capture of his weapons of mass destruction, the defeat of al-Qaeda and other militant Muslim jihadis in Iraq and Libya’s resultant renunciation of terrorism all contributed incalculably to the prevention of terrorist attacks on Americans abroad and perhaps even domestically.
Just as it is impossible to know with certainty whether more American lives were saved than lost from the Liberation of Iraq, it is impossible to know the net effect of the war economically and fiscally to the U.S. The point is to note both what was lost and what was gained. The prevention of any loss of American freedom because of terrorists and other militant Muslims can, however, be observed and appreciated, thanks to the soldiers who participated in Operation Iraq Freedom.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Operation Iraqi Freedom Ends in Victory
The last official combat units of American troops had already left Iraq earlier this month, but the formal end of Operation Iraqi Freedom (the Liberation of Iraq) is taking place now. Fifty-thousand United States soldiers will remain in Iraq to continue training the Iraqi security forces and for contingencies as Iraq becomes ever more capable of defending itself from the militant Islamist insurgency and Iranian machinations.
The fact that the current debate is whether or not President Barak Obama will give credit for the success in Iraq to his predecessor, George W. Bush, demonstrates the progress U.S. troops have made in Iraq. Obama had opposed the troop surge, which was the centerpiece of the Bush Administration’s counterinsurgency strategy, and predicted its failure. But Obama continued Bush’s policy in Iraq and copied it in Afghanistan, even putting General David Petraeus, the hero of the Iraqi troop surge, in charge of the Afghan War. Obama telephoned Bush and his administration is claiming credit for the victory in Iraq, but regardless of whether Obama gives credit to his predecessor, his actions vindicate Bush. Obama had opposed the Liberation of Iraq in the first place. He still refuses to use the word “victory” and has set artificial deadlines in both Iraq and Afghanistan for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. Nevertheless, his continuance thus far, for the most part, of Bush’s policies have led to the dramatic success that is underscored by the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Before the war began in 2003, public opinion polls indicated that Americans would support the Liberation of Iraq, as long as there were no more than an equal number of American troops killed as Americans who were killed in the September 11 Attacks (nearly 3,000). After seven years, despite the additional task of defeating al-Qaeda and other foreign jihadis who joined the Iraqi insurgency, American combat deaths in Operation Iraqi Freedom totaled over 3,400, with all U.S. deaths totaling over 4,000, yet public opinion had turned against the war long, long beforehand. Many people by then had forgotten the Iraqi sponsorship of terrorism and Iraq’s daily attacks on U.S.-led Coalition aircraft, its refusal to prove it had eliminated its weapons of mass destruction, as required by UN resolutions and the fear the serial agressor caused its neighbors. To some degree, the U.S. was a victim of its own success, as it had swiftly removed the Baathist regime led by Saddam Hussein with an unexpectedly low number of casualties, which raised the expectations of Americans for a quick, relatively painless victory, as the Afghan War had appeared to be at the time. But the U.S. troops then had to slog through the long Iraqi insurgency sparked by the Baathists that was joined by the other militant Muslims. At times, politicians like Obama declared the war unwinnable or not even worth trying, as if they would have preferred to have let Hussein remain in power; some, like Vice President Joe Biden, insisted that a united Iraq could never govern itself in freedom. The American soldiers who participated in Operation Iraqi Freedom and the Iraqi people themselves proved them wrong.
The achievements of the U.S. soldiers who participated in Operation Iraqi Freedom must be acknowledged: they removed a regime from power that had harbored and financed terrorists who targeted and killed Americans, defeated al-Qaeda and other jihadi terrorists in Iraq, ended the oppression of a brutal tyrant and allowed the Iraqi people to freely choose their own representative government – one that is now an ally in the War on Terrorism, brought Iraqi war criminals to justice, enforced United Nations resolutions, captured and destroyed the hundreds of known Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and removed a security threat to the region with a history of aggression which allowed the U.S. to withdraw its soldiers from Saudi Arabia, where al-Qaeda and other jihadis had been attacking them. As a bonus, Libya renounced terrorism and destroyed its WMD and ended its production program.
Congratulations to the soldiers of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Let us remember those who sacrificed their lives for this just cause and thank all the soldiers who served in it.
The fact that the current debate is whether or not President Barak Obama will give credit for the success in Iraq to his predecessor, George W. Bush, demonstrates the progress U.S. troops have made in Iraq. Obama had opposed the troop surge, which was the centerpiece of the Bush Administration’s counterinsurgency strategy, and predicted its failure. But Obama continued Bush’s policy in Iraq and copied it in Afghanistan, even putting General David Petraeus, the hero of the Iraqi troop surge, in charge of the Afghan War. Obama telephoned Bush and his administration is claiming credit for the victory in Iraq, but regardless of whether Obama gives credit to his predecessor, his actions vindicate Bush. Obama had opposed the Liberation of Iraq in the first place. He still refuses to use the word “victory” and has set artificial deadlines in both Iraq and Afghanistan for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. Nevertheless, his continuance thus far, for the most part, of Bush’s policies have led to the dramatic success that is underscored by the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Before the war began in 2003, public opinion polls indicated that Americans would support the Liberation of Iraq, as long as there were no more than an equal number of American troops killed as Americans who were killed in the September 11 Attacks (nearly 3,000). After seven years, despite the additional task of defeating al-Qaeda and other foreign jihadis who joined the Iraqi insurgency, American combat deaths in Operation Iraqi Freedom totaled over 3,400, with all U.S. deaths totaling over 4,000, yet public opinion had turned against the war long, long beforehand. Many people by then had forgotten the Iraqi sponsorship of terrorism and Iraq’s daily attacks on U.S.-led Coalition aircraft, its refusal to prove it had eliminated its weapons of mass destruction, as required by UN resolutions and the fear the serial agressor caused its neighbors. To some degree, the U.S. was a victim of its own success, as it had swiftly removed the Baathist regime led by Saddam Hussein with an unexpectedly low number of casualties, which raised the expectations of Americans for a quick, relatively painless victory, as the Afghan War had appeared to be at the time. But the U.S. troops then had to slog through the long Iraqi insurgency sparked by the Baathists that was joined by the other militant Muslims. At times, politicians like Obama declared the war unwinnable or not even worth trying, as if they would have preferred to have let Hussein remain in power; some, like Vice President Joe Biden, insisted that a united Iraq could never govern itself in freedom. The American soldiers who participated in Operation Iraqi Freedom and the Iraqi people themselves proved them wrong.
The achievements of the U.S. soldiers who participated in Operation Iraqi Freedom must be acknowledged: they removed a regime from power that had harbored and financed terrorists who targeted and killed Americans, defeated al-Qaeda and other jihadi terrorists in Iraq, ended the oppression of a brutal tyrant and allowed the Iraqi people to freely choose their own representative government – one that is now an ally in the War on Terrorism, brought Iraqi war criminals to justice, enforced United Nations resolutions, captured and destroyed the hundreds of known Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and removed a security threat to the region with a history of aggression which allowed the U.S. to withdraw its soldiers from Saudi Arabia, where al-Qaeda and other jihadis had been attacking them. As a bonus, Libya renounced terrorism and destroyed its WMD and ended its production program.
Congratulations to the soldiers of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Let us remember those who sacrificed their lives for this just cause and thank all the soldiers who served in it.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
The New Obama Tax on Depositors
When United States President Barak Obama signed the new banking regulation bill passed by the liberal Democratic Congress into law recently, he essentially was imposing a tax on those who deposit their money in banks.
The federal regulations on banks limited the fees banks could impose in certain situations, which reduced the profitability of their businesses during this recession. The banks have responded by raising fees or creating new fees on all depositors, especially for those with checking accounts. With interest rates at near record lows, the new fees are causing many depositors to lose money on their checking accounts. In other words, not only are checking accounts no longer free, thanks to Obama and the Democratic Congress, but depositors must actually pay the bank for the privilege of maintaining a checking account.
A regulation is a cost of government, like a tax. When government decides exactly what fees businesses may charge, such a regulation creates costs of doing business that are passed along to customers. Thus, the price of the federal policy to protect a few favored constituents is the higher fees that all will have to pay -- the Obama tax on depositors, just as the Republicans in Congress who opposed the new federal banking regulations had predicted.
The federal regulations on banks limited the fees banks could impose in certain situations, which reduced the profitability of their businesses during this recession. The banks have responded by raising fees or creating new fees on all depositors, especially for those with checking accounts. With interest rates at near record lows, the new fees are causing many depositors to lose money on their checking accounts. In other words, not only are checking accounts no longer free, thanks to Obama and the Democratic Congress, but depositors must actually pay the bank for the privilege of maintaining a checking account.
A regulation is a cost of government, like a tax. When government decides exactly what fees businesses may charge, such a regulation creates costs of doing business that are passed along to customers. Thus, the price of the federal policy to protect a few favored constituents is the higher fees that all will have to pay -- the Obama tax on depositors, just as the Republicans in Congress who opposed the new federal banking regulations had predicted.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Federal Judge Confirms that Law Takes Precedence over Executive Orders
A United States federal district judge has ruled that federal law takes precedence under the U.S. Constitution over federal regulation that is based upon a presidential executive order.
The judge granted a temporary injunction against federal funding for embryonic stem cell research that was permitted by a National Institute for Health regulation that implemented an executive order issued by President Barak Obama. Obama had issued the order shortly after he took office in order to lift a federal ban on embryonic stem cell research imposed by President George W. Bush. However, the judge ruled that a law approved annually since the late 1990s prohibits any federal funding that necessitated the destruction of human embryos. Bush had permitted federal funding for research only on pre-existing lines of embryonic stem cells, but the research Obama permitted would necessitate the destruction of the embryos, this violating the law, the judge ruled.
This ruling confirms the prediction I made in my post from March of this year, Federal Courts Would Rule that the Law Takes Precedence over an Executive Order, in which I note how Obama's executive order prohibiting federal funding for health insurance coverage for abortion would have no legal effect because the law he signed to federalize health insurance would require federal funding of health insurance coverage for abortion. See also my post, July Follow-Ups and Updates, in which I explained that Article I of the Constitution grants legislative power to Congress, not the Executive.
The judge granted a temporary injunction against federal funding for embryonic stem cell research that was permitted by a National Institute for Health regulation that implemented an executive order issued by President Barak Obama. Obama had issued the order shortly after he took office in order to lift a federal ban on embryonic stem cell research imposed by President George W. Bush. However, the judge ruled that a law approved annually since the late 1990s prohibits any federal funding that necessitated the destruction of human embryos. Bush had permitted federal funding for research only on pre-existing lines of embryonic stem cells, but the research Obama permitted would necessitate the destruction of the embryos, this violating the law, the judge ruled.
This ruling confirms the prediction I made in my post from March of this year, Federal Courts Would Rule that the Law Takes Precedence over an Executive Order, in which I note how Obama's executive order prohibiting federal funding for health insurance coverage for abortion would have no legal effect because the law he signed to federalize health insurance would require federal funding of health insurance coverage for abortion. See also my post, July Follow-Ups and Updates, in which I explained that Article I of the Constitution grants legislative power to Congress, not the Executive.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
A Mosque at the September 11 Site Would Represent a Militant Islamic Victory
The proposed mosque on the site of the September 11 Terrorist Attack on the World Trade Center in New York is intended as Islamic triumphalism. Indeed, minarets, which are the towers on mosques from which muezzins call Muslims to prayer, are symbols of Islamic military conquest.
The message a mosque at such a site in particular, unlike any other site, would convey is that the reward for a terrorist attack by Muslims on a Western target that destroys major buildings is that a mosque can then be built in its place, which would incentivize additional attacks by militant jihadis intend on spreading Islam through holy war. The presence of a mosque at the sight of a militant Muslim terrorist strike would suggest that the jihadist enemy is winning the War on Terrorism, which would thereby aid its morale and win new recruits to its cause of holy war against non-Muslims.
Moreover, as I have noted previously, Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, was highly successful in military conquest, which attracted others to convert to this new religion, as his success seemed to confirm that he was being favored by Allah, while others were converted by force. Muhammad’s successors were also successful in conquering vast lands and winning many new converts for Islam. There have been several waves of Islamic militancy ever since, including the present. Therefore, it is necessary to defeat militant Muslims on the battlefield in order to prove that their leaders are not divinely favored. The placement of the proposed mosque on such a battlefield would confirm Islamic victory and suggest divine approval of their cause and even their strategy of terrorism. Furthermore, it is also necessary to defeat them militarily because they will not stop until they have conquered all lands for Islam and forced everyone to submit.
Some have argued that the freedom of religion requires the proponents of the mosque to be allowed to practice their religion freely, even to the extent of placing a mosque wherever they wish. The militant Muslim enemy would interpret its ability to use Western permissive interpretations of liberty against the Christian West as a sign of Western weakness and, by contrast, Islamic strength, which would further suggest that Allah favors Islam over Christianity. No one has a right to spread his faith through violence, even if only indirectly, which is what the proponents of the mosque at the bloodiest site of the September 11 terrorist attack would be doing.
The message a mosque at such a site in particular, unlike any other site, would convey is that the reward for a terrorist attack by Muslims on a Western target that destroys major buildings is that a mosque can then be built in its place, which would incentivize additional attacks by militant jihadis intend on spreading Islam through holy war. The presence of a mosque at the sight of a militant Muslim terrorist strike would suggest that the jihadist enemy is winning the War on Terrorism, which would thereby aid its morale and win new recruits to its cause of holy war against non-Muslims.
Moreover, as I have noted previously, Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, was highly successful in military conquest, which attracted others to convert to this new religion, as his success seemed to confirm that he was being favored by Allah, while others were converted by force. Muhammad’s successors were also successful in conquering vast lands and winning many new converts for Islam. There have been several waves of Islamic militancy ever since, including the present. Therefore, it is necessary to defeat militant Muslims on the battlefield in order to prove that their leaders are not divinely favored. The placement of the proposed mosque on such a battlefield would confirm Islamic victory and suggest divine approval of their cause and even their strategy of terrorism. Furthermore, it is also necessary to defeat them militarily because they will not stop until they have conquered all lands for Islam and forced everyone to submit.
Some have argued that the freedom of religion requires the proponents of the mosque to be allowed to practice their religion freely, even to the extent of placing a mosque wherever they wish. The militant Muslim enemy would interpret its ability to use Western permissive interpretations of liberty against the Christian West as a sign of Western weakness and, by contrast, Islamic strength, which would further suggest that Allah favors Islam over Christianity. No one has a right to spread his faith through violence, even if only indirectly, which is what the proponents of the mosque at the bloodiest site of the September 11 terrorist attack would be doing.
Same-Sex “Marriage” Is Not a “Privilege or Immunity” under the Constitution
A federal United States judge recently ruled in striking down California’s ban on gay marriage that there is a previously-unknown federal right under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to have one’s marriage to whomever one wants be recognized by the state.
In light of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' brilliant concurring opinion in McDonald v. Chicago, the right to keep and bear arms case, it is necessary to explore whether or not gay marriage is a right under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. “Privileges and immunities” is another way of saying “freedoms and rights.” See my July post, A Conservative Federalist Commentary on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Ruling, in which I explain why this clause in the Amendment is controlling, not the Due Process Clause. The Privileges and Immunities Clause requires states to guarantee those pre-existing natural law rights endowed by our Creator that the states recognized under their own constitutions at the time of their ratification.
The institution of marriage has always been recognized by the States as between one man and one woman. Therefore, there is no right that requires a state to recognize any other relationship as a marriage, as it is neither a privilege nor immunity under a state constitution. Thus, the federal constitution does not require states to recognize a right to same-sex “marriage” or any other “marriage” between any individuals other than one man and one woman.
The Liberal Media Does Not Know the Facts of Obama’s Faith
The liberal media is reporting the results of a public opinion survey that reveals a significant number of Americans believe that Barak Obama is a Muslim. The media declares this opinion, which it finds disturbing, to be “incorrect,” even though it often does not correct the false opinions or factual errors stated by others, and even perpetuates many itself.
The media’s responsibility is to inform the public with facts. Instead, it has been focused on taking the opportunity to discredit Obama’s political opponents by refuting the more easily disprovable false allegations some of them have made, while the media has also revealed its liberal bias by attempting to debunk the theory that the President of the United States it supports is a Muslim by sometimes citing unconvincing evidence as fact.
The media has presented with certainty as fact that which is unknowable. Although the media should refute some of the factual errors that have been claimed about Obama’s faith and report his statements or practices that suggest he is a Christian, it is only for God to judge whether or not he truly is a Christian or a Muslim, as only He knows a person’s sincere beliefs. It is not for the media or for any man to judge the faith of another. In short, another person’s religion is not a provable fact. One can, at best, only form an opinion about another’s religion based upon the perception of that individual’s statements and actions.
The media’s citation of evidence of Obama’s Christianity sometimes demonstrates its ignorance of Islam. For example, the media and Obama’s supporters cite Obama’s reading of the Bible and his swearing into office upon it to prove his Christianity. Although his inauguration on the Bible disproves the false allegation that he was sworn in on a Koran, the Islamic scripture, one’s belief in the Bible does not necessarily prove one’s Christianity, as Muslims also believe in the Bible. Therefore, this piece of evidence fails to prove Obama’s Christianity.
As I noted in my June post, The Clintonian Cynicism and Deceptions of Obama and His Supporters, Obama made a statement during the presidential campaign when he was asked about his religion that did not adequately answer the question, declaring that he “prays to Jesus,” which implied that he might be a Christian, but which did not necessarily disprove that he was a Muslim. Prayer is not the equivalent of worship, and Muslims believe in Jesus – as a Prophet. One can sometimes read into the deceptively-worded statements of politicians like Obama what one wants. His answer allowed Christians to think he is a Christian, while allowing Muslims to cling to the hope that he might secretly be a Muslim concealing his faith in Islam in order to advance Islam or the interests of Muslims more effectively. Indeed, Muslims justify even lying if it is intended to advance Islam, which makes even most definitive statements of faith suspect. Obama’s stated purpose as a matter of foreign policy is to make Muslims believe that he understands them, which might explain his reluctance to confess definitely his Christian faith, so as not to alienate them. Another plausible explanation for Obama’s ambiguity about his faith could be his understandable fear of being accused of apostasy – a crime in Islam punishable by death – for renouncing the faith of his father, which, under Muslim law, makes him a Muslim, too.
Contrary to the assertion sometimes made in the media and by Obama’s supporters, Obama has apparently not necessarily declared himself definitively to be a Christian (i.e. that he recognizes Jesus Christ as the Divine Son of God), although he was “baptized” and has made a number of statements that suggest that he might recognize Christ as more than a Prophet. For example, he has stated that he recognizes Christ as his Redeemer. However, there are non-Christians who recognize Christ as the Redeemer who do not recognize Him as Divine. It is possible that Obama is uncomfortable expressing his Christian faith publicly, but his lack of clarity creates the public perception that he is either unsure of his faith or is concealing his true beliefs.
Regardless, Obama’s declarations of himself as a Christian do not necessarily make his Christianity a fact, nor do anyone’s self-declarations. I am not accusing him of being a hypocrite or a Muslim. I am discussing this matter not in an effort to judge Obama’s faith, but to demonstrate that the media knows nothing about it for certain. Based upon some of his statements and practices, I presume Obama is a Christian, or at least a follower of Christ and not of Islam, but neither I nor anyone else – not even the self-described “authoritative” media – can know with certainty what his religious beliefs are for a fact. The media has no authority to judge Obama’s faith or to label anyone else’s opinions about it “correct” or “incorrect.”
Given Obama’s mysterious background, including his own admission of his understanding of Islam based upon his childhood in Muslim Indonesia, his affiliation with a black radical church he has since disavowed, and his ambiguity about his true faith, it is understandable that a growing plurality of Americans are unsure of Obama’s faith and that a growing majority of the rest have developed a perception of him as a Muslim. If the media truly wants to settle the question of Obama’s faith in terms of public perception, then I call upon it to ask Obama to declare definitively whether or not he believes Muhammad is a true Prophet – the one belief about which no Muslim could lie – and whether or not he believes Jesus Christ is Divine.
The media’s responsibility is to inform the public with facts. Instead, it has been focused on taking the opportunity to discredit Obama’s political opponents by refuting the more easily disprovable false allegations some of them have made, while the media has also revealed its liberal bias by attempting to debunk the theory that the President of the United States it supports is a Muslim by sometimes citing unconvincing evidence as fact.
The media has presented with certainty as fact that which is unknowable. Although the media should refute some of the factual errors that have been claimed about Obama’s faith and report his statements or practices that suggest he is a Christian, it is only for God to judge whether or not he truly is a Christian or a Muslim, as only He knows a person’s sincere beliefs. It is not for the media or for any man to judge the faith of another. In short, another person’s religion is not a provable fact. One can, at best, only form an opinion about another’s religion based upon the perception of that individual’s statements and actions.
The media’s citation of evidence of Obama’s Christianity sometimes demonstrates its ignorance of Islam. For example, the media and Obama’s supporters cite Obama’s reading of the Bible and his swearing into office upon it to prove his Christianity. Although his inauguration on the Bible disproves the false allegation that he was sworn in on a Koran, the Islamic scripture, one’s belief in the Bible does not necessarily prove one’s Christianity, as Muslims also believe in the Bible. Therefore, this piece of evidence fails to prove Obama’s Christianity.
As I noted in my June post, The Clintonian Cynicism and Deceptions of Obama and His Supporters, Obama made a statement during the presidential campaign when he was asked about his religion that did not adequately answer the question, declaring that he “prays to Jesus,” which implied that he might be a Christian, but which did not necessarily disprove that he was a Muslim. Prayer is not the equivalent of worship, and Muslims believe in Jesus – as a Prophet. One can sometimes read into the deceptively-worded statements of politicians like Obama what one wants. His answer allowed Christians to think he is a Christian, while allowing Muslims to cling to the hope that he might secretly be a Muslim concealing his faith in Islam in order to advance Islam or the interests of Muslims more effectively. Indeed, Muslims justify even lying if it is intended to advance Islam, which makes even most definitive statements of faith suspect. Obama’s stated purpose as a matter of foreign policy is to make Muslims believe that he understands them, which might explain his reluctance to confess definitely his Christian faith, so as not to alienate them. Another plausible explanation for Obama’s ambiguity about his faith could be his understandable fear of being accused of apostasy – a crime in Islam punishable by death – for renouncing the faith of his father, which, under Muslim law, makes him a Muslim, too.
Contrary to the assertion sometimes made in the media and by Obama’s supporters, Obama has apparently not necessarily declared himself definitively to be a Christian (i.e. that he recognizes Jesus Christ as the Divine Son of God), although he was “baptized” and has made a number of statements that suggest that he might recognize Christ as more than a Prophet. For example, he has stated that he recognizes Christ as his Redeemer. However, there are non-Christians who recognize Christ as the Redeemer who do not recognize Him as Divine. It is possible that Obama is uncomfortable expressing his Christian faith publicly, but his lack of clarity creates the public perception that he is either unsure of his faith or is concealing his true beliefs.
Regardless, Obama’s declarations of himself as a Christian do not necessarily make his Christianity a fact, nor do anyone’s self-declarations. I am not accusing him of being a hypocrite or a Muslim. I am discussing this matter not in an effort to judge Obama’s faith, but to demonstrate that the media knows nothing about it for certain. Based upon some of his statements and practices, I presume Obama is a Christian, or at least a follower of Christ and not of Islam, but neither I nor anyone else – not even the self-described “authoritative” media – can know with certainty what his religious beliefs are for a fact. The media has no authority to judge Obama’s faith or to label anyone else’s opinions about it “correct” or “incorrect.”
Given Obama’s mysterious background, including his own admission of his understanding of Islam based upon his childhood in Muslim Indonesia, his affiliation with a black radical church he has since disavowed, and his ambiguity about his true faith, it is understandable that a growing plurality of Americans are unsure of Obama’s faith and that a growing majority of the rest have developed a perception of him as a Muslim. If the media truly wants to settle the question of Obama’s faith in terms of public perception, then I call upon it to ask Obama to declare definitively whether or not he believes Muhammad is a true Prophet – the one belief about which no Muslim could lie – and whether or not he believes Jesus Christ is Divine.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
2,000 Visits to My Blog
My blog has now been visited 2,000 times since I began tracking hits on April 2, 2009. Thank you for visiting!
As always, I do not count my own visits and only count page views that are at least one hour apart as separate visits. If I counted all such page views as hits besides my own plus visits to unidentified pages, there would be about 2,800.
The highlights since my last report include the 400th and 200th visits to my blog’s two most popular posts, respectively: The Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization and The Economy, Deficit and Debt at George W. Bush’s Inauguration. Five other posts have now been visited 50-100 times: Obama Did Not Inherit the Deficit from Bush, Radicals in the Obama Administration, Lepanto, by G.K. Chesterton, Follow-up on the Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization, and A Comparison of the Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina and the Haitian Earthquake. The next most popular posts also continue to receive visits. These figures include only visitors who landed on these pages, not those who might have viewed these pages from my blog homepage. In addition to those who viewed my blog homepage, visitors have landed on 119 posts and visited 14 more.
Visitors have come from 70 foreign states and Hong Kong, with the most from Malaysia, followed by Canada. There were even visits from Andorra, Cyprus and Micronesia since my last report. There were visitors from at least 49 American states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, with the most outside of Pennsylvania coming from California.
I am thankful that there are now 10 followers to my blog. I am especially grateful to my most loyal readers. Please continue to visit, comment or suggest topics or ask questions.
As always, in between posts, I make notes for future posts. I have dozens planned, in addition to being ready to respond to developing issues. Visit at least weekly in order not to miss any posts, as my homepage only displays the seven most recent posts (you may view older posts by clicking on the link to them on the bottom of the homepage of my blog or by using the links to the archive on the left-hand column).
I shall take this opportunity to add that after I observed in a post earlier this month that Europe is providing a model for the Obama Administration to cut spending, there was some commentary calling upon the Administration to follow that model instead of proposing more spending.
Also, I have noted how Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez has been spreading his Marxist revolution throughout Latin America. United States Representative Connie Mack (R-FL) has introduced a bill in Congress to declare Venezuela a state sponsor of terrorism for its aid to FARC, the Colombian narco-terrorist Marxist rebels. Venezuela provides aid and gives safe harbor to the terrorist organization, which meets the definition of a state sponsor of terrorism. The designation as a terrorist sponsor triggers several harsh measures against that state.
Again, I thank all of you for your patronage.
As always, I do not count my own visits and only count page views that are at least one hour apart as separate visits. If I counted all such page views as hits besides my own plus visits to unidentified pages, there would be about 2,800.
The highlights since my last report include the 400th and 200th visits to my blog’s two most popular posts, respectively: The Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization and The Economy, Deficit and Debt at George W. Bush’s Inauguration. Five other posts have now been visited 50-100 times: Obama Did Not Inherit the Deficit from Bush, Radicals in the Obama Administration, Lepanto, by G.K. Chesterton, Follow-up on the Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization, and A Comparison of the Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina and the Haitian Earthquake. The next most popular posts also continue to receive visits. These figures include only visitors who landed on these pages, not those who might have viewed these pages from my blog homepage. In addition to those who viewed my blog homepage, visitors have landed on 119 posts and visited 14 more.
Visitors have come from 70 foreign states and Hong Kong, with the most from Malaysia, followed by Canada. There were even visits from Andorra, Cyprus and Micronesia since my last report. There were visitors from at least 49 American states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, with the most outside of Pennsylvania coming from California.
I am thankful that there are now 10 followers to my blog. I am especially grateful to my most loyal readers. Please continue to visit, comment or suggest topics or ask questions.
As always, in between posts, I make notes for future posts. I have dozens planned, in addition to being ready to respond to developing issues. Visit at least weekly in order not to miss any posts, as my homepage only displays the seven most recent posts (you may view older posts by clicking on the link to them on the bottom of the homepage of my blog or by using the links to the archive on the left-hand column).
I shall take this opportunity to add that after I observed in a post earlier this month that Europe is providing a model for the Obama Administration to cut spending, there was some commentary calling upon the Administration to follow that model instead of proposing more spending.
Also, I have noted how Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez has been spreading his Marxist revolution throughout Latin America. United States Representative Connie Mack (R-FL) has introduced a bill in Congress to declare Venezuela a state sponsor of terrorism for its aid to FARC, the Colombian narco-terrorist Marxist rebels. Venezuela provides aid and gives safe harbor to the terrorist organization, which meets the definition of a state sponsor of terrorism. The designation as a terrorist sponsor triggers several harsh measures against that state.
Again, I thank all of you for your patronage.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
More Media Errors
I am continuing my series on media errors. The media, which presents itself as authoritative, makes numerous factual, grammatical and pronunciation errors, as well as misleading statements. The following is my compilation of additional ones I have noticed since my last post on this topic:
Referring to Sufism as a “sect”
Sufism is not a sect, but Islamic mysticism.
“54,000” Americans killed in the Korean War
There were 37,000 Americans killed in the Korean War. The higher figure is a well-known error that people, including in the media, continue to repeat.
Referring to the oil well in the Gulf of Mexico as “busted”
“Busted” is a basic grammatical error. The correct word is “broken,” although in this case, because the well was blown out, it would be acceptable to say that the well had “burst.”
See also my posts, Media Errors on Iraq and Afghanistan, from March of 2009, Misleading Media Phrases, from May of 2009 and Afghanistan Is Not the Longest Ever U.S. War, from June of 2010.
Referring to Sufism as a “sect”
Sufism is not a sect, but Islamic mysticism.
“54,000” Americans killed in the Korean War
There were 37,000 Americans killed in the Korean War. The higher figure is a well-known error that people, including in the media, continue to repeat.
Referring to the oil well in the Gulf of Mexico as “busted”
“Busted” is a basic grammatical error. The correct word is “broken,” although in this case, because the well was blown out, it would be acceptable to say that the well had “burst.”
See also my posts, Media Errors on Iraq and Afghanistan, from March of 2009, Misleading Media Phrases, from May of 2009 and Afghanistan Is Not the Longest Ever U.S. War, from June of 2010.
A Lesson from Italy for Obama and the Congressional Liberal Democrats
Like many European states facing large budget deficits, Italy is focusing on reducing its deficit. The Italian parliament recently approved the government’s austerity measures, which included spending reductions and a crackdown on delinquent taxpayers. Unlike the austerity plans of many other European states, however, Italy’s plan does not include a tax increase.
United States President Barak Obama and the liberal Congressional Democrats plan to allow some of the tax cuts signed into law by President George W. Bush to expire, which would represent a massive tax increase. Income taxes would rise not only for the wealthy, but also for many small businesses for which the owners file personal tax returns. Additionally, many middle class taxpayers will be among those whose taxes will increase because of a significant increase in the capital gains tax.
The Obama Administration, which, unlike the European governments it usually likes to copy, has been conducting an unprecedented spending spree, claims that raising taxes is a responsible way to reduce the deficit. However, as the conservative Italian government recognizes, tax increases are counterproductive to reducing deficits because they reduce economic growth by removing more money from the private sector, which, in turn, reduces government revenue. Tax increases are especially harmful to the economy during recessions. Conversely, tax cuts increase economic growth.
A better way than raising taxes to reduce deficits is to reduce spending. The European states are cutting spending by reducing the generous pensions of government workers, for example, or even their salaries. Obama and the Congressional liberal Democrats ought to adopt the best European budget-cutting practices and the Italian model of avoiding tax increases in particular.
United States President Barak Obama and the liberal Congressional Democrats plan to allow some of the tax cuts signed into law by President George W. Bush to expire, which would represent a massive tax increase. Income taxes would rise not only for the wealthy, but also for many small businesses for which the owners file personal tax returns. Additionally, many middle class taxpayers will be among those whose taxes will increase because of a significant increase in the capital gains tax.
The Obama Administration, which, unlike the European governments it usually likes to copy, has been conducting an unprecedented spending spree, claims that raising taxes is a responsible way to reduce the deficit. However, as the conservative Italian government recognizes, tax increases are counterproductive to reducing deficits because they reduce economic growth by removing more money from the private sector, which, in turn, reduces government revenue. Tax increases are especially harmful to the economy during recessions. Conversely, tax cuts increase economic growth.
A better way than raising taxes to reduce deficits is to reduce spending. The European states are cutting spending by reducing the generous pensions of government workers, for example, or even their salaries. Obama and the Congressional liberal Democrats ought to adopt the best European budget-cutting practices and the Italian model of avoiding tax increases in particular.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Commentary on the Roman Influence on America Exhibit at the Constitution Center
The National Constitution Center in Philadelphia hosted the world premiere of an exhibit, together with the cultural ministry of Italy, called “Ancient Rome and America.” The exhibit was focused on the influence of Ancient Rome on the American Revolution and the founding of the United States. It featured hundreds of Ancient Roman and American artifacts.
Although it is often thought that the democracy of Ancient Greece was the primary inspiration for the American form of government, Americans were clearly influenced by the example of the Roman Republic, founded in 509 B.C., which was nearly contemporaneous to Greek democracy. The U.S. and each of the states of the Union have republican forms of government, not democracies, as the Founding Fathers recognized the dangers to liberty of direct popular rule. The Founders, for example, adopted the Roman Republican model of two legislative assemblies: a lower body that was popularly elected and an upper one, the “Senate,” that was comprised of aristocrats. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution established a similar model of a popularly-elected lower chamber, the “House of Representatives,” and an upper one, also called a “Senate,” that was appointed by state legislators. The Senate would serve as a check on the House.
The Americans also adopted the Roman model of divided government, with separate executive and legislative branches. Roman law, which was promulgated in writing, of which there were several examples in the exhibit, also influenced the Founding Fathers. One Roman practice in particular they adopted was the census. The Roman concept of citizenship, which they expanded during the Imperial age to all the male inhabitants of the Empire, also inspired the American ideal of equality.
That the American Founding Fathers were heavily influenced by ancient Rome is not surprising, considering that they had received the typical education of the time (the Medieval trivium and quadrivium), which included reading Ancient Greek and Roman classics, several Eighteenth-Century copies of which were exhibited. The Americans especially admired those Romans who favored the republican form of government, such as Livy and Cicero, or who esteemed virtue.
The model of duty and humility provided by the Roman Republican General Cincinnatus inspired George Washington, for example. Cincinnatus, a farmer, was called from his field to fight the enemy, but after defeating it, instead of becoming the dictator, he returned to farming. The exhibit included depictions of Washington as Cincinnatus and artifacts from the Society of the Cincinnati, the association of retired American Revolutionary War officers. A bust of Washington in a Roman toga portrayed him as the Roman general Fabius, known for “Fabian” tactics during the Second Punic War with Hannibal. Fabian tactics refer to the avoidance of a direct confrontation with a superior force and the conduct of hit-and-run attacks against smaller units of the enemy, a strategy which General Washington successfully used during the War of American Independence to harass the British.
Busts of several other Founding Fathers in togas also appeared throughout the exhibit. The exhibit demonstrated in many ways how some of the leading early Americans and even their spouses saw themselves as modern Romans. The Grand Tours of Europe they would take or the books about Roman ruins influenced American architectural and artistic styles. The Romans invented the arch, for example, which is symbolic of Ancient Rome and seen in American architecture in its basic form, as most notably in the from of the dome, such as the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol.
There were numerous examples of American symbols in the exhibit that were inspired by Roman symbols, with which they were juxtaposed for comparison. Indeed, the Roman symbols of the eagle (adopted by the Roman army as a symbol of strength), the Goddess Liberty, and the fasces (a symbol of power; a fasces called the “mace” symbolizes authority in the House of Representatives) were featured in numerous Roman artifacts beside American examples. For example, the Roman depictions of the Goddess Liberty were compared with American depictions of the allegorical figure of Liberty on coinage.
I hope the exhibit and my post about it will inspire Americans to learn more about the influence of the Roman Republic on America. On a personal note, I was pleased also to participate in a Tea Party that was being held today on Independence Mall near the Constitution Center with the same spirit of independence and liberty that inspired the American Patriots during the Revolution and the Federal Period. I recall the words of Benjamin Franklin, buried a few yards away, who, when asked what the delegates to the Constitutional Convention at Independence Hall had created, replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” May we keep the Republic! May God Bless America!
Although it is often thought that the democracy of Ancient Greece was the primary inspiration for the American form of government, Americans were clearly influenced by the example of the Roman Republic, founded in 509 B.C., which was nearly contemporaneous to Greek democracy. The U.S. and each of the states of the Union have republican forms of government, not democracies, as the Founding Fathers recognized the dangers to liberty of direct popular rule. The Founders, for example, adopted the Roman Republican model of two legislative assemblies: a lower body that was popularly elected and an upper one, the “Senate,” that was comprised of aristocrats. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution established a similar model of a popularly-elected lower chamber, the “House of Representatives,” and an upper one, also called a “Senate,” that was appointed by state legislators. The Senate would serve as a check on the House.
The Americans also adopted the Roman model of divided government, with separate executive and legislative branches. Roman law, which was promulgated in writing, of which there were several examples in the exhibit, also influenced the Founding Fathers. One Roman practice in particular they adopted was the census. The Roman concept of citizenship, which they expanded during the Imperial age to all the male inhabitants of the Empire, also inspired the American ideal of equality.
That the American Founding Fathers were heavily influenced by ancient Rome is not surprising, considering that they had received the typical education of the time (the Medieval trivium and quadrivium), which included reading Ancient Greek and Roman classics, several Eighteenth-Century copies of which were exhibited. The Americans especially admired those Romans who favored the republican form of government, such as Livy and Cicero, or who esteemed virtue.
The model of duty and humility provided by the Roman Republican General Cincinnatus inspired George Washington, for example. Cincinnatus, a farmer, was called from his field to fight the enemy, but after defeating it, instead of becoming the dictator, he returned to farming. The exhibit included depictions of Washington as Cincinnatus and artifacts from the Society of the Cincinnati, the association of retired American Revolutionary War officers. A bust of Washington in a Roman toga portrayed him as the Roman general Fabius, known for “Fabian” tactics during the Second Punic War with Hannibal. Fabian tactics refer to the avoidance of a direct confrontation with a superior force and the conduct of hit-and-run attacks against smaller units of the enemy, a strategy which General Washington successfully used during the War of American Independence to harass the British.
Busts of several other Founding Fathers in togas also appeared throughout the exhibit. The exhibit demonstrated in many ways how some of the leading early Americans and even their spouses saw themselves as modern Romans. The Grand Tours of Europe they would take or the books about Roman ruins influenced American architectural and artistic styles. The Romans invented the arch, for example, which is symbolic of Ancient Rome and seen in American architecture in its basic form, as most notably in the from of the dome, such as the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol.
There were numerous examples of American symbols in the exhibit that were inspired by Roman symbols, with which they were juxtaposed for comparison. Indeed, the Roman symbols of the eagle (adopted by the Roman army as a symbol of strength), the Goddess Liberty, and the fasces (a symbol of power; a fasces called the “mace” symbolizes authority in the House of Representatives) were featured in numerous Roman artifacts beside American examples. For example, the Roman depictions of the Goddess Liberty were compared with American depictions of the allegorical figure of Liberty on coinage.
I hope the exhibit and my post about it will inspire Americans to learn more about the influence of the Roman Republic on America. On a personal note, I was pleased also to participate in a Tea Party that was being held today on Independence Mall near the Constitution Center with the same spirit of independence and liberty that inspired the American Patriots during the Revolution and the Federal Period. I recall the words of Benjamin Franklin, buried a few yards away, who, when asked what the delegates to the Constitutional Convention at Independence Hall had created, replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” May we keep the Republic! May God Bless America!
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Arizona Border Control Law Update: A Federal Judge Violates States’ Rights
A Clinton-appointed federal district judge has imposed an injunction on the most significant parts of Arizona’s law that enables its police to enforce federal border control law regulating the entry of foreign visitors. The judge based her opinion on the Obama Administration’s argument that federal law pre-empts state law. The Administration was the plaintiff. However, there is nothing in the United States Constitution that pre-empts state border control laws.
Passing border control laws is a pre-existing sovereign right of the states. Indeed, before the 1880s, there was no federal immigration law. The only relevant section of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, addresses naturalization, not the entry or exit of foreign visitors. Furthermore, nothing in that founding document prohibits states from controlling their own borders. Rights not prohibited to the states by the Constitution are retained by them under the Tenth Amendment.
Moreover, the Arizona law in question does not conflict with federal law. It only enforces federal law. As I noted in a previous post, the Obama Administration is being sued in federal court by many states that object to being forced to enforce federal law they oppose (the federal mandate for citizens of the states to purchase health insurance as a condition of residence in the U.S.), while the Administration is suing Arizona for enforcing federal law it supports.
The Framers of the Constitution established a system of limited government, known as federalism, in order to prevent the concentration of power. The Arizona border control ruling, which certainly will be appealed, represents an example of the Obama Administration’s general policy of violating states' rights in order to centralize power in the federal government.
Passing border control laws is a pre-existing sovereign right of the states. Indeed, before the 1880s, there was no federal immigration law. The only relevant section of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, addresses naturalization, not the entry or exit of foreign visitors. Furthermore, nothing in that founding document prohibits states from controlling their own borders. Rights not prohibited to the states by the Constitution are retained by them under the Tenth Amendment.
Moreover, the Arizona law in question does not conflict with federal law. It only enforces federal law. As I noted in a previous post, the Obama Administration is being sued in federal court by many states that object to being forced to enforce federal law they oppose (the federal mandate for citizens of the states to purchase health insurance as a condition of residence in the U.S.), while the Administration is suing Arizona for enforcing federal law it supports.
The Framers of the Constitution established a system of limited government, known as federalism, in order to prevent the concentration of power. The Arizona border control ruling, which certainly will be appealed, represents an example of the Obama Administration’s general policy of violating states' rights in order to centralize power in the federal government.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Four Obama Policies that Have Increased Unemployment
There are at least four major specific ways United States President Barak Obama has increased unemployment in the United States:
1) Obama increased the minimum wage. Increasing the cost of labor makes it more expensive to employ workers, especially younger workers. Naturally, the unemployment rate has risen among young workers, especially minorities.
2) He closed thousands of automobile dealerships when the federal government took over much of General Motors and Chrysler corporations, which caused a loss of tens of thousands of jobs. A recent study concluded that the closings unnecessarily harmed the economy.
3) Obama has extended unemployment compensation. The surest way to increase something, including unemployment, is to subsidize it. Some unemployed workers wait until their unemployment benefits are about to expire in order to search seriously for work, while others eschew temporary work for fear of losing their benefits or part-time work because it is more worthwhile to earn the unemployment compensation instead.
4) His moratorium on offshore oil drilling is causing oil companies to move rigs overseas, at the loss of American jobs.
The ripple effect of these job losses is that these unemployed workers have less disposable income in order to consume (i.e. purchase goods or services), which leads to more unemployment. These Obama policies are in addition to the uncertainty and pessimism his fiscal and regulatory policies are causing. He has already significantly increased government regulation, both of health insurance and banks, for example, the full effects of which will be unknown for years, while proposing costly energy regulation and higher taxes. Additionally, Obama is causing economic pessimism because of his massive increase in the debt from his spending spree. Indeed, the only major area where he has increased employment is in government. The prospect of these significant changes causes a climate of uncertainty and fear. Fear and pessimism discourage investors to invest, lenders to lend and employers to hire.
I invite you to suggest other major Obama policies that are significantly increasing unemployment.
1) Obama increased the minimum wage. Increasing the cost of labor makes it more expensive to employ workers, especially younger workers. Naturally, the unemployment rate has risen among young workers, especially minorities.
2) He closed thousands of automobile dealerships when the federal government took over much of General Motors and Chrysler corporations, which caused a loss of tens of thousands of jobs. A recent study concluded that the closings unnecessarily harmed the economy.
3) Obama has extended unemployment compensation. The surest way to increase something, including unemployment, is to subsidize it. Some unemployed workers wait until their unemployment benefits are about to expire in order to search seriously for work, while others eschew temporary work for fear of losing their benefits or part-time work because it is more worthwhile to earn the unemployment compensation instead.
4) His moratorium on offshore oil drilling is causing oil companies to move rigs overseas, at the loss of American jobs.
The ripple effect of these job losses is that these unemployed workers have less disposable income in order to consume (i.e. purchase goods or services), which leads to more unemployment. These Obama policies are in addition to the uncertainty and pessimism his fiscal and regulatory policies are causing. He has already significantly increased government regulation, both of health insurance and banks, for example, the full effects of which will be unknown for years, while proposing costly energy regulation and higher taxes. Additionally, Obama is causing economic pessimism because of his massive increase in the debt from his spending spree. Indeed, the only major area where he has increased employment is in government. The prospect of these significant changes causes a climate of uncertainty and fear. Fear and pessimism discourage investors to invest, lenders to lend and employers to hire.
I invite you to suggest other major Obama policies that are significantly increasing unemployment.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
A Conservative Federalist Commentary on the Right to Bear Arms Ruling
When the United States Supreme Court ruled in June that the right to keep and bear arms applies to the states, I had mixed feelings. Although I agreed that this right is a “fundamental” liberty, I objected on federalist grounds that the Second Amendment to the Constitution is binding on the states by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Then I read Justice Clarence Thomas’ remarkable concurring opinion, to which Justice Antonin Scalia expressed some support in a separate concurring opinion.
The Bill of Rights (the First Ten Amendments to the United States Constitution) originally limited only the federal government from abridging liberty. Part of it was made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which declares that no one could be denied liberty “without due process of law.” At first, the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause referred only to procedural rights of the accused, (e.g. to trial by jury, to compel witnesses, etc.), not substantive rights (e.g. freedom of speech or assembly). Such application of the Bill of Rights to the states is called “incorporation,” meaning that the Bill of Rights are thus made a part of the body of the Fourteenth Amendment because they define the “liberty” referred to in the Due Process Clause.
An argument was advanced that the entire Bill of Rights was made applicable to the states by the Due Process Clause, including even the substantive rights, but the Court rejected this idea and has never held that the Bill of Rights was incorporated in toto, not even all the procedural rights (for example, the right to a grand jury). Gradually, however, the Court has selectively incorporated most of the Bill of Rights, but only those that are judged “fundamental” to liberty, as opposed to those not essential to liberty.
In Heller v. District of Columbia in 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment of the Constitution was an individual liberty that may not be abridged by the United States, but this case was only applicable to federal territory, as it was not necessary for the Court to rule whether the Second Amendment was a fundamental liberty, binding on the states through its incorporation by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a question that remained unsettled law until it ruled in McDonald v. Chicago last month.
In striking down Chicago’s ban on handguns, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in McDonald that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental liberty, binding on the states through the Due Process Clause. In its opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, the plurality cited the intent of the Framers of the Constitution, who recognized the right to keep and bear arms as a pre-existing right fundamental to liberty. They also cited the history of the post-Civil War period and the denial of this right to freed blacks by some of the states that necessitated the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Justice Thomas, however, suggests a broader, easier and more federalist method of determining what freedoms and rights are binding on the states. His original intent approach would also better prevent liberal justices from continuing their practice of making up rights as “fundamental” that were never contemplated as such at the time of the ratification, while denying those rights they dislike by judging them non-essential. In his concurring opinion, he states the issue of what liberty is protected by the Constitution does not depend upon “process” or whether it is judged a “fundamental” liberty incorporated into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but whether it is protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States”). Privileges and immunities mean “freedoms” and “rights.” The issue, then, is which freedoms and rights were understood at the ratification of the state constitutions as inalienable (i.e. Natural law, meaning granted to man by the Creator).
These privileges and immunities, freedoms and rights are not based upon the Bill of Rights, which was intended only to limit the federal government. Indeed, even under the federal Constitution, Natural law is not limited to those rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, but includes rights that were not enumerated, which the Ninth Amendment declares are retained by the people. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are examples of privileges and immunities that represent the minimum standard of liberty. The source of freedoms and rights is not the Bill of Rights, but Natural law as recognized as inalienable at the time of ratification. Thus, the Privileges and Immunities Clause prohibits states from denying liberty, not the Due Process Clause by incorporating the Bill of Rights. The Privileges and Immunities Clause not only prevents a state from abridging the rights and freedoms of some citizens while protecting those rights of others, but requires the states to guarantee liberty, much as the Bill of Rights requires the federal government.
Thomas cited legislative history and early Supreme Court precedent that suggests the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to protect liberty through the Privileges and Immunities Clause, including specifically the right to keep and bear arms. This right is a pre-existing, inalienable Natural law right. Therefore, all such pre-existing rights are protected through the Privileges and Immunities Clause, not by the Due Process Clause.
In conclusion, in both Thomas’ and the plurality’s interpretation, the right to keep and bear arms is a “fundamental” liberty that pre-existed the Constitution. Unlike the plurality, however, Thomas does not find it necessary to determine whether a freedom or right is “fundamental” in order for it to be constitutionally binding on the states by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but whether it is recognized as inalienable by each of the states themselves in their own constitutions, which the Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities Clause requires them to uphold. Therefore, the Amendment does not violate the principle of federalism, but is dependent upon the states' own recognition of Natural law.
The Bill of Rights (the First Ten Amendments to the United States Constitution) originally limited only the federal government from abridging liberty. Part of it was made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which declares that no one could be denied liberty “without due process of law.” At first, the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause referred only to procedural rights of the accused, (e.g. to trial by jury, to compel witnesses, etc.), not substantive rights (e.g. freedom of speech or assembly). Such application of the Bill of Rights to the states is called “incorporation,” meaning that the Bill of Rights are thus made a part of the body of the Fourteenth Amendment because they define the “liberty” referred to in the Due Process Clause.
An argument was advanced that the entire Bill of Rights was made applicable to the states by the Due Process Clause, including even the substantive rights, but the Court rejected this idea and has never held that the Bill of Rights was incorporated in toto, not even all the procedural rights (for example, the right to a grand jury). Gradually, however, the Court has selectively incorporated most of the Bill of Rights, but only those that are judged “fundamental” to liberty, as opposed to those not essential to liberty.
In Heller v. District of Columbia in 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment of the Constitution was an individual liberty that may not be abridged by the United States, but this case was only applicable to federal territory, as it was not necessary for the Court to rule whether the Second Amendment was a fundamental liberty, binding on the states through its incorporation by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a question that remained unsettled law until it ruled in McDonald v. Chicago last month.
In striking down Chicago’s ban on handguns, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in McDonald that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental liberty, binding on the states through the Due Process Clause. In its opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, the plurality cited the intent of the Framers of the Constitution, who recognized the right to keep and bear arms as a pre-existing right fundamental to liberty. They also cited the history of the post-Civil War period and the denial of this right to freed blacks by some of the states that necessitated the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Justice Thomas, however, suggests a broader, easier and more federalist method of determining what freedoms and rights are binding on the states. His original intent approach would also better prevent liberal justices from continuing their practice of making up rights as “fundamental” that were never contemplated as such at the time of the ratification, while denying those rights they dislike by judging them non-essential. In his concurring opinion, he states the issue of what liberty is protected by the Constitution does not depend upon “process” or whether it is judged a “fundamental” liberty incorporated into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but whether it is protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States”). Privileges and immunities mean “freedoms” and “rights.” The issue, then, is which freedoms and rights were understood at the ratification of the state constitutions as inalienable (i.e. Natural law, meaning granted to man by the Creator).
These privileges and immunities, freedoms and rights are not based upon the Bill of Rights, which was intended only to limit the federal government. Indeed, even under the federal Constitution, Natural law is not limited to those rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, but includes rights that were not enumerated, which the Ninth Amendment declares are retained by the people. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are examples of privileges and immunities that represent the minimum standard of liberty. The source of freedoms and rights is not the Bill of Rights, but Natural law as recognized as inalienable at the time of ratification. Thus, the Privileges and Immunities Clause prohibits states from denying liberty, not the Due Process Clause by incorporating the Bill of Rights. The Privileges and Immunities Clause not only prevents a state from abridging the rights and freedoms of some citizens while protecting those rights of others, but requires the states to guarantee liberty, much as the Bill of Rights requires the federal government.
Thomas cited legislative history and early Supreme Court precedent that suggests the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to protect liberty through the Privileges and Immunities Clause, including specifically the right to keep and bear arms. This right is a pre-existing, inalienable Natural law right. Therefore, all such pre-existing rights are protected through the Privileges and Immunities Clause, not by the Due Process Clause.
In conclusion, in both Thomas’ and the plurality’s interpretation, the right to keep and bear arms is a “fundamental” liberty that pre-existed the Constitution. Unlike the plurality, however, Thomas does not find it necessary to determine whether a freedom or right is “fundamental” in order for it to be constitutionally binding on the states by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but whether it is recognized as inalienable by each of the states themselves in their own constitutions, which the Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities Clause requires them to uphold. Therefore, the Amendment does not violate the principle of federalism, but is dependent upon the states' own recognition of Natural law.
Friday, July 16, 2010
July Follow-Ups and Updates
Obama's Clintonian Deceptions
In my post last month, The Clintonian Cynicism and Deception of Obama and His Supporters, I observed how United States President Barak Obama follows the example of his predecessor, Bill Clinton, in making statements into which either conservative or liberal listeners might read whatever they wish, which is a misleading tactic. I cited a number of examples and have since thought of another worth exposing. Obama has said that President George W. Bush “didn’t pay for” his prescription drug program, a statement that allows his listeners to read into it what they want. Conservatives think he means that Bush failed to make spending cuts in order to pay for the program while liberals think Obama means Bush failed to increase taxes. The liberals were right, but Obama succeeded in fooling people without having to say what he truly believed.
States' Rights/The Federalization of Health Insurance/Border Control
The states are rebelling against federal violations of states’ rights committed by the Obama Administration. The Administration is being sued by 20 states for its federal mandate to purchase health insurance, and nine states over its lawsuit against Arizona’s decision to exercise its pre-existing power to control its border, as well as to enforce federal law. In other words, the Obama Administration is contradicting itself by ordering states to do something in order to enforce federal law on the one hand and suing one of them for enforcing federal law on the other hand.
It has been reported that already new regulations written by the Obama Administration under the federalization of health insurance will require taxpayers to pay for insurance polices that pay for abortions, despite Obama’s executive order prohibiting abortion funding. Regardless, executive orders do not have the constitutional force of law that legislation does, as Article I of the Constitution vests all legislative power in Congress, which means that a federal court would rule that Obama’s order is superseded by the legislation that permits federal funding of abortion.
Italian Crucifixes in the Schools
The Italian news agency ANSA reported that Italy has appealed the European court’s ruling that it must remove crucifixes from its schools and that many other European states joined the Italian Republic in support.
Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction
Former presidential advisor Karl Rove admitted that his biggest mistake was not defending United States President George W. Bush against the false accusations from liberal Democrats that Bush had lied about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq, a point I have been making since shortly before I launched this blog a few weeks after the 2008 election. The failure to adequately defend the record of the Republican Congressional majority contributed to its defeat in the 2006 elections and the failure to adequately defend the Bush Administration, especially in regard to the issue of WMDs in Iraq, contributed to the Republican defeat in the 2008 presidential election. Rove observed that the repeated Democratic accusation that Bush had lied succeeded in gradually changing people’s perceptions of the honesty of the 43rd President.
Although Rove did not point out that hundreds of WMDs, in fact, have been found in the form of artillery shells with chemical warheads (the same ones that United Nations inspectors knew existed and which Saddam Hussein failed to prove after the inspectors left Iraq that he had destroyed), as well as missiles of a longer range than permitted under U.N. resolutions, he did quote leading Democrats who insisted before the Liberation of Iraq that its Baathist regime had WMDs and cited the findings of various investigations that established the lack of any deception on the part of the Bush Administration even if not all of the intelligence reports that it sincerely believed turned out to be inaccurate. He also hailed the results of the U.S.-led war: the removal of an enemy in Hussein’s regime and its replacement with an ally, the defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq, as well as the liberation of the Iraqi people and the justice of the war crimes trials for Hussein and his henchmen. Rove observed that the liberal Democrat’s false accusations tarnished their own reputations.
In my post last month, The Clintonian Cynicism and Deception of Obama and His Supporters, I observed how United States President Barak Obama follows the example of his predecessor, Bill Clinton, in making statements into which either conservative or liberal listeners might read whatever they wish, which is a misleading tactic. I cited a number of examples and have since thought of another worth exposing. Obama has said that President George W. Bush “didn’t pay for” his prescription drug program, a statement that allows his listeners to read into it what they want. Conservatives think he means that Bush failed to make spending cuts in order to pay for the program while liberals think Obama means Bush failed to increase taxes. The liberals were right, but Obama succeeded in fooling people without having to say what he truly believed.
States' Rights/The Federalization of Health Insurance/Border Control
The states are rebelling against federal violations of states’ rights committed by the Obama Administration. The Administration is being sued by 20 states for its federal mandate to purchase health insurance, and nine states over its lawsuit against Arizona’s decision to exercise its pre-existing power to control its border, as well as to enforce federal law. In other words, the Obama Administration is contradicting itself by ordering states to do something in order to enforce federal law on the one hand and suing one of them for enforcing federal law on the other hand.
It has been reported that already new regulations written by the Obama Administration under the federalization of health insurance will require taxpayers to pay for insurance polices that pay for abortions, despite Obama’s executive order prohibiting abortion funding. Regardless, executive orders do not have the constitutional force of law that legislation does, as Article I of the Constitution vests all legislative power in Congress, which means that a federal court would rule that Obama’s order is superseded by the legislation that permits federal funding of abortion.
Italian Crucifixes in the Schools
The Italian news agency ANSA reported that Italy has appealed the European court’s ruling that it must remove crucifixes from its schools and that many other European states joined the Italian Republic in support.
Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction
Former presidential advisor Karl Rove admitted that his biggest mistake was not defending United States President George W. Bush against the false accusations from liberal Democrats that Bush had lied about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq, a point I have been making since shortly before I launched this blog a few weeks after the 2008 election. The failure to adequately defend the record of the Republican Congressional majority contributed to its defeat in the 2006 elections and the failure to adequately defend the Bush Administration, especially in regard to the issue of WMDs in Iraq, contributed to the Republican defeat in the 2008 presidential election. Rove observed that the repeated Democratic accusation that Bush had lied succeeded in gradually changing people’s perceptions of the honesty of the 43rd President.
Although Rove did not point out that hundreds of WMDs, in fact, have been found in the form of artillery shells with chemical warheads (the same ones that United Nations inspectors knew existed and which Saddam Hussein failed to prove after the inspectors left Iraq that he had destroyed), as well as missiles of a longer range than permitted under U.N. resolutions, he did quote leading Democrats who insisted before the Liberation of Iraq that its Baathist regime had WMDs and cited the findings of various investigations that established the lack of any deception on the part of the Bush Administration even if not all of the intelligence reports that it sincerely believed turned out to be inaccurate. He also hailed the results of the U.S.-led war: the removal of an enemy in Hussein’s regime and its replacement with an ally, the defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq, as well as the liberation of the Iraqi people and the justice of the war crimes trials for Hussein and his henchmen. Rove observed that the liberal Democrat’s false accusations tarnished their own reputations.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
War on Terrorism Update: Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea
Afghanistan
General David Petraeus was confirmed by the United States Senate to be the new commander of the Afghan War. During his confirmation hearings, he made a number of noteworthy statements. General Petraeus acknowledged that the July of 2011 deadline to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan that was announced by U.S. President Barak Obama at the same time he announced he would implement the troop surge strategy for the Afghan front in the War on Terrorism that the idea was not one that was proposed by the military. It was a policy based upon the political ideology of the civilian leadership of the Obama Administration, not an example of sound military doctrine. Obama’s arbitrary deadline has damaged the morale of American troops in the Afghan theater of operations, caused U.S. allies there to doubt American resolve to remain as long as necessary to win this critical battle in the War on Terrorism and encouraged the Taliban and al-Qaeda enemy that they could wait until the U.S. withdrawal to return to power and reestablish a safe haven for terrorism in Afghanistan.
Gen. Petraeus also declared that the withdrawal of American troops will not be immediate, but phased. Most importantly, it will be based on the conditions on the Afghan front, not political expedience. He also indicated that the rules of engagement would be revised in a way that better allows N.A.T.O. troops to defeat the enemy while avoiding innocent civilian casualties, which, like his other statements, should improve morale for U.S. troops. In short, Gen. Petraeus is correcting the mistakes of the Obama Administration, which is increasing the chance for victory in Afghanistan and the War on Terrorism.
See also my post from last month, Two Recent Obama Contradictions, in which I explain the contradiction of nominating Gen. Petraeus, the architect of the Iraqi troop surge, after Obama predicted its failure and after its implementation insisted that it was failing, despite the evidence supplied by the General and long after it became obvious the surge was succeeding, a strategy Obama has since adopted for Afghanistan, as the Bush Administration had proposed. Ironically, the turn of events in Iraq and Afghanistan has allowed Gen. Petraeus to become the only man in which both the Administration and the Democrats and Republics in Congress had confidence could successfully implement the Obama strategy by making the proper changes in order to win the Afghan War.
Obama recently called the battle of Afghanistan the “longest war” in American history, a statement that is at odds with the U.S. government’s official position, is that the Vietnamese War lasted from 1964-1973, but includes the Mayaguez Incident in 1975, a period which alone (not including U.S. combat in the Vietnamese War from 1961-1963) would make it longer than the Afghan War, which began in 2001. See also my post last month, Afghanistan Is Not the Longest Ever U.S. War.
Iran
Obama signed a new set of U.S. sanctions on Iran into law in response to Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The sanctions were imposed unilaterally because he failed to obtain United Nations Security Council approval of another round of multilateral sanctions on the Islamic Republic. Both Obama and his predecessor implemented several previous rounds of sanctions on Iran without successfully halting the Iranian development of a nuclear weapon.
North Korea
North Korea was removed by the United States State Department under President George W. Bush from the list of terrorist-sponsoring states. The consequences for being on the list are comprehensive and harsh. Removal from the list was a North Korean precondition to returning to the Six-Party talks aimed at eliminating its nuclear weapons. The Bush Administration cited the fact that North Korea state had not committed any acts of terrorism since 1987. Although it has not sponsored any such acts in decades, the Communist state continues to harbor members of the Japanese Red Army, a terrorist organization.
Recently, a debate has emerged over whether North Korea should be relisted as a state sponsor of terrorism. Some have labeled the sinking of the South Korean ship, the Chenoan, was an act of terrorism, but an attack on a military target does not constitute terrorism, as would an attack on innocent civilians, for terrorism is a violent attack on innocent civilians in order to intimidate the populace to give into the demands of the terrorists. The two Koreas remain in a state of war, having signed an armistice in 1953, but no peace treaty. Others have cited the North Korean assassination of a high-ranking government official who defected to the South as an act of terrorism, but, again, although an act of war, it did not represent an attack on innocent civilians.
Communist North Korean aid to terrorist organizations and other state sponsors of terrorism, however, clearly represents an act of terrorism which would justify relisting North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism.
General David Petraeus was confirmed by the United States Senate to be the new commander of the Afghan War. During his confirmation hearings, he made a number of noteworthy statements. General Petraeus acknowledged that the July of 2011 deadline to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan that was announced by U.S. President Barak Obama at the same time he announced he would implement the troop surge strategy for the Afghan front in the War on Terrorism that the idea was not one that was proposed by the military. It was a policy based upon the political ideology of the civilian leadership of the Obama Administration, not an example of sound military doctrine. Obama’s arbitrary deadline has damaged the morale of American troops in the Afghan theater of operations, caused U.S. allies there to doubt American resolve to remain as long as necessary to win this critical battle in the War on Terrorism and encouraged the Taliban and al-Qaeda enemy that they could wait until the U.S. withdrawal to return to power and reestablish a safe haven for terrorism in Afghanistan.
Gen. Petraeus also declared that the withdrawal of American troops will not be immediate, but phased. Most importantly, it will be based on the conditions on the Afghan front, not political expedience. He also indicated that the rules of engagement would be revised in a way that better allows N.A.T.O. troops to defeat the enemy while avoiding innocent civilian casualties, which, like his other statements, should improve morale for U.S. troops. In short, Gen. Petraeus is correcting the mistakes of the Obama Administration, which is increasing the chance for victory in Afghanistan and the War on Terrorism.
See also my post from last month, Two Recent Obama Contradictions, in which I explain the contradiction of nominating Gen. Petraeus, the architect of the Iraqi troop surge, after Obama predicted its failure and after its implementation insisted that it was failing, despite the evidence supplied by the General and long after it became obvious the surge was succeeding, a strategy Obama has since adopted for Afghanistan, as the Bush Administration had proposed. Ironically, the turn of events in Iraq and Afghanistan has allowed Gen. Petraeus to become the only man in which both the Administration and the Democrats and Republics in Congress had confidence could successfully implement the Obama strategy by making the proper changes in order to win the Afghan War.
Obama recently called the battle of Afghanistan the “longest war” in American history, a statement that is at odds with the U.S. government’s official position, is that the Vietnamese War lasted from 1964-1973, but includes the Mayaguez Incident in 1975, a period which alone (not including U.S. combat in the Vietnamese War from 1961-1963) would make it longer than the Afghan War, which began in 2001. See also my post last month, Afghanistan Is Not the Longest Ever U.S. War.
Iran
Obama signed a new set of U.S. sanctions on Iran into law in response to Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The sanctions were imposed unilaterally because he failed to obtain United Nations Security Council approval of another round of multilateral sanctions on the Islamic Republic. Both Obama and his predecessor implemented several previous rounds of sanctions on Iran without successfully halting the Iranian development of a nuclear weapon.
North Korea
North Korea was removed by the United States State Department under President George W. Bush from the list of terrorist-sponsoring states. The consequences for being on the list are comprehensive and harsh. Removal from the list was a North Korean precondition to returning to the Six-Party talks aimed at eliminating its nuclear weapons. The Bush Administration cited the fact that North Korea state had not committed any acts of terrorism since 1987. Although it has not sponsored any such acts in decades, the Communist state continues to harbor members of the Japanese Red Army, a terrorist organization.
Recently, a debate has emerged over whether North Korea should be relisted as a state sponsor of terrorism. Some have labeled the sinking of the South Korean ship, the Chenoan, was an act of terrorism, but an attack on a military target does not constitute terrorism, as would an attack on innocent civilians, for terrorism is a violent attack on innocent civilians in order to intimidate the populace to give into the demands of the terrorists. The two Koreas remain in a state of war, having signed an armistice in 1953, but no peace treaty. Others have cited the North Korean assassination of a high-ranking government official who defected to the South as an act of terrorism, but, again, although an act of war, it did not represent an attack on innocent civilians.
Communist North Korean aid to terrorist organizations and other state sponsors of terrorism, however, clearly represents an act of terrorism which would justify relisting North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism.
Obama’s Comment on Anti-Immigrant Discrimination Is Misleading
In his recent speech promoting his goal of comprehensive immigration reform, United States President Barak Obama said, “A century ago,” Irish, Italian and Polish immigrants were “subject to rank discrimination” and were the object of negative stereotypes.
Although this statement is true, and the acknowledgement of such behavior by the President is appreciated, it is nonetheless misleading. It is true that these immigrants were subject to discrimination and negative stereotypes a century ago, but Obama’s remark implies that these European immigrants are no longer subject to them, as if it were only true “a century ago.” However, public opinion surveys suggest that a disturbingly large number of Americans hold negative stereotypes about Italian immigrants and Americans of Italian descent, for example. Typically, the entertainment industry portrays Italian-Americans either as criminals or buffoons. Even commercial advertisements often play on such negative stereotypes. As a result, despite historically having one of the lowest crime rates of any ethnic group, a majority of Americans falsely believe that most Italian-Americans are involved with organized crime.
Furthermore, Obama’s statement seems to contradict a federal law signed by President Bill Clinton in which the United States admitted that it interred Italian immigrants, as well as immigrants from other Axis Powers during World War II, in addition to the more well-known internment of Japanese immigrants. Even some U.S. citizens of Italian origin were among the internees. Immigrants from these foreign states were also subject to a variety of other discriminatory practices by the federal government itself. See also my post from May of this year, Proposed Textbooks Debunk a Liberal Myth of American Racism, in which I discuss this matter in more detail and note how recent history, as written in proposed new textbooks, debunks the liberal opinion that only Japanese-Americans suffered discrimination from the U.S. because of American racism.
Obama’s minimization of discrimination against European immigrants reflects the liberal view that America is racist, which fails to recognize a more general anti-immigrant populist strain of American opinion that is not necessarily based upon racial discrimination. It also reflects the liberals’ simplistic tendency in regard to the issue of race to lump all European ethnic groups into the monolithic group of “whites,” regardless of their level of culpability in or victimization from racial discrimination in American history, as well as liberal favoritism toward certain groups they regard as political constituencies. But in order for all prejudice to be eliminated, it is first necessary to acknowledge prejudice in every form it takes without minimizing it and to better understand its origins.
Although this statement is true, and the acknowledgement of such behavior by the President is appreciated, it is nonetheless misleading. It is true that these immigrants were subject to discrimination and negative stereotypes a century ago, but Obama’s remark implies that these European immigrants are no longer subject to them, as if it were only true “a century ago.” However, public opinion surveys suggest that a disturbingly large number of Americans hold negative stereotypes about Italian immigrants and Americans of Italian descent, for example. Typically, the entertainment industry portrays Italian-Americans either as criminals or buffoons. Even commercial advertisements often play on such negative stereotypes. As a result, despite historically having one of the lowest crime rates of any ethnic group, a majority of Americans falsely believe that most Italian-Americans are involved with organized crime.
Furthermore, Obama’s statement seems to contradict a federal law signed by President Bill Clinton in which the United States admitted that it interred Italian immigrants, as well as immigrants from other Axis Powers during World War II, in addition to the more well-known internment of Japanese immigrants. Even some U.S. citizens of Italian origin were among the internees. Immigrants from these foreign states were also subject to a variety of other discriminatory practices by the federal government itself. See also my post from May of this year, Proposed Textbooks Debunk a Liberal Myth of American Racism, in which I discuss this matter in more detail and note how recent history, as written in proposed new textbooks, debunks the liberal opinion that only Japanese-Americans suffered discrimination from the U.S. because of American racism.
Obama’s minimization of discrimination against European immigrants reflects the liberal view that America is racist, which fails to recognize a more general anti-immigrant populist strain of American opinion that is not necessarily based upon racial discrimination. It also reflects the liberals’ simplistic tendency in regard to the issue of race to lump all European ethnic groups into the monolithic group of “whites,” regardless of their level of culpability in or victimization from racial discrimination in American history, as well as liberal favoritism toward certain groups they regard as political constituencies. But in order for all prejudice to be eliminated, it is first necessary to acknowledge prejudice in every form it takes without minimizing it and to better understand its origins.
Elena Kagan's Unconstitutional Views Disqualify Her from the U.S. Supreme Court
United States President Barak Obama has nominated Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. The constitutional duty of a justice of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution and federal laws as intended by their authors. Kagan’s statements in her confirmation hearing before the Senate reveal that she would not fulfill her duty because she believes that a federal judge may impose her own view instead. Therefore, has disqualified herself from Senate confirmation.
In my last post, I discussed Elena Kagan’s refusal to accept the concept of natural law as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration affirms that the rights of man come from the Creator, not from the state. She insists that she would only rule on the rights as enumerated in the Constitution, even though the Constitution presupposes these rights and freedoms (i.e. it does not establish any freedoms and rights, but prohibits the United States from abridging those rights it enumerates) and, through the Ninth Amendment, it reserves to the people the rights that it does not enumerate. Kagan’s view suggests that rights come from government, which not only allows government to limit the enumerated freedoms and rights in whatever way it wants, but also to choose not to acknowledge or protect the rights and freedoms that are not expressed in the Constitution. Her opinion is thus contrary to the intent of the Framers of the Constitution, which ought to disqualify her from being confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice.
An additional disqualifying view held by Kagan is that the interpretation of the Constitution changes over time, which would substitute the whim of liberal judges for the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution and each of its Amendments. The Constitution and each of its Amendments were approved democratically by the representatives of the people through the deliberative, legislative process established by the Constitution itself. Whenever they are confronted with the legislative history that is contrary to their opinion, liberals like Kagan conveniently prefer to change the meaning of the words of the Constitution to match their preferences and to insist that their own interpretation is acceptable under the theory that the Constitution is a “living document.” Treating the law as changeable by judicial activism is another way of saying that liberals may change the law and the Constitution undemocratically through unelected judges whenever they are politically unable to change the Constitution through its amendment process or change legislation through Congress.
The combination of Kagan’s two unconstitutional views means that she would interpret natural law freedoms and rights in whatever way she wanted, despite the original intent of the Framers, even to the extent of not even acknowledging a right or freedom that is expressed in the Constitution, let alone those that are not. For example, she has expressed her opposition to the right to keep and bear arms expressed in the Constitution, which the Supreme Court ruled the Framers intended as a personal right. The Court was closely-divided in that case, which means that it could deny that right if only one vote on the Court changes. The recent closely-divided Citizens United case suggests that the liberal minority of four of the nine Justices which Kagan would join if confirmed by the Senate would even limit the freedom of speech or of the press.
On the other hand, liberal judges create new “fundamental” rights never intended by the Framers, even if it is necessary to limit basic freedoms like the right to life as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, such as the right to an abortion, even though the denial of the right to life without due process of law is prohibited by the Constitution. Indeed, when she worked in the Clinton Administration, Kagan reworded a medical association’s statement regarding partial birth abortion that suggested the procedure might be medically necessary, contrary to the association’s opinion – a change which was erroneously relied upon by the Supreme Court in overturning a state ban on partial birth abortion as if it were scientific fact and not political expedience masqueraded as science.
Kagan, as dean of Harvard University also infamously banned the military from recruitment on campus she was dean of that school, despite federal law requiring schools that accept federal funding to allow equal access to the military as private recruiters. The nominee for federal court continued her ban even after a federal court ruled it was illegal.
Although Kagan’s views of abortion and her record on discrimination against the military are troubling, her overall radical judicial activist philosophy of rejecting natural law and interpreting the Constitution any way she prefers, despite the intent of its Framers, suggest she would threaten liberty through the tyranny of judicial activism instead of protecting liberty by fulfilling her duty of interpreting the Constitution and the law as its authors intended. Therefore, her opinions disqualify her from confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. Conservatives must demand that the Senate reject the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.
In my last post, I discussed Elena Kagan’s refusal to accept the concept of natural law as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration affirms that the rights of man come from the Creator, not from the state. She insists that she would only rule on the rights as enumerated in the Constitution, even though the Constitution presupposes these rights and freedoms (i.e. it does not establish any freedoms and rights, but prohibits the United States from abridging those rights it enumerates) and, through the Ninth Amendment, it reserves to the people the rights that it does not enumerate. Kagan’s view suggests that rights come from government, which not only allows government to limit the enumerated freedoms and rights in whatever way it wants, but also to choose not to acknowledge or protect the rights and freedoms that are not expressed in the Constitution. Her opinion is thus contrary to the intent of the Framers of the Constitution, which ought to disqualify her from being confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice.
An additional disqualifying view held by Kagan is that the interpretation of the Constitution changes over time, which would substitute the whim of liberal judges for the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution and each of its Amendments. The Constitution and each of its Amendments were approved democratically by the representatives of the people through the deliberative, legislative process established by the Constitution itself. Whenever they are confronted with the legislative history that is contrary to their opinion, liberals like Kagan conveniently prefer to change the meaning of the words of the Constitution to match their preferences and to insist that their own interpretation is acceptable under the theory that the Constitution is a “living document.” Treating the law as changeable by judicial activism is another way of saying that liberals may change the law and the Constitution undemocratically through unelected judges whenever they are politically unable to change the Constitution through its amendment process or change legislation through Congress.
The combination of Kagan’s two unconstitutional views means that she would interpret natural law freedoms and rights in whatever way she wanted, despite the original intent of the Framers, even to the extent of not even acknowledging a right or freedom that is expressed in the Constitution, let alone those that are not. For example, she has expressed her opposition to the right to keep and bear arms expressed in the Constitution, which the Supreme Court ruled the Framers intended as a personal right. The Court was closely-divided in that case, which means that it could deny that right if only one vote on the Court changes. The recent closely-divided Citizens United case suggests that the liberal minority of four of the nine Justices which Kagan would join if confirmed by the Senate would even limit the freedom of speech or of the press.
On the other hand, liberal judges create new “fundamental” rights never intended by the Framers, even if it is necessary to limit basic freedoms like the right to life as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, such as the right to an abortion, even though the denial of the right to life without due process of law is prohibited by the Constitution. Indeed, when she worked in the Clinton Administration, Kagan reworded a medical association’s statement regarding partial birth abortion that suggested the procedure might be medically necessary, contrary to the association’s opinion – a change which was erroneously relied upon by the Supreme Court in overturning a state ban on partial birth abortion as if it were scientific fact and not political expedience masqueraded as science.
Kagan, as dean of Harvard University also infamously banned the military from recruitment on campus she was dean of that school, despite federal law requiring schools that accept federal funding to allow equal access to the military as private recruiters. The nominee for federal court continued her ban even after a federal court ruled it was illegal.
Although Kagan’s views of abortion and her record on discrimination against the military are troubling, her overall radical judicial activist philosophy of rejecting natural law and interpreting the Constitution any way she prefers, despite the intent of its Framers, suggest she would threaten liberty through the tyranny of judicial activism instead of protecting liberty by fulfilling her duty of interpreting the Constitution and the law as its authors intended. Therefore, her opinions disqualify her from confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. Conservatives must demand that the Senate reject the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.
Friday, July 2, 2010
July 2: The True Independence Day and Birthday of the States
The Continental Congress approved Richard Henry Lee’s resolution to declare the independence of the Thirteen American Colonies as States on this day in 1776; July 2 is thus the true date of American Independence. Indeed, it is the date that Founding Father John Adams recommended by commemorated annually by celebrations, including parades and fireworks. Two days later, the Congress approved the Declaration of Independence. The prominent July 4 date on that great document probably contributed to the popular belief that the Fourth of July marked the beginning of American Independence, although this date, too, is worthy of celebration.
The independence of the states that was approved on July 2 and eloquently declared on the July 4, 1776 represents the birthday of each of the Thirteen States in particular and American Independence in general. But it is not the birthday of the “United States of America,” which was only founded upon the implementation of the U.S. Constitution.
The Declaration of Independence acknowledges the equality of all men and that the rights of man come not from government, but from our Creator, which is “the American Creed.” It also states that government exists to protect these rights and that it derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. The Framers of the Constitution, who accepted the American Creed, presupposed the concept of natural law rights, which is why they did not consider it necessary to enumerate them in the Constitution, as if to imply that government grants rights instead of God. They only agreed to adopt a Bill of Rights as a safeguard of liberty in order to win the ratification of the Constitution. Indeed, the Bill of Rights, the First Ten Amendments to the Constitution, does not grant any freedoms or rights, but prohibits the United States from abridging the enumerated freedoms and rights that every person has by birthright. The Ninth Amendment even acknowledges the presupposition of natural law rights by reserving any additional rights of man that were not expressly listed in the Constitution.
The American Creed, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, has long been accepted as the basis for the Constitution. U.S. President Abraham Lincoln and American civil rights leader Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. famously reminded their fellow Americans that the equality and rights of the people come from God, not men, and that the Constitution must by interpreted only in the context of the Declaration of Independence.
President Barak Obama has nominated someone for the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, who shockingly refused this week during her confirmation hearing to acknowledge the principle of natural law. Instead, she insisted that only those rights enumerated in the Constitution could be interpreted by a federal judge to exist, in contradiction of the Framers of the Constitution and the Ninth Amendment. There are several major grounds for the Senate to oppose the confirmation of this Obama Administration radical, which will be the subject of a future post, but Kagan's rejection of natural law is enough to disqualify her from serving as a justice entrusted to safeguard liberty, a concept she does not believe exists by nature, but only by the whim of judges.
Let us reflect on American Independence and the great document that declared it and acknowledged God as the source of our life and liberty. Let us also remember and be grateful to those who sacrificed in order for their posterity to enjoy freedom. May we continue remain ever vigilant in defending our independence and freedom from all enemies foreign and domestic. May God bless America! Happy Independence Day!
The independence of the states that was approved on July 2 and eloquently declared on the July 4, 1776 represents the birthday of each of the Thirteen States in particular and American Independence in general. But it is not the birthday of the “United States of America,” which was only founded upon the implementation of the U.S. Constitution.
The Declaration of Independence acknowledges the equality of all men and that the rights of man come not from government, but from our Creator, which is “the American Creed.” It also states that government exists to protect these rights and that it derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. The Framers of the Constitution, who accepted the American Creed, presupposed the concept of natural law rights, which is why they did not consider it necessary to enumerate them in the Constitution, as if to imply that government grants rights instead of God. They only agreed to adopt a Bill of Rights as a safeguard of liberty in order to win the ratification of the Constitution. Indeed, the Bill of Rights, the First Ten Amendments to the Constitution, does not grant any freedoms or rights, but prohibits the United States from abridging the enumerated freedoms and rights that every person has by birthright. The Ninth Amendment even acknowledges the presupposition of natural law rights by reserving any additional rights of man that were not expressly listed in the Constitution.
The American Creed, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, has long been accepted as the basis for the Constitution. U.S. President Abraham Lincoln and American civil rights leader Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. famously reminded their fellow Americans that the equality and rights of the people come from God, not men, and that the Constitution must by interpreted only in the context of the Declaration of Independence.
President Barak Obama has nominated someone for the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, who shockingly refused this week during her confirmation hearing to acknowledge the principle of natural law. Instead, she insisted that only those rights enumerated in the Constitution could be interpreted by a federal judge to exist, in contradiction of the Framers of the Constitution and the Ninth Amendment. There are several major grounds for the Senate to oppose the confirmation of this Obama Administration radical, which will be the subject of a future post, but Kagan's rejection of natural law is enough to disqualify her from serving as a justice entrusted to safeguard liberty, a concept she does not believe exists by nature, but only by the whim of judges.
Let us reflect on American Independence and the great document that declared it and acknowledged God as the source of our life and liberty. Let us also remember and be grateful to those who sacrificed in order for their posterity to enjoy freedom. May we continue remain ever vigilant in defending our independence and freedom from all enemies foreign and domestic. May God bless America! Happy Independence Day!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)