Public opinion polls had suggested before the 2010 Elections that the American people disapproved of United States President Barak Obama not only on fiscal policies and other policies that affect the economy, but also for funding abortion, his lawsuit against Arizona’s border security law, and his weaker policies on the War on Terrorism. They disapproved of the liberal Democratic Congress even more strongly and demanded the political reform of Congress. The citizens of many states also wanted more fiscal responsibility and political reform in state government.
Political reform, the right to life, border security, and the War on Terrorism were among the issues raised by candidates for federal offices. The U.S. House Republican candidates, for example, had drafted a Pledge to America, modeled on the successful Contract with America in 1994 that was the platform upon which the Republicans won the majority in the House that year for the first time in 40 years and served as the basis for their legislative agenda. The Pledge included platform planks not only on fiscal policies and other policies that affect the economy, but on political reform, a return to Constitutional principles, the right to life, border security and defense.
The voters repudiated Obama and the liberal Democrats in both federal and state elections based upon all of these issues. Republicans won the majority in the U.S. House running on the Pledge to America. A few specific examples of candidates winning on a conservative platform on these non-financial issues are noteworthy:
A number of Republican candidates for state attorney general won election on promises to join the nineteen other states that have already joined Florida’s lawsuit against the Obama Administration’s individual mandate to purchase health insurance. Although there is a financial aspect to this issue, it is being argued on federalism grounds. As I noted in my first post-election blog post, Republican prosecutors have continued to win election to a range of offices, a trend I first observed in the 2009 Elections, about which I also commented in a post-election blog post that year;
Pro-life Republican candidates for Congress did well. The Republican House and Senate caucuses will now be larger and more pro-life. True pro-life incumbent Democrats also did well, while pro-abortion incumbent Democrats did not. The standard of measure for voters of whether a representative was pro-life or pro-abortion was Obama’s federalization of health insurance, an act that required federal funding of insurance for abortion, notwithstanding Obama’s executive order to the contrary, which does not have the constitutional force of law. Voters elected many candidates who challenged self-described “pro-life” incumbents who had voted for the bill;
Republican candidates, especially in the Southwest of the U.S., who ran on a pro-border security platform did well. For example, Republican Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona, whose state was sued by the Obama Administration for enforcing federal law, was easily reelected, while Susan Martinez, a Republican of New Mexico was elected governor of her state on a border security platform. Although Republican Lou Barletta defeated an incumbent Democratic U.S. Representative on a fiscal responsibility platform, he was most known for his anti-illegal immigration policy as Mayor of Hazelton, Pennsylvania;
Another Pennsylvanian, Republican Pat Toomey, won election to the U.S. Senate by criticizing his opponent for voting for the bailouts, the economic stimulus, the cap and trade energy tax bill and the federalization of health insurance. He also pointed out that his opponent had called for a civilian trial in Pennsylvania for the September 11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Muhammad.
Moreover, there was a general sense that the election of a Republican Congress would provide a check on all of the unpopular liberal policies of Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress. Because many issues were planks of the platforms of conservative and Republican candidates, these newly-elected officials now have a broad mandate for reform.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Monday, November 8, 2010
Conservative Analysis of the 2010 Elections, Part I: The Elections Were about Much More than the Economy and Anti-Incumbency
Democrats and liberals are trying to dismiss the significance of the 2010 Elections by blaming the weak economy and an anti-incumbent sentiment, but the elections were about more issues than those.
To the extent the current economy was of concern to the voters in the federal elections, they were focused on the effectiveness of specific fiscal and other policies that affected the economy, more than strictly on the overall state of the economy. They were concerned about the broader effects of those policies in terms of government debt, and the growth of government power at the expense of the liberty of the people. The electorate was also concerned about other issues, such as the right to life, border security and defense. Voters specifically elected or reelected candidates who ran on conservative platforms on these issues over candidates who supported the policies of United States President Barak Obama and the Congressional liberal Democrats.
In Part I of this two-part series of posts, I shall discuss the impact of economic and fiscal issues on the 2010 Elections and examine the anti-incumbency effect. In Part II, I shall focus on the non-economic and fiscal issues in the elections.
Many political commentators, especially liberal ones, state that the public assigns the political party in power (i.e. the party of the president, regardless of which party controls Congress) responsibility for the economy, giving it credit or blame depending upon its condition. As I have noted repeatedly, this popular view is false, because the economy is not the responsibility of government. Although government significantly influences the economy for good or ill, even the federal government lacks authority to command the economy, while the economy is susceptible to forces beyond the control of any government. There is a distinction between strictly holding government responsible for the state of the economy by automatically assigning credit or blame to the party in power, and specifically favoring or disfavoring its specific fiscal or other policies that affect the economy.
In the 2010 Elections, voters were concerned about those specific policies, among other concerns, which reflected their relatively sophisticated understanding of this distinction. They understood that a party in power is not necessarily responsible for the economy, but disapproved of the Democrats' specific policies the electorate regarded as ineffective and too fiscally irresponsible if it they would have been effective.
By unfairly insisting that the party of President George W. Bush, the Republican Party, was responsible for the economic recession, despite the complicity of the liberal Democratic Congressional majority for exacerbating the mortgage crisis by tolerating easy credit, the Democrats were hoist by their own petard, to some degree, after having been in power for the last two years while the economy has remained weak. Although the economy is not the proper standard of measure for the party in power, after having blamed the previous Administration for it and promising to restore the economy, the Democrats thereby accepted the responsibility for the economy and were rightly punished by the voters for the lack of recovery.
Voters did not hold Obama and the Democrats strictly responsible for the lack of economic recovery by comparing economic statistics at the time of Obama’s inauguration until now and holding them to the false standard that government is strictly responsible for the economy, but that, in addition to rejecting specific Democratic fiscal and other policies that affected the economy, the voters held the party in power to its own false standard out of a sense of justice, while they also expressed their dissatisfaction with the broader effects of those policies.
Moreover, even some of the fiscal and other issues that affected the economy were considered by the voters in non-economic terms, in addition to the fairness of judging the Democrats by the same standard by which they blamed Bush and the Republicans. For example, the voters regarded the burgeoning debt as not only an economic, but a moral issue. They also recognized the threat to liberty of the growing power of government, especially the federal government, and they objected even more than usual to the unfairness of welfare statism, once Obama proposed that taxpayers pay for the mortgages of those who were not creditworthy – the policy that sparked the Tea Party movement that is credited with the success of conservative and Republican candidates in the 2009 and 2010 Elections.
The 2010 Elections were not a general anti-incumbent election. An unusually high number of incumbents lost, but they were mostly Democrats. Dozens of incumbent Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives were defeated, as were two incumbent Democratic Senators, in addition to one who lost in the primary. By contrast, the only two Republican U.S. House members who lost had been elected through scandal or by a special election in which more than one Democrat sought election. In particular, about half of the “Blue Dog” Democratic members of the House were defeated. They are called “conservative” by the liberal media, but most of them voted for much of Obama’s spending and expansion of government. The only two Republican incumbent Senators who lost in 2010 were defeated in the GOP primaries by more conservative challengers. Even in the state elections, the only two incumbents who were defeated for governor, for example, were Democrats. The 2010 General Elections were thus not an anti-incumbent election, but an anti-Democratic and anti-liberal election.
To the extent the current economy was of concern to the voters in the federal elections, they were focused on the effectiveness of specific fiscal and other policies that affected the economy, more than strictly on the overall state of the economy. They were concerned about the broader effects of those policies in terms of government debt, and the growth of government power at the expense of the liberty of the people. The electorate was also concerned about other issues, such as the right to life, border security and defense. Voters specifically elected or reelected candidates who ran on conservative platforms on these issues over candidates who supported the policies of United States President Barak Obama and the Congressional liberal Democrats.
In Part I of this two-part series of posts, I shall discuss the impact of economic and fiscal issues on the 2010 Elections and examine the anti-incumbency effect. In Part II, I shall focus on the non-economic and fiscal issues in the elections.
Many political commentators, especially liberal ones, state that the public assigns the political party in power (i.e. the party of the president, regardless of which party controls Congress) responsibility for the economy, giving it credit or blame depending upon its condition. As I have noted repeatedly, this popular view is false, because the economy is not the responsibility of government. Although government significantly influences the economy for good or ill, even the federal government lacks authority to command the economy, while the economy is susceptible to forces beyond the control of any government. There is a distinction between strictly holding government responsible for the state of the economy by automatically assigning credit or blame to the party in power, and specifically favoring or disfavoring its specific fiscal or other policies that affect the economy.
In the 2010 Elections, voters were concerned about those specific policies, among other concerns, which reflected their relatively sophisticated understanding of this distinction. They understood that a party in power is not necessarily responsible for the economy, but disapproved of the Democrats' specific policies the electorate regarded as ineffective and too fiscally irresponsible if it they would have been effective.
By unfairly insisting that the party of President George W. Bush, the Republican Party, was responsible for the economic recession, despite the complicity of the liberal Democratic Congressional majority for exacerbating the mortgage crisis by tolerating easy credit, the Democrats were hoist by their own petard, to some degree, after having been in power for the last two years while the economy has remained weak. Although the economy is not the proper standard of measure for the party in power, after having blamed the previous Administration for it and promising to restore the economy, the Democrats thereby accepted the responsibility for the economy and were rightly punished by the voters for the lack of recovery.
Voters did not hold Obama and the Democrats strictly responsible for the lack of economic recovery by comparing economic statistics at the time of Obama’s inauguration until now and holding them to the false standard that government is strictly responsible for the economy, but that, in addition to rejecting specific Democratic fiscal and other policies that affected the economy, the voters held the party in power to its own false standard out of a sense of justice, while they also expressed their dissatisfaction with the broader effects of those policies.
Moreover, even some of the fiscal and other issues that affected the economy were considered by the voters in non-economic terms, in addition to the fairness of judging the Democrats by the same standard by which they blamed Bush and the Republicans. For example, the voters regarded the burgeoning debt as not only an economic, but a moral issue. They also recognized the threat to liberty of the growing power of government, especially the federal government, and they objected even more than usual to the unfairness of welfare statism, once Obama proposed that taxpayers pay for the mortgages of those who were not creditworthy – the policy that sparked the Tea Party movement that is credited with the success of conservative and Republican candidates in the 2009 and 2010 Elections.
The 2010 Elections were not a general anti-incumbent election. An unusually high number of incumbents lost, but they were mostly Democrats. Dozens of incumbent Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives were defeated, as were two incumbent Democratic Senators, in addition to one who lost in the primary. By contrast, the only two Republican U.S. House members who lost had been elected through scandal or by a special election in which more than one Democrat sought election. In particular, about half of the “Blue Dog” Democratic members of the House were defeated. They are called “conservative” by the liberal media, but most of them voted for much of Obama’s spending and expansion of government. The only two Republican incumbent Senators who lost in 2010 were defeated in the GOP primaries by more conservative challengers. Even in the state elections, the only two incumbents who were defeated for governor, for example, were Democrats. The 2010 General Elections were thus not an anti-incumbent election, but an anti-Democratic and anti-liberal election.
Blog Milestones and Updated Report
This post is my 100th of the year to my blog, which provides an opportunity to report a few milestones and to correct and update the number of visits since my last blog report over one month ago.
My first post this month was my 250th since I launched this blog in November of 2008. A few other significant milestones were reached since my last report. Shortly afterwards, my blog received a visit from sparsely-populated South Dakota, which means that it has received visits from all 50 States in the Union. A few weeks later, my most popular post, The Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization, was visited for the 500th time, not including those who viewed my blog homepage at the time it appeared there.
In my last blog report, I undercounted the total visits to my blog by over 60. My blog has now been visited over 2,365 times (as always, not counting my own visits and counting only those page views by the same visitor at least one hour apart; there have been around 3,000 page views by all other visitors). Thank you for visiting my blog.
My first post this month was my 250th since I launched this blog in November of 2008. A few other significant milestones were reached since my last report. Shortly afterwards, my blog received a visit from sparsely-populated South Dakota, which means that it has received visits from all 50 States in the Union. A few weeks later, my most popular post, The Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization, was visited for the 500th time, not including those who viewed my blog homepage at the time it appeared there.
In my last blog report, I undercounted the total visits to my blog by over 60. My blog has now been visited over 2,365 times (as always, not counting my own visits and counting only those page views by the same visitor at least one hour apart; there have been around 3,000 page views by all other visitors). Thank you for visiting my blog.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Pennsylvania Proves the Key State for the GOP
Pennsylvanians voted for Republicans in the 2010 Elections, shifting the Commonwealth toward the GOP in both federal and state offices more than any other state in the Union.
After being dominated by Republicans from the 1990s to the 2000s, by 2009, the Democrats in Pennsylvania held the office of the governor, two of the three statewide row offices, and the state House, as well as both United States Senate seats (because of Arlen Specter’s return to the Democratic Party) and a 12-7 majority in the state’s U.S. House delegation. The 2010 Elections have resulted in a dramatic shift to the Republicans.
Republicans won the office of Pennsylvania governor for the first time in eight years and a majority of the seats in the state House of Representatives for the first time in four years, while Republicans maintained their large majority in the state Senate. Pennsylvania voters elected a Republican to the United States Senate while Republicans also wrested five U.S. House seats from the Democrats (which tied with New York and Ohio for the most Republican pickups from one state), giving them a 12-7 majority in the state’s U.S. House delegation.
Overspending, political reform and the right to life were the main issues in Pennsylvania. Some of these issues converged particularly in Pennsylvania, as a number of self-described “pro-life” Democratic incumbent U.S. Representatives were defeated after voting for the federalization of health insurance, which included funding for abortion, despite President Barak Obama’s promises to the contrary. Four incumbent Democrats lost reelection to the U.S. House, making a total of five incumbent Congressmen in 2010, including Specter, who lost the Democratic Primary Election. Republicans, led by former U.S. Representative Pat Toomey at the top of the ticket for Senate, ran on unabashedly conservative platforms in a state where Republicans are infamous for being moderate (typified by Specter before his return to the Democrats).
As a harbinger of gains for the GOP, Republicans won six of the seven statewide judicial offices in the 2009 off-year elections, thereby winning a majority on the state Supreme Court, just as the Republican victories in the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races that year and the special election to the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts in early 2010 were signs of a Republican resurgence across the Union.
The Republican Governors of New Jersey and Virginia, Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie, respectively, both former prosecutors, are the role models of Pennsylvania Attorney General Thomas Corbett, who was the successful Republican candidate for governor of the Commonwealth. Both Governors are known for reducing spending while resisting any tax increases. Pennsylvanians appreciated Corbett’s role in prosecuting corrupt legislators in both political parties. Once he is inaugurated, he will appoint his successor as Attorney General. Pennsylvanians also rewarded former U.S. Attorney Pat Meehan, who successfully prosecuted a leading state Senate Democrat, with election to the U.S. House of Representatives.
The control of the office of governor and both chambers of the General Assembly allows the GOP the opportunity to redraw Congressional districts after reapportionment following the publication next year of the results of the 2010 Census. Pennsylvania is expected to lose at least one seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. The 2010 Elections in Pennsylvania also provide the opportunity to restore fiscal responsibility to the Commonwealth and reform state government.
After being dominated by Republicans from the 1990s to the 2000s, by 2009, the Democrats in Pennsylvania held the office of the governor, two of the three statewide row offices, and the state House, as well as both United States Senate seats (because of Arlen Specter’s return to the Democratic Party) and a 12-7 majority in the state’s U.S. House delegation. The 2010 Elections have resulted in a dramatic shift to the Republicans.
Republicans won the office of Pennsylvania governor for the first time in eight years and a majority of the seats in the state House of Representatives for the first time in four years, while Republicans maintained their large majority in the state Senate. Pennsylvania voters elected a Republican to the United States Senate while Republicans also wrested five U.S. House seats from the Democrats (which tied with New York and Ohio for the most Republican pickups from one state), giving them a 12-7 majority in the state’s U.S. House delegation.
Overspending, political reform and the right to life were the main issues in Pennsylvania. Some of these issues converged particularly in Pennsylvania, as a number of self-described “pro-life” Democratic incumbent U.S. Representatives were defeated after voting for the federalization of health insurance, which included funding for abortion, despite President Barak Obama’s promises to the contrary. Four incumbent Democrats lost reelection to the U.S. House, making a total of five incumbent Congressmen in 2010, including Specter, who lost the Democratic Primary Election. Republicans, led by former U.S. Representative Pat Toomey at the top of the ticket for Senate, ran on unabashedly conservative platforms in a state where Republicans are infamous for being moderate (typified by Specter before his return to the Democrats).
As a harbinger of gains for the GOP, Republicans won six of the seven statewide judicial offices in the 2009 off-year elections, thereby winning a majority on the state Supreme Court, just as the Republican victories in the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races that year and the special election to the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts in early 2010 were signs of a Republican resurgence across the Union.
The Republican Governors of New Jersey and Virginia, Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie, respectively, both former prosecutors, are the role models of Pennsylvania Attorney General Thomas Corbett, who was the successful Republican candidate for governor of the Commonwealth. Both Governors are known for reducing spending while resisting any tax increases. Pennsylvanians appreciated Corbett’s role in prosecuting corrupt legislators in both political parties. Once he is inaugurated, he will appoint his successor as Attorney General. Pennsylvanians also rewarded former U.S. Attorney Pat Meehan, who successfully prosecuted a leading state Senate Democrat, with election to the U.S. House of Representatives.
The control of the office of governor and both chambers of the General Assembly allows the GOP the opportunity to redraw Congressional districts after reapportionment following the publication next year of the results of the 2010 Census. Pennsylvania is expected to lose at least one seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. The 2010 Elections in Pennsylvania also provide the opportunity to restore fiscal responsibility to the Commonwealth and reform state government.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Conservative Victories in the 2010 Elections
Although the results of some contests still remain undecided at the time of this post, it is already clear that Republicans and conservatives have won many victories in the 2010 Elections, which were clearly a referendum on President Barak Obama and the Congressional liberal Democrats and their spending, borrowing and taxing, expansion of federal control over the economy, promotion of abortion, weakening of American policies in the War on Terrorism, erosion of states rights and reduction of the liberty of the people.
In the Congressional Mid-term Elections, Republicans have won control of the United States House of Representatives for the first time in four years, realizing their largest election pick-up of seats and obtaining their largest majority since the Great Depression. Although the Republicans fell short of winning a majority of the U.S. Senate, in gaining several seats in the upper chamber, the Grand Old Party has won a majority of the seats on the ballot this year, as only one-third of the Senate seats are contested every other year. The Republican caucus in both chambers will be more conservative than the one it replaces. Many of those Democrats who did prevail in the Congressional elections also ran on conservative platforms.
Federal overspending and economic takeovers, federalism political reform, illegal immigration, the War on Terrorism and the right to life were the main issues in the Congressional elections. The rebuke of the unpopular Obama by the American people was most symbolized by the loss by the Democrats of Obama’s Senate seat in Illinois. By contrast, Rob Portman of Ohio, a top figure in the Administration of President George W. Bush, won election to the U.S. Senate. The impact of the Tea Party movement on the congressional elections was noticeable, despite the losses of some high-profile candidates for U.S. Senate. Several tea party candidates won election to the Senate or House. Even where their candidates won the Republican nomination but lost the general election, there impact was felt in the elections by defeating more moderate Republicans in the primaries, which contributed to the more conservative tilt in the Republican Senate caucus, for example.
The GOP also won the majority of the contests for governor and state legislatures. A majority of states will now have Republican governors for the first time since the Bush Administration, while Republicans have won numerous legislative chambers and several hundred legislative seats across the Union. The GOP, which had long been in the minority in state legislative chambers, will now control both chambers of half the states. Overspending, political reform, federalism and illegal immigration were the main issues in these races where Republicans ran on conservative platforms. In the States, the “laboratories of reform,” Republicans will work to cut spending and taxes and reform government in ways that will provide models for other states and even the federal government. Additionally, the party control of the office of governor and the state legislature impacts on the upcoming congressional redistricting process that will increase the favorability for the GOP in the next election for U.S. House.
Republicans gained in every region, including the Midwest and even in the Northeast. After the 2008 Elections, it appeared as if the Republican Party was a mostly Southern and Western party. Since then, however, the GOP won the New Jersey gubernatorial race and a special election for U.S. Senator in Massachusetts. Those elections proved to be harbingers of a Republican resurgence in the Northeast. In addition to a U.S. Senate seat in Pennsylvania and several of U.S. House seats across the region, Republicans won races for governor and state legislature, gaining control of a number of legislative chambers in the Northeast, including both in New Hampshire and, for the first time since 1962, both in Maine. Of all the states in the Union, the Keystone State shifted most significantly toward the Republicans this year, which will be the subject of my next post. But the region where the GOP realized the broadest gains was the Midwest, where it picked up four U.S. Senate seats (Illinois, Indiana Wisconsin and North Dakota), several U.S. House seats, and did well in state races for governor and state legislature, including gaining both chambers in Minnesota for the first time ever. Ohio matched New York and Pennsylvania as the states with the highest number of U.S. House seats picked up by the Republicans, with five, while Republicans there won the race for governor (behind former U.S. Representative John Kasich, famous for being the architect of the balanced budget the last time Republicans won the majority in Congress) and many state legislative seats. The continued decline of the Democratic Party in the South was highlighted by the gain of a U.S. Senate seat in Arkansas and by the Republican pickup of both houses of the legislature in North Carolina and Alabama, each for the first time since Reconstruction, among other Southern gains in the federal and state elections for the Party of Lincoln.
Additionally, voters in Iowa turned three state Supreme Court justices who had ruled in favor of gay marriage out of office., while conservatives won several referenda in various states not only on economic and fiscal issues, including labor issues and the federal mandate to purchase health insurance, but also on issues like drug abuse (in California, Oregon and South Dakota) and affirmative action (Arizona). Oklahomans made English the “common and unifying” language and prohibited the use of international law, including Islamic law. Even liberal Rhode Island and Providence Plantations rejected the most ridiculous referendum, one that would have shortened the state’s name to “Rhode Island” because of a false association with the state’s plantations and slavery.
The 2010 Elections were a victory for conservative principles of fiscal responsibility, smaller, limited government, constitutional principles, strong defense, liberty and virtue. Now conservatives must use this opportunity to act upon these principles and build upon their election victories.
In the Congressional Mid-term Elections, Republicans have won control of the United States House of Representatives for the first time in four years, realizing their largest election pick-up of seats and obtaining their largest majority since the Great Depression. Although the Republicans fell short of winning a majority of the U.S. Senate, in gaining several seats in the upper chamber, the Grand Old Party has won a majority of the seats on the ballot this year, as only one-third of the Senate seats are contested every other year. The Republican caucus in both chambers will be more conservative than the one it replaces. Many of those Democrats who did prevail in the Congressional elections also ran on conservative platforms.
Federal overspending and economic takeovers, federalism political reform, illegal immigration, the War on Terrorism and the right to life were the main issues in the Congressional elections. The rebuke of the unpopular Obama by the American people was most symbolized by the loss by the Democrats of Obama’s Senate seat in Illinois. By contrast, Rob Portman of Ohio, a top figure in the Administration of President George W. Bush, won election to the U.S. Senate. The impact of the Tea Party movement on the congressional elections was noticeable, despite the losses of some high-profile candidates for U.S. Senate. Several tea party candidates won election to the Senate or House. Even where their candidates won the Republican nomination but lost the general election, there impact was felt in the elections by defeating more moderate Republicans in the primaries, which contributed to the more conservative tilt in the Republican Senate caucus, for example.
The GOP also won the majority of the contests for governor and state legislatures. A majority of states will now have Republican governors for the first time since the Bush Administration, while Republicans have won numerous legislative chambers and several hundred legislative seats across the Union. The GOP, which had long been in the minority in state legislative chambers, will now control both chambers of half the states. Overspending, political reform, federalism and illegal immigration were the main issues in these races where Republicans ran on conservative platforms. In the States, the “laboratories of reform,” Republicans will work to cut spending and taxes and reform government in ways that will provide models for other states and even the federal government. Additionally, the party control of the office of governor and the state legislature impacts on the upcoming congressional redistricting process that will increase the favorability for the GOP in the next election for U.S. House.
Republicans gained in every region, including the Midwest and even in the Northeast. After the 2008 Elections, it appeared as if the Republican Party was a mostly Southern and Western party. Since then, however, the GOP won the New Jersey gubernatorial race and a special election for U.S. Senator in Massachusetts. Those elections proved to be harbingers of a Republican resurgence in the Northeast. In addition to a U.S. Senate seat in Pennsylvania and several of U.S. House seats across the region, Republicans won races for governor and state legislature, gaining control of a number of legislative chambers in the Northeast, including both in New Hampshire and, for the first time since 1962, both in Maine. Of all the states in the Union, the Keystone State shifted most significantly toward the Republicans this year, which will be the subject of my next post. But the region where the GOP realized the broadest gains was the Midwest, where it picked up four U.S. Senate seats (Illinois, Indiana Wisconsin and North Dakota), several U.S. House seats, and did well in state races for governor and state legislature, including gaining both chambers in Minnesota for the first time ever. Ohio matched New York and Pennsylvania as the states with the highest number of U.S. House seats picked up by the Republicans, with five, while Republicans there won the race for governor (behind former U.S. Representative John Kasich, famous for being the architect of the balanced budget the last time Republicans won the majority in Congress) and many state legislative seats. The continued decline of the Democratic Party in the South was highlighted by the gain of a U.S. Senate seat in Arkansas and by the Republican pickup of both houses of the legislature in North Carolina and Alabama, each for the first time since Reconstruction, among other Southern gains in the federal and state elections for the Party of Lincoln.
Additionally, voters in Iowa turned three state Supreme Court justices who had ruled in favor of gay marriage out of office., while conservatives won several referenda in various states not only on economic and fiscal issues, including labor issues and the federal mandate to purchase health insurance, but also on issues like drug abuse (in California, Oregon and South Dakota) and affirmative action (Arizona). Oklahomans made English the “common and unifying” language and prohibited the use of international law, including Islamic law. Even liberal Rhode Island and Providence Plantations rejected the most ridiculous referendum, one that would have shortened the state’s name to “Rhode Island” because of a false association with the state’s plantations and slavery.
The 2010 Elections were a victory for conservative principles of fiscal responsibility, smaller, limited government, constitutional principles, strong defense, liberty and virtue. Now conservatives must use this opportunity to act upon these principles and build upon their election victories.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Important Election Message for Conservatives
Tuesday, November 2 is General Election Day. There are many federal and state races across Pennsylvania and the United States of critical importance for conservatives.
The most significant are the Congressional elections. Voters will choose among candidates for all 435 seats in the House of Representatives and one-third of the seats in the Senate. Which party controls each chamber is in question for the first time since Democrats won the majority of both four years ago.
Additionally, Pennsylvania is among 37 states electing governors. There are also numerous state legislative seats on the ballot. The control of the Pennsylvania state House of Representatives, for example, currently held by Democrats, is at stake. Several states are also conducting referenda on important issues of interest to conservatives.
This election provides a great opportunity to stop the growth of big government and the concomitant spending, borrowing and taxing that have been harming the economy and reducing liberty, as the first step toward decreasing the size of both federal and state government. Otherwise, government will continue to grow more costly and powerful at the expense of the people. Given the massive spending spree the liberal Democratic majority has begun since winning control of Congress in 2006 and the presidency two years later, this opportunity may be the last one to save America from financial ruin, greater dependence on government and the total erosion of states’ rights. A return to constitutional principles is in order as never before. Similarly, many states like Pennsylvania also face serious fiscal challenges that necessitate a swift reversal of tax-and-spend policies.
Political reform is also a major issue on these Congressional mid-term elections, as well as in state government, such as in the Pennsylvania legislature. Strategies and tactics against terrorism and the defense of the right to life are other significant issues in this election. Candidates who favor fiscal responsibility and smaller government, political reform, effective policies in the War on Terrorism and the right to life must be elected.
Make a plan to vote. Cast your ballot for the most conservative candidate who can win. Encourage those who respect you to vote for these conservative candidates. May God bless America and Pennsylvania.
The most significant are the Congressional elections. Voters will choose among candidates for all 435 seats in the House of Representatives and one-third of the seats in the Senate. Which party controls each chamber is in question for the first time since Democrats won the majority of both four years ago.
Additionally, Pennsylvania is among 37 states electing governors. There are also numerous state legislative seats on the ballot. The control of the Pennsylvania state House of Representatives, for example, currently held by Democrats, is at stake. Several states are also conducting referenda on important issues of interest to conservatives.
This election provides a great opportunity to stop the growth of big government and the concomitant spending, borrowing and taxing that have been harming the economy and reducing liberty, as the first step toward decreasing the size of both federal and state government. Otherwise, government will continue to grow more costly and powerful at the expense of the people. Given the massive spending spree the liberal Democratic majority has begun since winning control of Congress in 2006 and the presidency two years later, this opportunity may be the last one to save America from financial ruin, greater dependence on government and the total erosion of states’ rights. A return to constitutional principles is in order as never before. Similarly, many states like Pennsylvania also face serious fiscal challenges that necessitate a swift reversal of tax-and-spend policies.
Political reform is also a major issue on these Congressional mid-term elections, as well as in state government, such as in the Pennsylvania legislature. Strategies and tactics against terrorism and the defense of the right to life are other significant issues in this election. Candidates who favor fiscal responsibility and smaller government, political reform, effective policies in the War on Terrorism and the right to life must be elected.
Make a plan to vote. Cast your ballot for the most conservative candidate who can win. Encourage those who respect you to vote for these conservative candidates. May God bless America and Pennsylvania.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
The Purpose of Government Is Not to Solve Problems or Provide Services
There are two oft-repeated statements about government that are closely related. One is that the purpose of government is to solve problems and the other is that government is supposed to provide services. Both of these statements are examples of a misunderstanding of the true purpose of government.
Liberals especially often speak of “problem-solving” as a function of government. There seems to be no limit to the scope of a government that appropriates itself the authority to solve any problem. In other words, liberals believe that government is justified in doing whatever it wants, as long as it is “solving a problem,” regardless of the additional problems the heavy hand of government creates, and regardless of its neglect of its true purpose. The purpose of government is not to solve problems, but to protect the freedom of the people.
Protecting liberty is a duty to fulfill, not a problem to solve. Now there may be problems encountered with fulfilling that duty, but the duty itself is never a problem. In other words, there are no problems for government to solve. I daresay that if a person considers protecting liberty a problem, then that person is unfit to serve the people in public office, for liberty is not an obstacle to solving a problem. Often it is government that is the obstacle to the people’s ability to solve their own problems.
Similarly, many politicians and commentators declare that the purpose of government is to “provide services.” The purpose of government is not to provide services. The protection of liberty is not a service. Sometimes people even carelessly refer to police protection as a “service,” especially when they are arguing for local tax increases as a way to avoid “cutting services.” Police protection is not a “service” because it protects the liberty of the people, which fulfills the purpose of government. Some other so-called “services” that protect the health or safety of the people are not “services,” either, but functions that also protect liberty, at least to a degree. However, these other functions may or may not be necessarily provided by government, whereas only government may exercise the police function. Other services do not protect liberty at all. Providing any kind of services that are not intended to protect liberty distracts government from its true purpose. Moreover, those services that make people dependent on government at the loss of their independence are the inverse of protecting liberty.
Additionally, solving problems and providing services requires public money in the form of taxation that reduces the liberty of the people to spend as they see fit.
Those serving in government must never lose focus on its true purpose. We would be better served by those who hold public office if they refocus on the liberty of the people and discard everything else that interferes with their sacred duty.
Liberals especially often speak of “problem-solving” as a function of government. There seems to be no limit to the scope of a government that appropriates itself the authority to solve any problem. In other words, liberals believe that government is justified in doing whatever it wants, as long as it is “solving a problem,” regardless of the additional problems the heavy hand of government creates, and regardless of its neglect of its true purpose. The purpose of government is not to solve problems, but to protect the freedom of the people.
Protecting liberty is a duty to fulfill, not a problem to solve. Now there may be problems encountered with fulfilling that duty, but the duty itself is never a problem. In other words, there are no problems for government to solve. I daresay that if a person considers protecting liberty a problem, then that person is unfit to serve the people in public office, for liberty is not an obstacle to solving a problem. Often it is government that is the obstacle to the people’s ability to solve their own problems.
Similarly, many politicians and commentators declare that the purpose of government is to “provide services.” The purpose of government is not to provide services. The protection of liberty is not a service. Sometimes people even carelessly refer to police protection as a “service,” especially when they are arguing for local tax increases as a way to avoid “cutting services.” Police protection is not a “service” because it protects the liberty of the people, which fulfills the purpose of government. Some other so-called “services” that protect the health or safety of the people are not “services,” either, but functions that also protect liberty, at least to a degree. However, these other functions may or may not be necessarily provided by government, whereas only government may exercise the police function. Other services do not protect liberty at all. Providing any kind of services that are not intended to protect liberty distracts government from its true purpose. Moreover, those services that make people dependent on government at the loss of their independence are the inverse of protecting liberty.
Additionally, solving problems and providing services requires public money in the form of taxation that reduces the liberty of the people to spend as they see fit.
Those serving in government must never lose focus on its true purpose. We would be better served by those who hold public office if they refocus on the liberty of the people and discard everything else that interferes with their sacred duty.
The Democratic Threat to Social Security
One can always tell that Election Day for federal offices is getting close in the United States the more one hears Democrats accusing Republicans of wanting to threaten Social Security with cuts in benefits or “privatization.” This scare tactic, targeted to frighten senior citizens away from voting for Republicans, even though none of their proposals would affect retirees or even those close to retirement, is the Democrats’ favorite trick in their playbook, one that has been disproved time and time again.
The most significant threat to Social Security is that, in the absence of reforms, it is going bankrupt. The bankruptcy of the retirement system created by the federal government is being hastened by overspending by the liberal Democratic Congressional and President Barak Obama, including the spending of the Social Security trust fund for other purposes. Unless Social Security is reformed for younger workers, the retirement age will have to be raised, benefits reduced or taxes increased. In fact, the last tax increase on Social Security was part of Democratic President Bill Clinton’s tax increase in 1993, of which no Republican member of Congress voted in favor.
The proposal to allow younger workers to choose to invest a small portion of their Social Security would be less risky for retirees than allowing Social Security to collapse. The current return on the investment of the Social Security trust fund money is low, but it has been low even under the most prosperous conditions. Workers should be allowed to invest some of their own retirement account funds in relatively safe instruments, such as government bonds. The risk in investing in stocks, which have always gained value over the long term, is minimized by the restriction on the amount of one’s Social Security account that could be exposed to risk (usually the proposal is only for a few percent); moreover, the risk would also be minimized by diversity (e.g. through a managed mutual fund, or a combination of equities, bonds and other instruments) instead of requiring the retiree to pick and choose individual stocks.
The argument about the current decline in the stock market is only relevant for those who sell during the downturn. Like homeowners whose home values have declined, those whose stock values have declined only realize those losses when they sell. Indeed, those who have not sold their stocks have benefited from a significant recovery in the value of stock, even though it is down from the highs it reached in 2007 before the recession.
The Democrats’ claims that Social Security is threatened by Republicans, even though they are false, underscore the fundamental problem with a government pension system: its vulnerability to politicians. However, the threat is not from any supposed mean-spirited politicians who would renege on the pledge of providing income for retirees who have contributed to the fund and relied upon it for their retirement plans. The threat is from those liberal Democratic politicians who would renege on the pledge of Social Security by spending away the money.
The most significant threat to Social Security is that, in the absence of reforms, it is going bankrupt. The bankruptcy of the retirement system created by the federal government is being hastened by overspending by the liberal Democratic Congressional and President Barak Obama, including the spending of the Social Security trust fund for other purposes. Unless Social Security is reformed for younger workers, the retirement age will have to be raised, benefits reduced or taxes increased. In fact, the last tax increase on Social Security was part of Democratic President Bill Clinton’s tax increase in 1993, of which no Republican member of Congress voted in favor.
The proposal to allow younger workers to choose to invest a small portion of their Social Security would be less risky for retirees than allowing Social Security to collapse. The current return on the investment of the Social Security trust fund money is low, but it has been low even under the most prosperous conditions. Workers should be allowed to invest some of their own retirement account funds in relatively safe instruments, such as government bonds. The risk in investing in stocks, which have always gained value over the long term, is minimized by the restriction on the amount of one’s Social Security account that could be exposed to risk (usually the proposal is only for a few percent); moreover, the risk would also be minimized by diversity (e.g. through a managed mutual fund, or a combination of equities, bonds and other instruments) instead of requiring the retiree to pick and choose individual stocks.
The argument about the current decline in the stock market is only relevant for those who sell during the downturn. Like homeowners whose home values have declined, those whose stock values have declined only realize those losses when they sell. Indeed, those who have not sold their stocks have benefited from a significant recovery in the value of stock, even though it is down from the highs it reached in 2007 before the recession.
The Democrats’ claims that Social Security is threatened by Republicans, even though they are false, underscore the fundamental problem with a government pension system: its vulnerability to politicians. However, the threat is not from any supposed mean-spirited politicians who would renege on the pledge of providing income for retirees who have contributed to the fund and relied upon it for their retirement plans. The threat is from those liberal Democratic politicians who would renege on the pledge of Social Security by spending away the money.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Governors Barbour, Pawlenty and Christie Rally for Corbett and Toomey
Governors Haley Barbour of Mississippi, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and Chris Christie of New Jersey campaigned at the Reading Airport in Pennsylvania today for fellow Republican PA Attorney General Tom Corbett’s campaign for Governor and former United States Representative Pat Toomey for U.S. Senate, both of whom also attended. All of the governors have been mentioned as possible presidential candidates. I was among the several hundred people attending the More Jobs, Less Taxes rally. The local Tea Party participated in the event.
State Senator Dave Argall, Republican nominee for U.S. Representative, contrasted himself with his Democratic opponent by declaring the main difference between them is that he would not vote for Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for reelection as Speaker of the House.
U.S. Representative Jim Gerlach, campaigning for reelection, stated that he had grown tired of the metaphor that President Barak Obama and other Democrats were using about the Republicans having “driven our country into a ditch.” Gerlach noted that since the Democrats took over Congress in 2007 and the White House two years later, they have only used the “left turn signals” and have thereby made the economy and federal budget worse.
Pat Toomey pointed out his opponent’s record of voting for all of the massive spending and expansion of federal power policies of the Obama Administration, with a record of voting with Pelosi 100% of the time. Toomey predicted that Pennsylvanians would not elect a “San Francisco Democrat” as their U.S. Senator.
Haley Barbour recalled his service as Chairman of the Republican National Committee at the time of the Republican mid-term sweep in 1994 in which the GOP gained control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years. Barbour observed that the 2010 mid-term elections are much more important, given the massive debt being passed onto the next generations. He observed Pennsylvania’s key role in the federal elections, as well as the signficance of the gubernatorial election.
Tim Pawlenty stressed the importance of providing a better climate for business. He remarked that the Democrats are spending our money as if they were at a wedding reception with an open bar instead of a cash bar.
Chris Christie, who made a grand entrance by arriving late in his jet and pulling up in it to the back of the open hangar, cited his success as governor based upon his prosecutorial experience as a former U.S. Attorney in emphasizing Corbett’s prosecutorial experience as Attorney General. He stated that the problem in both the U.S. and Pennsylvania is simple: spending too much, borrowing too much and taxing too much. Therefore, Christie said, the solution is simple: spend less, borrow less and tax less. The neighboring governor predicted the end of the heavy influence that special interests have enjoyed in Pennsylvania under unpopular Democratic Governor Ed Rendell.
Tom Corbett promised to follow Christie’s example, reform state government and create a better economic climate in the Keystone State in order to prevent young Pennsylvanians from moving to other states.
Vote on Election Day, Tuesday November 2!
State Senator Dave Argall, Republican nominee for U.S. Representative, contrasted himself with his Democratic opponent by declaring the main difference between them is that he would not vote for Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for reelection as Speaker of the House.
U.S. Representative Jim Gerlach, campaigning for reelection, stated that he had grown tired of the metaphor that President Barak Obama and other Democrats were using about the Republicans having “driven our country into a ditch.” Gerlach noted that since the Democrats took over Congress in 2007 and the White House two years later, they have only used the “left turn signals” and have thereby made the economy and federal budget worse.
Pat Toomey pointed out his opponent’s record of voting for all of the massive spending and expansion of federal power policies of the Obama Administration, with a record of voting with Pelosi 100% of the time. Toomey predicted that Pennsylvanians would not elect a “San Francisco Democrat” as their U.S. Senator.
Haley Barbour recalled his service as Chairman of the Republican National Committee at the time of the Republican mid-term sweep in 1994 in which the GOP gained control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years. Barbour observed that the 2010 mid-term elections are much more important, given the massive debt being passed onto the next generations. He observed Pennsylvania’s key role in the federal elections, as well as the signficance of the gubernatorial election.
Tim Pawlenty stressed the importance of providing a better climate for business. He remarked that the Democrats are spending our money as if they were at a wedding reception with an open bar instead of a cash bar.
Chris Christie, who made a grand entrance by arriving late in his jet and pulling up in it to the back of the open hangar, cited his success as governor based upon his prosecutorial experience as a former U.S. Attorney in emphasizing Corbett’s prosecutorial experience as Attorney General. He stated that the problem in both the U.S. and Pennsylvania is simple: spending too much, borrowing too much and taxing too much. Therefore, Christie said, the solution is simple: spend less, borrow less and tax less. The neighboring governor predicted the end of the heavy influence that special interests have enjoyed in Pennsylvania under unpopular Democratic Governor Ed Rendell.
Tom Corbett promised to follow Christie’s example, reform state government and create a better economic climate in the Keystone State in order to prevent young Pennsylvanians from moving to other states.
Vote on Election Day, Tuesday November 2!
Monday, October 25, 2010
Pennsylvania October Political Updates
There were positive developments recently on two matters I had posted on previously.
The Pennsylvania Senate has passed the Castle Doctrine law, but the version the upper body of the General Assembly approved differs from the one passed by the House of Representatives earlier this month, which I had posted about at the time.
Pennsylvania’s tax-and-spend Democratic Governor, Ed Rendell, has acquiesced to Republican and industry opposition to his proposed tax on the natural gas industry which is developing the Keystone State’s huge Marcellus Shale natural gas reserve. The natural gas industry is a boon for Pennsylvania’s economy, which helps generate taxable income. The proposed severance tax on the natural gas industry would have been in addition to the relatively high corporate taxes every corporation large and small already faces in the Commonwealth. Thus, the abandonment of the proposed severance tax prevents Pennsylvania from killing the goose that laid the golden egg. I had posted on this issue in May in my post, Analysis of the Pennsylvania Primary Elections.
The Pennsylvania Senate has passed the Castle Doctrine law, but the version the upper body of the General Assembly approved differs from the one passed by the House of Representatives earlier this month, which I had posted about at the time.
Pennsylvania’s tax-and-spend Democratic Governor, Ed Rendell, has acquiesced to Republican and industry opposition to his proposed tax on the natural gas industry which is developing the Keystone State’s huge Marcellus Shale natural gas reserve. The natural gas industry is a boon for Pennsylvania’s economy, which helps generate taxable income. The proposed severance tax on the natural gas industry would have been in addition to the relatively high corporate taxes every corporation large and small already faces in the Commonwealth. Thus, the abandonment of the proposed severance tax prevents Pennsylvania from killing the goose that laid the golden egg. I had posted on this issue in May in my post, Analysis of the Pennsylvania Primary Elections.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Cinfici Is Polled Again
For the second time this year, I have been surveyed for a major public opinion poll. In March, I was surveyed during the debate over the federalization of health insurance (See my post from March of this year, Cinfici Polled by Rasmussen Reports). This time, I was polled by Monmouth University on Rep. Jim Gerlach's (R-PA) reelection.
After being asked about my likelihood of voting, I was polled this evening on whether I would vote for the Republican Gerlach or his Democratic opponent, whether I approved of the job Gerlach was doing in Congress, whether I had a favorable opinion of either candidate or an unfavorable one, and whether I preferred the Republicans to be in the majority in Congress. I answered that I would vote for Gerlach, approved of his job performance and had a favorable opinion of him and an unfavorable one of his opponent, and preferred the Republicans to be in the Congressional majority.
I was also asked whether I had a favorable or unfavorable opinion of President Barak Obama, to which I responded I had an unfavorable opinion. I was asked whether I thought the country was on the right or wrong track, to which I responded that it was on the wrong track. Finally, in addition to the usual party preference and demographic questions, I was asked whether I had a favorable of unfavorable opinion of the Tea Party movement, to which I responded that I had a favorable one.
I felt patriotic to participate in these polls, especially in expressing my opposition to Obama. Of course, I feel even more patriotic whenever I fulfill my sacred duty of voting, as the election “is the only poll that counts.” Remember to vote on Tuesday, November 2.
After being asked about my likelihood of voting, I was polled this evening on whether I would vote for the Republican Gerlach or his Democratic opponent, whether I approved of the job Gerlach was doing in Congress, whether I had a favorable opinion of either candidate or an unfavorable one, and whether I preferred the Republicans to be in the majority in Congress. I answered that I would vote for Gerlach, approved of his job performance and had a favorable opinion of him and an unfavorable one of his opponent, and preferred the Republicans to be in the Congressional majority.
I was also asked whether I had a favorable or unfavorable opinion of President Barak Obama, to which I responded I had an unfavorable opinion. I was asked whether I thought the country was on the right or wrong track, to which I responded that it was on the wrong track. Finally, in addition to the usual party preference and demographic questions, I was asked whether I had a favorable of unfavorable opinion of the Tea Party movement, to which I responded that I had a favorable one.
I felt patriotic to participate in these polls, especially in expressing my opposition to Obama. Of course, I feel even more patriotic whenever I fulfill my sacred duty of voting, as the election “is the only poll that counts.” Remember to vote on Tuesday, November 2.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Wilders is Right about Islam, but Wrong to Call Muhammad a “Pedophile”
Geert Wilders, the Dutch member of Parliament known for his resistance to the Islamification of Europe, has rightly noted that Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, is viewed as model for Muslims. He cites Muhammad’s militancy as the basis for militant Islam. However, I caution critics of Islam not to insult Islam’s most revered figure unnecessarily.
For example, Geert Wilders called Muhammad a “pedophile.” Muhammad married a young teenager, but she was not a child in the biological sense, which is what is meant by the word, as she had reached puberty, meaning she was capable of reproduction, which is the biological definition of adulthood. This distinction between pedophilia (a deviant sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children) and pederasty (attraction to teenagers who have reached puberty) is not a legal one, which is why there are laws in many jurisdictions against statutory rape (sexual relations with a minor regardless of whether or not the minor is a biological adult), for example, and why parental consent is required for marriage below certain ages, depending on the jurisdiction, although it is allowed for older teenagers without even parental consent.
Although she may have been too young to fully give informed consent under contemporary Western legal standards, Muhammad’s marriage to his young bride is thus not the equivalent of pedophilia. I would also note the significantly lower life expectancy during the Seventh Century in Arabia as a mitigating factor. A similar charge of “pedophilia” is being made by the enemies of the Christian Church against the Catholic priests who are accused of abuse in order to make the scandal seem even worse than it is, even though most of the cases involved alleged victims who were not pre-pubescent children. Therefore, we as Christians ought to be sensitive to Muslims about this matter by being careful with our choices of words.
Muhammad is similarly often accused of “adultery” because of his practice of polygamy. Although it is true that Muhammad had several wives, Muslims cite his marriages as proof of his magnanimity, for he would marry widows in order to rescue them from poverty, into to which women, who had no property rights, would be plunged if they had no children to care for them. Although one can certainly make a reasonable and convincing argument about the immorality of polygamy, the point is that we should be more educated about Muhammad and the origin of Islam in order to avoid counterproductive statements that unnecessary insult and provoke Muslims, and instead make the most reasonable and effective arguments that cannot be easily dismissed as unreasonable insults. It is not necessary, for example, to call Muhammad an “adulterer” in order to refute Islam, when one can instead argue the merits of monogamy versus polygamy.
For example, Geert Wilders called Muhammad a “pedophile.” Muhammad married a young teenager, but she was not a child in the biological sense, which is what is meant by the word, as she had reached puberty, meaning she was capable of reproduction, which is the biological definition of adulthood. This distinction between pedophilia (a deviant sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children) and pederasty (attraction to teenagers who have reached puberty) is not a legal one, which is why there are laws in many jurisdictions against statutory rape (sexual relations with a minor regardless of whether or not the minor is a biological adult), for example, and why parental consent is required for marriage below certain ages, depending on the jurisdiction, although it is allowed for older teenagers without even parental consent.
Although she may have been too young to fully give informed consent under contemporary Western legal standards, Muhammad’s marriage to his young bride is thus not the equivalent of pedophilia. I would also note the significantly lower life expectancy during the Seventh Century in Arabia as a mitigating factor. A similar charge of “pedophilia” is being made by the enemies of the Christian Church against the Catholic priests who are accused of abuse in order to make the scandal seem even worse than it is, even though most of the cases involved alleged victims who were not pre-pubescent children. Therefore, we as Christians ought to be sensitive to Muslims about this matter by being careful with our choices of words.
Muhammad is similarly often accused of “adultery” because of his practice of polygamy. Although it is true that Muhammad had several wives, Muslims cite his marriages as proof of his magnanimity, for he would marry widows in order to rescue them from poverty, into to which women, who had no property rights, would be plunged if they had no children to care for them. Although one can certainly make a reasonable and convincing argument about the immorality of polygamy, the point is that we should be more educated about Muhammad and the origin of Islam in order to avoid counterproductive statements that unnecessary insult and provoke Muslims, and instead make the most reasonable and effective arguments that cannot be easily dismissed as unreasonable insults. It is not necessary, for example, to call Muhammad an “adulterer” in order to refute Islam, when one can instead argue the merits of monogamy versus polygamy.
Legal Docket: Geert Vilders; The Federal Mandate to Purchase Health Insurance
Dutch Prosecutors Ask for Geert Vilders’ Acquittal
Geert Wilders, a member of the parliament of the Netherlands who is most known for resisting the Islamification of Europe, is charged with hate speech against Muslims. His prosecutors have taken the unusual step of asking the judge to acquit him, citing the fact that Gilders criticized Islam, not Muslims. The case is seen as a major test of free speech in the West versus increasing efforts by Islamists to silence critics of Islam.
Update: A Federal Judge Rejects the Obama Administration Defense in the States’ Lawsuit against the Federal Mandate to Purchase Health Insurance
The federal district judge hearing the lawsuit filed by Florida and joined by nineteen other states against the Obama Administration’s mandate to purchase health insurance has rejected the Administration’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The judge ruled that the Obama Administration had contradicted itself by claiming that the mandate to purchase health insurance was a tax, for which the federal government has authority, after having called it a “penalty,” for which it does not have authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which gives Congress the power to regulate only interstate commerce (in order to prevent states from imposing tariffs on goods that are traded across state lines, i.e. to establish a free trade zone within the federal Union). The mandate is part of the Administration’s federalization of health insurance. For the first time in U.S. history, it would require the purchase of a product as a condition of residing within the States of the Union, which the States participating in the lawsuit consider an abuse of federal power and a violation of state sovereignty. The judge dismissed the Obama Administration’s contradictory argument on behalf of its motion to dismiss the case as similar to “Alice in Wonderland” and allowed the case to proceed.
In another federal case brought by private citizens in Michigan, a federal judge upheld the federal mandate, but the media reports did not explain her rationale. It appeared that the judge assumed that the federal government has constitutional authority over all economic activity, instead of only interstate commerce. The state lawsuit is considered the stronger case, at least until the federalization of health insurance is complete and private citizens can prove they have actually suffered harm.
Geert Wilders, a member of the parliament of the Netherlands who is most known for resisting the Islamification of Europe, is charged with hate speech against Muslims. His prosecutors have taken the unusual step of asking the judge to acquit him, citing the fact that Gilders criticized Islam, not Muslims. The case is seen as a major test of free speech in the West versus increasing efforts by Islamists to silence critics of Islam.
Update: A Federal Judge Rejects the Obama Administration Defense in the States’ Lawsuit against the Federal Mandate to Purchase Health Insurance
The federal district judge hearing the lawsuit filed by Florida and joined by nineteen other states against the Obama Administration’s mandate to purchase health insurance has rejected the Administration’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The judge ruled that the Obama Administration had contradicted itself by claiming that the mandate to purchase health insurance was a tax, for which the federal government has authority, after having called it a “penalty,” for which it does not have authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which gives Congress the power to regulate only interstate commerce (in order to prevent states from imposing tariffs on goods that are traded across state lines, i.e. to establish a free trade zone within the federal Union). The mandate is part of the Administration’s federalization of health insurance. For the first time in U.S. history, it would require the purchase of a product as a condition of residing within the States of the Union, which the States participating in the lawsuit consider an abuse of federal power and a violation of state sovereignty. The judge dismissed the Obama Administration’s contradictory argument on behalf of its motion to dismiss the case as similar to “Alice in Wonderland” and allowed the case to proceed.
In another federal case brought by private citizens in Michigan, a federal judge upheld the federal mandate, but the media reports did not explain her rationale. It appeared that the judge assumed that the federal government has constitutional authority over all economic activity, instead of only interstate commerce. The state lawsuit is considered the stronger case, at least until the federalization of health insurance is complete and private citizens can prove they have actually suffered harm.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Congratulations, Chile
I congratulate the Chileans for their marvelous accomplishment of rescuing the 33 miners who were trapped for 70 days in the San Jose gold and copper mine in the Atacama Desert. The miners endured the longest known period of being trapped underground in world history.
The mine partially collapsed on August 5, confining the miners nearly half a mile below the surface. For the first 17 days, no one on the surface knew whether the 33 men were alive until a probe broke through to the safety chamber in which the miners were at the time of the collapse – to the surprise and relief of the world. Shift supervisor Luis Urzua, who received the honor he had requested of being the last miner rescued, is credited with organizing the men and looking after all their needs in the dark mine with little food or other provisions. Once communication was established with the surface, among the first items the miners requested from the surface were articles of Christian devotion.
The Chilean mine collapse reminded me of the flooding of the Quecreek coal mine in Pennsylvania in 2002, from which all of the trapped miners survived because of an unprecedented successful rescue operation after they had managed to find a small area of higher ground to escape drowning. Governor Mark Schweiker coordinated the state’s effort to save the miners, backed by United States President George W. Bush, who provided critical federal support. I am proud that a Pennsylvania driller was among the Americans who assisted in the Chilean rescue, an effort for which much state-of-the-art technology was necessary. Chilean President Sebastian Pinera not only backed his state’s effort to rescue the miners, but this extraordinary leader had encouraged the effort to continue try to locate the miners when others doubted they were still alive. Like Schweiker, he kept the public informed of the advancement of the operation.
As in the case of the Pennsylvania mine disaster, it is hoped that much will be learned about mine safety and rescue from the Chilean disaster. Mining is of great economic significance in Chile, as it is in Pennsylvania, which made this rescue critically important. Copper, for example, is among Chile’s main exports to the United States, along with fruit and wine. Trade between the U.S. and Chile, one of the most prosperous Latin American states, increased dramatically after the free trade agreement negotiated by the Bush Administration was implemented in 2004.
One thing, of course, that has already been learned from the Chilean miners is the human ability to endure such a difficult confinement for such a long period. How they survived their ordeal will be studied, and the efforts of the rescuers from the surface to supply the miners with all of their provisions will be a model. Also worthy of praise are the brave Chilean rescue workers who had to take the unusual step of being lowered into the mine chamber in which the 33 miners were trapped.
Chile suffered a major earthquake earlier this year. The successful mine rescue is a sharp contrast to that deadly disaster. It also punctuates the celebration of Chile’s Bicentennial, which occurred during the miner’s confinement. Chileans are right to proud of themselves for accomplishing something no one else ever has.
Thank God for this successful rescue. I pray the miners make a full recovery. Viva, Chile!
The mine partially collapsed on August 5, confining the miners nearly half a mile below the surface. For the first 17 days, no one on the surface knew whether the 33 men were alive until a probe broke through to the safety chamber in which the miners were at the time of the collapse – to the surprise and relief of the world. Shift supervisor Luis Urzua, who received the honor he had requested of being the last miner rescued, is credited with organizing the men and looking after all their needs in the dark mine with little food or other provisions. Once communication was established with the surface, among the first items the miners requested from the surface were articles of Christian devotion.
The Chilean mine collapse reminded me of the flooding of the Quecreek coal mine in Pennsylvania in 2002, from which all of the trapped miners survived because of an unprecedented successful rescue operation after they had managed to find a small area of higher ground to escape drowning. Governor Mark Schweiker coordinated the state’s effort to save the miners, backed by United States President George W. Bush, who provided critical federal support. I am proud that a Pennsylvania driller was among the Americans who assisted in the Chilean rescue, an effort for which much state-of-the-art technology was necessary. Chilean President Sebastian Pinera not only backed his state’s effort to rescue the miners, but this extraordinary leader had encouraged the effort to continue try to locate the miners when others doubted they were still alive. Like Schweiker, he kept the public informed of the advancement of the operation.
As in the case of the Pennsylvania mine disaster, it is hoped that much will be learned about mine safety and rescue from the Chilean disaster. Mining is of great economic significance in Chile, as it is in Pennsylvania, which made this rescue critically important. Copper, for example, is among Chile’s main exports to the United States, along with fruit and wine. Trade between the U.S. and Chile, one of the most prosperous Latin American states, increased dramatically after the free trade agreement negotiated by the Bush Administration was implemented in 2004.
One thing, of course, that has already been learned from the Chilean miners is the human ability to endure such a difficult confinement for such a long period. How they survived their ordeal will be studied, and the efforts of the rescuers from the surface to supply the miners with all of their provisions will be a model. Also worthy of praise are the brave Chilean rescue workers who had to take the unusual step of being lowered into the mine chamber in which the 33 miners were trapped.
Chile suffered a major earthquake earlier this year. The successful mine rescue is a sharp contrast to that deadly disaster. It also punctuates the celebration of Chile’s Bicentennial, which occurred during the miner’s confinement. Chileans are right to proud of themselves for accomplishing something no one else ever has.
Thank God for this successful rescue. I pray the miners make a full recovery. Viva, Chile!
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Some House Democratic Candidates Are Trying to Run Away from Obama and the Liberal Democratic Congressional Leadership
There have been reports of Democratic candidates for United States House of Representatives distancing themselves from fellow Democratic President Barak Obama and the liberal Democratic Congressional leadership and some of their more unpopular policies, such as the federalization of health insurance and deficit spending. Some Democratic House candidates are avoiding identifying themselves as Democrats even in districts with a history of voting Democratic. Others are campaigning openly as moderates or even as conservatives.
I can report on one such Democratic candidate locally, Tim Holden, in whose Pennsylvania district I once was until the redistricting after the 2000 Census. The usually safe nine-term incumbent is running television advertisements in which he calls himself a “conservative,” despite his record of having provided the one-vote margin necessary to pass the Clinton tax increases – the largest in American history (the so-called “deficit reduction” plan that proposed to increase the federal budget deficit, which it did), as well as voting for gun control during the Clinton Administration and for public money for pornographic “art,” while voting against missile defense. Among other pork-barrel spending for which he has voted, Holden infamously voted to maintain the federal subsidy for sugar growers, even though there are no sugar growers in his district, after having accepted thousands of dollars in contributions to his campaign committee from the sugar special interests. Although he occasionally votes with the Republicans, especially when his vote is not needed by the liberal Democratic leadership, as it was for the Clinton tax increase, the most important vote he casts every two years is for a liberal Democrat for Speaker of the House, such as when he voted for Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).
Indeed, all Democratic candidates for House, no matter what their ideology or platform is, are committed to voting for her for Speaker, which would keep control of the legislative agenda of the House in the hands of the liberal Democratic leadership. Similarly, all Democratic candidates for the U.S. Senate would vote for liberal Democrats to retain control over the legislative agenda of the upper body. Control of the legislative agenda means that the leadership determines which bills or amendments it wishes to permit to be considered or debated and under what rules. In other words, the minority can pass only non-controversial bills or amendments. The majority party also holds the majority on all committees, where legislation is drafted in the first place, and names all of the chairmen.
That many of these Democratic candidates are running away from the unpopular Obama and the liberal Democratic Congressional leadership to such an extent that are trying to pass themselves off as not liberal is a good sign not only for Republican and conservative congressional candidates, but for conservatism in general. It suggests that even liberal Democrats recognize the rising popularity of common sense conservative ideas like smaller government, more liberty, a strong defense and public morality. As is often true in elections, liberals sometimes can only win by trying to sound like conservatives. Let us not be fooled, but vote for true conservatives pledged to vote for conservative congressional leadership.
I can report on one such Democratic candidate locally, Tim Holden, in whose Pennsylvania district I once was until the redistricting after the 2000 Census. The usually safe nine-term incumbent is running television advertisements in which he calls himself a “conservative,” despite his record of having provided the one-vote margin necessary to pass the Clinton tax increases – the largest in American history (the so-called “deficit reduction” plan that proposed to increase the federal budget deficit, which it did), as well as voting for gun control during the Clinton Administration and for public money for pornographic “art,” while voting against missile defense. Among other pork-barrel spending for which he has voted, Holden infamously voted to maintain the federal subsidy for sugar growers, even though there are no sugar growers in his district, after having accepted thousands of dollars in contributions to his campaign committee from the sugar special interests. Although he occasionally votes with the Republicans, especially when his vote is not needed by the liberal Democratic leadership, as it was for the Clinton tax increase, the most important vote he casts every two years is for a liberal Democrat for Speaker of the House, such as when he voted for Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).
Indeed, all Democratic candidates for House, no matter what their ideology or platform is, are committed to voting for her for Speaker, which would keep control of the legislative agenda of the House in the hands of the liberal Democratic leadership. Similarly, all Democratic candidates for the U.S. Senate would vote for liberal Democrats to retain control over the legislative agenda of the upper body. Control of the legislative agenda means that the leadership determines which bills or amendments it wishes to permit to be considered or debated and under what rules. In other words, the minority can pass only non-controversial bills or amendments. The majority party also holds the majority on all committees, where legislation is drafted in the first place, and names all of the chairmen.
That many of these Democratic candidates are running away from the unpopular Obama and the liberal Democratic Congressional leadership to such an extent that are trying to pass themselves off as not liberal is a good sign not only for Republican and conservative congressional candidates, but for conservatism in general. It suggests that even liberal Democrats recognize the rising popularity of common sense conservative ideas like smaller government, more liberty, a strong defense and public morality. As is often true in elections, liberals sometimes can only win by trying to sound like conservatives. Let us not be fooled, but vote for true conservatives pledged to vote for conservative congressional leadership.
The Pennsylvania House Passes the Castle Doctrine
The Pennsylvania House of Representatives has passed the Castle Doctrine, which defines the right of homeowners to use force with deadly weapons, including firearms, in order to defend themselves.
The Democratic-majority lower chamber of the General Assembly approved Republican-sponsored House Bill 40, which codified the Castle Doctrine, by an overwhelming margin of votes this evening. The measure moves to the state Senate.
For a more detailed analysis of the Castle Doctrine and House Bill 40, see my post from November of 2009, Pennsylvania Considers the Castle Doctrine.
The Democratic-majority lower chamber of the General Assembly approved Republican-sponsored House Bill 40, which codified the Castle Doctrine, by an overwhelming margin of votes this evening. The measure moves to the state Senate.
For a more detailed analysis of the Castle Doctrine and House Bill 40, see my post from November of 2009, Pennsylvania Considers the Castle Doctrine.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
A Popular Global Shift Rightward
I have been observing a shift toward the right in popular elections around the world this year. I have posted about this trend in commenting on the elections in the United Kingdom, Italy and Australia, in which the results for conservative parties constituted improvements over the previous corresponding election, while the conservative party was reelected in Columbia, the ruling conservative party won a plurality of votes in the Swedish national elections, and a moderate Republican won a special election to the United States Senate campaigning on a conservative platform. Recently, that trend has continued in some noteworthy ways.
In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders’ party won more seats in the Dutch parliament, even before the recent terrorism threats to Europe were reported. He is known for his opposition to Islamism. Although his party will not hold any seats in the cabinet, the coalition Dutch government depends upon its support to govern.
The Venezuelan opposition united against the autocratic Marxist leader, Hugo Chavez in legislative elections. Venezuelan voters deprived Chavez’s party of his nearly unanimous majority, which it had enjoyed for five years because the opposition had boycotted the previous election. The opposition gained more than a third of the legislative seats. Without a two-thirds majority, Chavez and his supporters will no longer be able to force through whatever legislation it wants.
In Brazil, center-left President Lula da Silva’s chosen successor unexpectedly has been forced into a runoff with centrist Jose Serra. Despite the popular Lula’s leftist rhetoric, except for ending privatization, he has continued the anti-inflationary policies of his centrist predecessor (who came from the same party as Serra), which has allowed Brazil to attract foreign investment and to prosper. Brazilian voters were concerned about scandals in Lula’s party, the possibility that its presidential candidate would favor a more leftist economic policy than Lula and her apparent support for legalizing abortion. Although she is likely to win in the final vote, her failure to win a majority decreases her mandate.
Although most of these elections represented only slight changes in electoral trends, except in the British elections, where their impact was correspondingly the most significant, they collectively signify a popular rightward shift toward smaller government, more liberty and more effective resistance to terrorism that could be a harbinger of even larger changes in elections to come.
In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders’ party won more seats in the Dutch parliament, even before the recent terrorism threats to Europe were reported. He is known for his opposition to Islamism. Although his party will not hold any seats in the cabinet, the coalition Dutch government depends upon its support to govern.
The Venezuelan opposition united against the autocratic Marxist leader, Hugo Chavez in legislative elections. Venezuelan voters deprived Chavez’s party of his nearly unanimous majority, which it had enjoyed for five years because the opposition had boycotted the previous election. The opposition gained more than a third of the legislative seats. Without a two-thirds majority, Chavez and his supporters will no longer be able to force through whatever legislation it wants.
In Brazil, center-left President Lula da Silva’s chosen successor unexpectedly has been forced into a runoff with centrist Jose Serra. Despite the popular Lula’s leftist rhetoric, except for ending privatization, he has continued the anti-inflationary policies of his centrist predecessor (who came from the same party as Serra), which has allowed Brazil to attract foreign investment and to prosper. Brazilian voters were concerned about scandals in Lula’s party, the possibility that its presidential candidate would favor a more leftist economic policy than Lula and her apparent support for legalizing abortion. Although she is likely to win in the final vote, her failure to win a majority decreases her mandate.
Although most of these elections represented only slight changes in electoral trends, except in the British elections, where their impact was correspondingly the most significant, they collectively signify a popular rightward shift toward smaller government, more liberty and more effective resistance to terrorism that could be a harbinger of even larger changes in elections to come.
Eighteen-Month Blog Report
Thank you for visiting my blog. In the year and a half since I began tracking hits, it has been visited at least 2,127 times (not counting my own visits, and only counting hits at least one hour apart as separate visits).
In addition to those who have visited my blog homepage, visitors have landed on 127 posts and visited 17 more. Eight posts have been visited over 50 times, and two have received over 200 visits. The Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization is the post that has been visited the most: nearly 450 times. The two posts that have been visited the most half-way through my blog's second year of being tracked are the following: Report from the 2010 Pennsylvania Leadership Conference and Arizona Border Control Update: A Federal Judge Violates States' Rights.
Visitors have come from 49 American states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam, as well as 71 foreign states. Interesting recent foreign visits since my last report have come from Iceland and Papua New Guinea, with the most continuing to come from Malaysia.
Again, thank you for making this blog a success. I am especially grateful for my blog's most loyal visitors. Please continue to visit, suggest topics and post comments. Thank you. God bless.
In addition to those who have visited my blog homepage, visitors have landed on 127 posts and visited 17 more. Eight posts have been visited over 50 times, and two have received over 200 visits. The Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization is the post that has been visited the most: nearly 450 times. The two posts that have been visited the most half-way through my blog's second year of being tracked are the following: Report from the 2010 Pennsylvania Leadership Conference and Arizona Border Control Update: A Federal Judge Violates States' Rights.
Visitors have come from 49 American states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam, as well as 71 foreign states. Interesting recent foreign visits since my last report have come from Iceland and Papua New Guinea, with the most continuing to come from Malaysia.
Again, thank you for making this blog a success. I am especially grateful for my blog's most loyal visitors. Please continue to visit, suggest topics and post comments. Thank you. God bless.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Reverse the Red-State-Blue-State Color Designation
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)