Serbia Captures Ratko Mladic
I praise Serbia for its capture of Bosnian war criminal General Ratko Mladic, perpetrator of ethnic cleansing during the Bosnian Civil War. The capture after over 16 years will enable Serbia to be brought more fully into the European community.
European Monetary Union Update: Greek and Italian Governments Survive Confidence Votes
The Socialist-led Greek government survived a close confidence vote for its latest austerity plan. The plan was necessary in order to receive the latest tranche of funds from the European Monetary Union’s bailout plan. Greece was in danger of defaulting on its sovereign debt, as its tax increases had diminished the economic growth necessary to generate revenue to pay the high interest on its debt. The Greek government has also slashed spending. It needs to sell off unnecessary state assets. A Greek default would have been disastrous for the Union and Europe in general, which also would have adversely impacted the global economy.
Italy’s center-right government won a confidence vote by a comfortable margin. The vote was necessary after the failure of four government-supported referenda and the defeat of center-right candidates in local elections. Italy’s economic growth has been weak, although the world’s eighth largest economy has structural strengths. Its relatively strong banks have taken a hit from exposure to Greek debt. Italy has implemented an austerity plan, but its sovereign debt is still large enough that an Italian government default would certainly bring down the European Monetary Union. Thus, there is some thought that Italy, more than Spain, is the last line of the Union’s defense, should Greece, Portugal or Ireland default.
Update: Geert Wilders Is Acquitted
Geert Wilders, the leader of a Dutch political party, was acquitted of inciting violence against Muslims. He had been charged because of anti-Jihadist statements, but Wilders had no objection to Muslim immigrants to the Netherlands who assimilated and did not support jihad. Wilders’ acquittal is an important victory for freedom of expression in Europe.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Cinfici Certified as a Winner in the Primary Election for Reading School Director
The results of the 2011 Primary Election were certified in Berks County more than three weeks after the Primary Election, with little public notice. Now that the absentee and provisional ballots have been counted and all the results are official, I am pleased to report that I received nearly 2,100 votes total on both the Republican and Democratic ballots in the primary for Reading School Director.
Having finished first on the Republican ballot, my name, William Cinfici, will be listed first on the GOP ballot, which is first of all ballots for the office, as the Republicans hold the left-hand column because the Governor is a Republican. There are eight candidates for five seats on the Reading School Board of Directors.
I am grateful to all the people who voted for me and all those who supported me in any way and ask for your continued support.
Having finished first on the Republican ballot, my name, William Cinfici, will be listed first on the GOP ballot, which is first of all ballots for the office, as the Republicans hold the left-hand column because the Governor is a Republican. There are eight candidates for five seats on the Reading School Board of Directors.
I am grateful to all the people who voted for me and all those who supported me in any way and ask for your continued support.
Peace Sign Restoration Would Threaten the Environment
A local “peace group” asked Reading City Council to restore the “Peace Sign” that has been on Mt. Penn’s barren west flank for forty years. The view of the sign from the city below has naturally become obstructed by trees.
The City, which has been declared “financially distressed,” by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, rejected the plan, not only because of the cost, but because the removal of the trees would cause runoff, which poses an environmental problem.
Although some might see an irony in the rejection of this liberal group’s plan to kill trees because of legitimate environmental concerns, perhaps it is not ironic that the restoration of a demonic sign of “peace,” an encircled inverted cross, would do violence to Creation. The so-called peace sign has been adopted by the Left as a symbol of man’s peace, i.e. the Devil’s peace, not of God’s Peace, which is better signified by the Dove. Thank God that this plan to restore an evil sign has been thwarted.
The City, which has been declared “financially distressed,” by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, rejected the plan, not only because of the cost, but because the removal of the trees would cause runoff, which poses an environmental problem.
Although some might see an irony in the rejection of this liberal group’s plan to kill trees because of legitimate environmental concerns, perhaps it is not ironic that the restoration of a demonic sign of “peace,” an encircled inverted cross, would do violence to Creation. The so-called peace sign has been adopted by the Left as a symbol of man’s peace, i.e. the Devil’s peace, not of God’s Peace, which is better signified by the Dove. Thank God that this plan to restore an evil sign has been thwarted.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Blog Hit Milestones: Four More Posts Have Been Visited 100 Times
As of a few days ago, StatCounter has tracked over 100 visits to four more posts to my blog: Commentary on the Roman Influence on America Exhibit, Radicals in the Obama Administration, Misleading Media Phrases and Obama Did Not Inherit the Economy From Bush. Seven posts have now reached this milestone.
Visits are defined as pageviews at least one hour apart and do not include my own. Visits to my home page or archives are not included. Blogger tracks two-to-three times as many page views, but I report on its tracking separately.
Thank you for visiting and for your comments. Please visit at least one or twice a week.
Visits are defined as pageviews at least one hour apart and do not include my own. Visits to my home page or archives are not included. Blogger tracks two-to-three times as many page views, but I report on its tracking separately.
Thank you for visiting and for your comments. Please visit at least one or twice a week.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
More Language for Conservatives to Avoid: Gender vs. Sex
The words sex and gender are increasingly being used interchangeably nowadays, but they are not interchangeable. Sex is not a synonym of gender.
The Left is supplanting “sex” with “gender” because it is stretching the meaning of sex beyond male and female to include additional categories for political purposes. As a result, “gender” is increasingly being used in place of “sex” by people who are unaware of the difference between these words that have little in common. Although “gender” is being used more broadly than “sex,” its meaning is much narrower.
Sex comes from the Latin infinitive secoare, “to cut,” because the human race is divided into male and female. Sex has to do with the physical division of male and female and their distinct roles in reproduction and the raising of children. Gender is a grammatical term that refers to masculine, feminine or neuter forms of words. Thus, words might have “gender,” but not “sex.”
The blurring of the distinction between sex and gender masks the grammatical significance of gender, which reflects the Left’s goal of feminizing society, even through language. Many languages, including some Indo-European ones, make broad use of gender. The difference between whether a word is masculine or feminine is often arbitrary. In English, gender is relatively less emphasized. The use of gender is required in only a few cases, mostly involving prepositions, a part of speech that is inherently reflective of sex.
The masculine gender prevails in English more commonly, but the feminine gender is less commonly applied because it is reserved for more important matters. Thus, there is a gender balance in English. Masculine prepositions are used in order to refer generally to people who might be of either sex, as in the following example: “He who laughs last, laughs best.” Feminine prepositions are used in regard to the Church, America, States of the Union, foreign states, vessels, and even ideals such as Liberty and Justice.
For political purposes, liberals are trying to emasculate the English language by eliminating the masculine gender and thereby make conservatives seem sexist when they use proper grammar in instances when the masculine gender ought to prevail. As a result of the Left’s increasingly successful efforts, the language is now out of balance and tilted toward the feminine gender.
Neither liberals, nor anyone else have any right to change the language, especially because our liberty depends upon written law. They must not be allowed to change the law by changing the meaning of the words and convincing activist liberal judges to agree with them that the law ought to be interpreting by using the new meaning of the words instead of what the words were originally intended to mean when they were written and approved by the representatives of the people.
Furthermore, in addition to giving an impression of ignorance or disrespect for good grammar and for standards, the misuse of words decreases precision. The high degree of precision is the strength of English, which is a hybrid language. In the particular example of sex and gender, the difference is not one of degree, but of kind. The distraction and confusion caused by poor grammar or pronunciation or the misuse of words hinder communication.
Also, English-speaking students of foreign languages that use gender more heavily than English are thereby less prepared to learn those languages and less appreciative of the origins of English. One of the benefits of learning a foreign language is the gaining of a better perspective of one’s native language. That perspective is being lost as English speakers grow less knowledgeable of the proper grammar of their own language and thus cannot observe its differences and similarities with other languages.
Therefore, conservatives should not only avoid saying “gender” in place of “sex,” but avoid clumsy contrivances such as “he or she,” “him or her,” “he/she,” “his/hers” or “s/he,” the last of which is unpronounceable. Additional examples of the emasculation of English are the use of plural prepositions, “they,” “their,” “theirs,” or “them,” instead of masculine singular prepositions when referring to a single person who might be of either sex (e.g. “Someone left their briefcase on the bus” instead of “Someone left his briefcase on the bus”), the elimination of the word man for a human being of either sex, the unnecessary use of the phrase “men and women” instead of “men” for human beings of either sex, and even more extreme examples such as the substitution of the suffix man with “person,” and the use of “chair” instead of “chairman,” all of which ought to be avoided. The last example is also worthy of a post by itself.
To avoid the misuse of words is to defend liberty. In this particular case, even more is at stake than liberty.
The Left is supplanting “sex” with “gender” because it is stretching the meaning of sex beyond male and female to include additional categories for political purposes. As a result, “gender” is increasingly being used in place of “sex” by people who are unaware of the difference between these words that have little in common. Although “gender” is being used more broadly than “sex,” its meaning is much narrower.
Sex comes from the Latin infinitive secoare, “to cut,” because the human race is divided into male and female. Sex has to do with the physical division of male and female and their distinct roles in reproduction and the raising of children. Gender is a grammatical term that refers to masculine, feminine or neuter forms of words. Thus, words might have “gender,” but not “sex.”
The blurring of the distinction between sex and gender masks the grammatical significance of gender, which reflects the Left’s goal of feminizing society, even through language. Many languages, including some Indo-European ones, make broad use of gender. The difference between whether a word is masculine or feminine is often arbitrary. In English, gender is relatively less emphasized. The use of gender is required in only a few cases, mostly involving prepositions, a part of speech that is inherently reflective of sex.
The masculine gender prevails in English more commonly, but the feminine gender is less commonly applied because it is reserved for more important matters. Thus, there is a gender balance in English. Masculine prepositions are used in order to refer generally to people who might be of either sex, as in the following example: “He who laughs last, laughs best.” Feminine prepositions are used in regard to the Church, America, States of the Union, foreign states, vessels, and even ideals such as Liberty and Justice.
For political purposes, liberals are trying to emasculate the English language by eliminating the masculine gender and thereby make conservatives seem sexist when they use proper grammar in instances when the masculine gender ought to prevail. As a result of the Left’s increasingly successful efforts, the language is now out of balance and tilted toward the feminine gender.
Neither liberals, nor anyone else have any right to change the language, especially because our liberty depends upon written law. They must not be allowed to change the law by changing the meaning of the words and convincing activist liberal judges to agree with them that the law ought to be interpreting by using the new meaning of the words instead of what the words were originally intended to mean when they were written and approved by the representatives of the people.
Furthermore, in addition to giving an impression of ignorance or disrespect for good grammar and for standards, the misuse of words decreases precision. The high degree of precision is the strength of English, which is a hybrid language. In the particular example of sex and gender, the difference is not one of degree, but of kind. The distraction and confusion caused by poor grammar or pronunciation or the misuse of words hinder communication.
Also, English-speaking students of foreign languages that use gender more heavily than English are thereby less prepared to learn those languages and less appreciative of the origins of English. One of the benefits of learning a foreign language is the gaining of a better perspective of one’s native language. That perspective is being lost as English speakers grow less knowledgeable of the proper grammar of their own language and thus cannot observe its differences and similarities with other languages.
Therefore, conservatives should not only avoid saying “gender” in place of “sex,” but avoid clumsy contrivances such as “he or she,” “him or her,” “he/she,” “his/hers” or “s/he,” the last of which is unpronounceable. Additional examples of the emasculation of English are the use of plural prepositions, “they,” “their,” “theirs,” or “them,” instead of masculine singular prepositions when referring to a single person who might be of either sex (e.g. “Someone left their briefcase on the bus” instead of “Someone left his briefcase on the bus”), the elimination of the word man for a human being of either sex, the unnecessary use of the phrase “men and women” instead of “men” for human beings of either sex, and even more extreme examples such as the substitution of the suffix man with “person,” and the use of “chair” instead of “chairman,” all of which ought to be avoided. The last example is also worthy of a post by itself.
To avoid the misuse of words is to defend liberty. In this particular case, even more is at stake than liberty.
The Libyan and Yemeni Wars Are Not the Third and Fourth U.S. Wars
The recent wars in Libya and Yemen are being called the “Third” and “Fourth” wars in which the United States is currently fighting. Although an argument could be made that they are wars, they are actually battles or theaters in the global War on Terrorism, which is being fought against Islamist militants of various kinds. Regardless, the ordinal references to these conflicts are incorrect.
Afghanistan (2001) was the first battle of the war. The Philippines (2002) was second, and Iraq (2003, although Iraq had been clashing with the Coalition enforcing the No-Fly Zones for years before) was third. Somalia became the fourth battle in 2007. The U.S. continued to bomb Somalia periodically at least until 2010, according to media reports. The U.S. fired the first missile in Yemen early in the War on Terrorism, but it developed into a battle in 2011, followed by Libya. Note the inverse order of Yemen and Libya from what the media is presenting.
Although the U.S. troops who are training the Filipino military to fight Islamist militants had been prohibited from engaging in combat since the beginning, they are permitted to defend themselves, as they did in a firefight in 2002 after being attacked by the Islamist Filipino enemy. The enemy insurgents, who have killed three American soldiers in bombings over the years, could again shoot at U.S. advisors in the field, which could again trigger combat. Therefore, it is premature to declare the U.S. participation in hostile action in the Philippine Muslim Insurgency to have ended.
Because of the possibility of current covert action or a future return to overt action, it is also premature to declare the U.S. involvement in the Somali Civil War to have ended. Furthermore, a case could be made that actions taken against Somali pirates ought to be included, as their piracy is a result of the Somali Civil War. Regardless of whether their piracy is considered part of that war, it is part of the larger war against Islamist militancy, as the pirates are motivated in part by jihad. The 2007-2010 American involvement in the Somali Civil War is the second time the U.S. has been involved overtly in that war. The first was in 1993.
Thus, although Libya and Yemen could be called the “Fifth” or “Fourth” wars, respectively, in which the U.S. is currently engaged, there are better understood as battles or theaters in the War on Terrorism.
Afghanistan (2001) was the first battle of the war. The Philippines (2002) was second, and Iraq (2003, although Iraq had been clashing with the Coalition enforcing the No-Fly Zones for years before) was third. Somalia became the fourth battle in 2007. The U.S. continued to bomb Somalia periodically at least until 2010, according to media reports. The U.S. fired the first missile in Yemen early in the War on Terrorism, but it developed into a battle in 2011, followed by Libya. Note the inverse order of Yemen and Libya from what the media is presenting.
Although the U.S. troops who are training the Filipino military to fight Islamist militants had been prohibited from engaging in combat since the beginning, they are permitted to defend themselves, as they did in a firefight in 2002 after being attacked by the Islamist Filipino enemy. The enemy insurgents, who have killed three American soldiers in bombings over the years, could again shoot at U.S. advisors in the field, which could again trigger combat. Therefore, it is premature to declare the U.S. participation in hostile action in the Philippine Muslim Insurgency to have ended.
Because of the possibility of current covert action or a future return to overt action, it is also premature to declare the U.S. involvement in the Somali Civil War to have ended. Furthermore, a case could be made that actions taken against Somali pirates ought to be included, as their piracy is a result of the Somali Civil War. Regardless of whether their piracy is considered part of that war, it is part of the larger war against Islamist militancy, as the pirates are motivated in part by jihad. The 2007-2010 American involvement in the Somali Civil War is the second time the U.S. has been involved overtly in that war. The first was in 1993.
Thus, although Libya and Yemen could be called the “Fifth” or “Fourth” wars, respectively, in which the U.S. is currently engaged, there are better understood as battles or theaters in the War on Terrorism.
Monday, June 6, 2011
Cinfici's Interview on Rick Santorum's Presidential Candidacy
I was interviewed today by WEEU Radio 850 AM in Reading, Pennsylvania on former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum's announcement that he is seeking the Republican nomination for President of the United States of America.
I observed that even though Pennsylvania is a major state and a political swing state, there has not been a president or vice president from the Keystone State in a long time. It is good to have a Pennsylvanian as a candidate. I noted that Senator Santorum has experience as a U.S. Senator on defense and foreign policy, judicial matters, and as the author of the welfare reform bill that was approved in the 1990s. He is knowledgeable and articulate and fills a niche in the Republican presidential field that lacks a clear front-runner, which is an unusual circumstance, although I stated that I believe Republicans would like to see more candidates enter the field in order to provide more choices.
When asked whether Santorum would have the interests of Berks County in mind, I noted that he had always done well in Berks County and I expressed confidence that he would. But I said that I believed he would focus first on getting our fiscal situation in order, as well as on continuing to resist the terrorists. I cited his concern about Iran's nuclear program in particular.
I was then asked about Santorum's announcement at the Flight 93 sight in Scwhenksville, Pennsylvania. I remarked that it was a poignant venue because it was the sight of the first successful resistance to the terrorists; the victims gave their lives in order to prevent the terrorists from striking their intended target. We must continue to resist terrorism.
I observed that even though Pennsylvania is a major state and a political swing state, there has not been a president or vice president from the Keystone State in a long time. It is good to have a Pennsylvanian as a candidate. I noted that Senator Santorum has experience as a U.S. Senator on defense and foreign policy, judicial matters, and as the author of the welfare reform bill that was approved in the 1990s. He is knowledgeable and articulate and fills a niche in the Republican presidential field that lacks a clear front-runner, which is an unusual circumstance, although I stated that I believe Republicans would like to see more candidates enter the field in order to provide more choices.
When asked whether Santorum would have the interests of Berks County in mind, I noted that he had always done well in Berks County and I expressed confidence that he would. But I said that I believed he would focus first on getting our fiscal situation in order, as well as on continuing to resist the terrorists. I cited his concern about Iran's nuclear program in particular.
I was then asked about Santorum's announcement at the Flight 93 sight in Scwhenksville, Pennsylvania. I remarked that it was a poignant venue because it was the sight of the first successful resistance to the terrorists; the victims gave their lives in order to prevent the terrorists from striking their intended target. We must continue to resist terrorism.
Election Results in Portugal, Peru
The recent election results in Portugal and Peru were mixed. The Portuguese ousted the Socialist government which had adopted an austerity program that included raising taxes, even on the poor. The center-right Social Democrats will return to power, although they may have to form a coalition government with a conservative party. Portugal is being bailed out of its fiscal crisis by the European Monetary Union after having overspent with borrowed funds to finance its welfare state and low worker productivity, like Greece. The new Portuguese government will have to continue the austerity program, but one that stimulates growth through lower taxes instead.
In Peru, the leftist candidate has apparently defeated the rightist one in a close race. The leftist is an admirer of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, but had to back away from some of his more radical positions. The rightist candidate had the albatross around her head of being the daughter of former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori. Fujimori had defeated the vicious Shining Path Maoist rebels, among other accomplishments, but was imprisoned for alleged corruption. Thus, Peruvians felt that had two bad choices to make. The new president will be monitored for any potential backsliding from representative democracy to authoritarianism. Already investors are losing confidence in the Peruvian market. Peru, has a free trade agreement with the United States, negotiated under the Administration of President George W. Bush, which has been beneficial to Peru and contributed to its relative prosperity.
As I have been posting, election results worldwide have suggested a rightward shift in the last two years. Even the relatively few victories by the left, as in Peru, have been narrow and achieved only by promising the maintenance of successful conservative, free-market policies.
In Peru, the leftist candidate has apparently defeated the rightist one in a close race. The leftist is an admirer of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, but had to back away from some of his more radical positions. The rightist candidate had the albatross around her head of being the daughter of former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori. Fujimori had defeated the vicious Shining Path Maoist rebels, among other accomplishments, but was imprisoned for alleged corruption. Thus, Peruvians felt that had two bad choices to make. The new president will be monitored for any potential backsliding from representative democracy to authoritarianism. Already investors are losing confidence in the Peruvian market. Peru, has a free trade agreement with the United States, negotiated under the Administration of President George W. Bush, which has been beneficial to Peru and contributed to its relative prosperity.
As I have been posting, election results worldwide have suggested a rightward shift in the last two years. Even the relatively few victories by the left, as in Peru, have been narrow and achieved only by promising the maintenance of successful conservative, free-market policies.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
May of 2011 Personal, Political Notes: Pennsylvania Primary; Corbett Protestors
As I have posted, I was preoccupied lately with the Primary Election, in which I was a candidate for one of five seats on the Reading School Board of Directors. I won on the Republican ballot, finishing in first place, but lost on the Democratic ballot, where I was seventh out of nine, a little over 200 votes out of fifth place. Overall, I had the fourth-highest total with over 2,000 votes.
Although I was disappointed not to win the Democratic nomination, I was pleased with the high number of votes on both ballots. The results were better than the 2009 Primary Election. I appreciate the strong bi-partisan support, the votes and the congratulations I have received since the election.
On another local political note, I saw the protest against Gov. Tom Corbett, who was the commencement speaker at Albright College, a few blocks from my home in Reading. They were protesting spending cuts to education in order to balance the $4.5 billion state budget, Corbett’s proposed school vouchers, and drilling for natural gas by fracturing the rocks with a water-based solution. I gave the thumbs-down to the few-dozen protestors and booed them politely as I passed by.
Protestors have the freedom to assemble, but not the right to assemble. Thus, they have no legal claim that imposes an obligation upon others, such as to be allowed to protest whenever or wherever they like. In other words, there is no right to be heard. Protesting at a commencement is rude behavior toward the students and their families and friends and need not be tolerated. Those who protest at the funerals of U.S. servicemen killed in the War on Terrorism are engaged in even more hurtful behavior that must not be tolerated. Such protestors should be kept out of earshot of their intended victims.
Although I was disappointed not to win the Democratic nomination, I was pleased with the high number of votes on both ballots. The results were better than the 2009 Primary Election. I appreciate the strong bi-partisan support, the votes and the congratulations I have received since the election.
On another local political note, I saw the protest against Gov. Tom Corbett, who was the commencement speaker at Albright College, a few blocks from my home in Reading. They were protesting spending cuts to education in order to balance the $4.5 billion state budget, Corbett’s proposed school vouchers, and drilling for natural gas by fracturing the rocks with a water-based solution. I gave the thumbs-down to the few-dozen protestors and booed them politely as I passed by.
Protestors have the freedom to assemble, but not the right to assemble. Thus, they have no legal claim that imposes an obligation upon others, such as to be allowed to protest whenever or wherever they like. In other words, there is no right to be heard. Protesting at a commencement is rude behavior toward the students and their families and friends and need not be tolerated. Those who protest at the funerals of U.S. servicemen killed in the War on Terrorism are engaged in even more hurtful behavior that must not be tolerated. Such protestors should be kept out of earshot of their intended victims.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
The Santorum-McCain Enhanced Interrogation Controversy
Former United States Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania has been criticized for saying that Senator John McCain of Arizona does not understand enhanced interrogation. The liberal media and other commentators have pointed out that Sen. McCain was tortured as a prisoner of war during the Vietnamese War and have called Santorum “stupid,” as if he did not know what he was talking about. As usual, the liberal media and other commentators have exposed their own ignorance by making such statements.
Sen. McCain and the other heroic American Prisoners of War (POWs) were tortured by the Communist Vietnamese not primarily for interrogation, but in order to force them to make anti-U.S. statements for propaganda purposes. Moreover, the Americans were subjected to starvation, the infliction of severe pain, the denial of medical care and other human rights abuses, even though they are covered under the Geneva Convention, which bans torture and limits interrogation only to name, rank and serial number.
In fact, the U.S. has yet to fight any enemy that has followed the Geneva Convention, even though every state with which it has engaged in war has been a signatory of it since its creation. POWs often have been tortured usually as a form of extrajudicial punishment or for propaganda. When they have been tortured for intelligence-gathering, it is only because the enemy wishes to gain a military advantage, not because it needs to save the lives of innocent civilians, as the U.S. does not target innocent civilians.
By contrast, the terrorists were subjected to enhanced interrogation in order to save the lives of innocent civilians. The terrorists were not subjected to starvation, the infliction of severe pain, the denial of medical care and other human rights abuses. The terrorists are even allowed to practice their religion, unlike the American POWs. Regardless, even if we were to grant that enhanced interrogation is torture, the terrorists are war criminals because they target innocent civilians and are thus not covered by the Geneva Convention which protects only regular soldiers. Indeed, terrorists may be summarily executed under international law, meaning they can be shot immediately upon capture without trial. Thus, there is no moral or legal equivalence between terrorist detainees and American POWs. The suggestion that there is such equivalence is morally repugnant.
Sen. McCain’s commitment to opposing torture is admirable, but Santorum’s comments suggest that perhaps his former colleague’s personal emotional reaction against any harsh treatment of detainees clouds his judgment on the nuances of enhanced interrogation of terrorist detainees. Reasonable people can differ reasonably, but the point is that Santorum comments were reasonable, even if not well put. Liberal critics of the enhanced interrogation practices of the Administration of President George W. Bush have long been citing McCain’s opposition to those practices uncritically. The current controversy over Santorum’s remarks has yet to spark the least bit of critical thinking on their part.
Heretofore, I have posted that it was the Bush Administration’s policy of interrogating terrorists led to the intelligence that resulted in the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. My point was that interrogating them at all, whether harshly or not, was the key change in policy that produced the first intelligence lead that was built upon over the years that led to the raid. Interrogating terrorist detainees was in contrast to the policy of treating them like common criminals (e.g. reading them their right to remain silent), which was the policy of Bush’s predecessor, Bill Clinton and is the current policy of his successor, Barak Obama. Critics of enhanced interrogation admit that Bush’s interrogations policy led to the critical intelligence, but insist that the particular practice of enhanced interrogation did not produce the specific leads. Santorum and others have asserted that the practice did, in fact, break Khalid Sheik Muhammad, the mastermind of the September 11 Attacks, who later became cooperative after having been waterboarded.
I had avoided the debate about whether enhanced interrogation should be credited for the raid, even as the evidence has mounted that it should, as it was not a necessary point to make in order to give proper credit to Bush’s policies. Also, I wanted to avoid any suggestion that ends justify means, although ends certainly do mitigate any moral fault. Regardless, the Santorum controversy provided me the opportunity to respond to the liberal and libertarian critics of harsh interrogation who have been making false moral equivalence arguments between the torture of American POWs and the harsh interrogations of terrorist detainees.
Sen. McCain and the other heroic American Prisoners of War (POWs) were tortured by the Communist Vietnamese not primarily for interrogation, but in order to force them to make anti-U.S. statements for propaganda purposes. Moreover, the Americans were subjected to starvation, the infliction of severe pain, the denial of medical care and other human rights abuses, even though they are covered under the Geneva Convention, which bans torture and limits interrogation only to name, rank and serial number.
In fact, the U.S. has yet to fight any enemy that has followed the Geneva Convention, even though every state with which it has engaged in war has been a signatory of it since its creation. POWs often have been tortured usually as a form of extrajudicial punishment or for propaganda. When they have been tortured for intelligence-gathering, it is only because the enemy wishes to gain a military advantage, not because it needs to save the lives of innocent civilians, as the U.S. does not target innocent civilians.
By contrast, the terrorists were subjected to enhanced interrogation in order to save the lives of innocent civilians. The terrorists were not subjected to starvation, the infliction of severe pain, the denial of medical care and other human rights abuses. The terrorists are even allowed to practice their religion, unlike the American POWs. Regardless, even if we were to grant that enhanced interrogation is torture, the terrorists are war criminals because they target innocent civilians and are thus not covered by the Geneva Convention which protects only regular soldiers. Indeed, terrorists may be summarily executed under international law, meaning they can be shot immediately upon capture without trial. Thus, there is no moral or legal equivalence between terrorist detainees and American POWs. The suggestion that there is such equivalence is morally repugnant.
Sen. McCain’s commitment to opposing torture is admirable, but Santorum’s comments suggest that perhaps his former colleague’s personal emotional reaction against any harsh treatment of detainees clouds his judgment on the nuances of enhanced interrogation of terrorist detainees. Reasonable people can differ reasonably, but the point is that Santorum comments were reasonable, even if not well put. Liberal critics of the enhanced interrogation practices of the Administration of President George W. Bush have long been citing McCain’s opposition to those practices uncritically. The current controversy over Santorum’s remarks has yet to spark the least bit of critical thinking on their part.
Heretofore, I have posted that it was the Bush Administration’s policy of interrogating terrorists led to the intelligence that resulted in the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. My point was that interrogating them at all, whether harshly or not, was the key change in policy that produced the first intelligence lead that was built upon over the years that led to the raid. Interrogating terrorist detainees was in contrast to the policy of treating them like common criminals (e.g. reading them their right to remain silent), which was the policy of Bush’s predecessor, Bill Clinton and is the current policy of his successor, Barak Obama. Critics of enhanced interrogation admit that Bush’s interrogations policy led to the critical intelligence, but insist that the particular practice of enhanced interrogation did not produce the specific leads. Santorum and others have asserted that the practice did, in fact, break Khalid Sheik Muhammad, the mastermind of the September 11 Attacks, who later became cooperative after having been waterboarded.
I had avoided the debate about whether enhanced interrogation should be credited for the raid, even as the evidence has mounted that it should, as it was not a necessary point to make in order to give proper credit to Bush’s policies. Also, I wanted to avoid any suggestion that ends justify means, although ends certainly do mitigate any moral fault. Regardless, the Santorum controversy provided me the opportunity to respond to the liberal and libertarian critics of harsh interrogation who have been making false moral equivalence arguments between the torture of American POWs and the harsh interrogations of terrorist detainees.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Follow-Up on the Bin Laden Raid
In addition to those I mentioned in an earlier post who should see the photograph of the dead Osama bin Laden, it should be shown to the terrorist detainees in order to demoralize them and encourage them to give up more valuable information in order to prevent further terrorist attacks.
In my initial post on the raid, I had referred to bin Laden’s significance as the founder and spiritual leader of al-Qaeda. Apparently, he was more than a spiritual leader, having retained a higher degree of operational control than believed. Nevertheless, it is critically important to capture or kill Ayman al-Zawahiri, the second in command of al-Qaeda. Zawahari, who had a hand in the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat, had founded a terrorist organization before bin Laden founded al-Qaeda. He merged his Egyptian Islamic Jihad with bin Laden’s organization. It is also necessary to capture or kill the leaders of the various organizations around the world that have pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda.
As I noted bin Laden’s death is a significant symbolic victory in the War on Terrorism and against Islamism in general. Al-Qaeda’s successful terrorist attacks and bin Laden’s ability to elude the United States suggested Allah’s favor, as if bin Laden were being anointed as the next Caliph. He had already issued religious edicts and was referred to as a “sheik” by his followers. Not only will bin Laden never be the next Caliph (i.e. the Muslim political and military leader and spiritual successor to Muhammad), but his death strongly suggests that Allah is not favoring al-Qaeda. It was important to capture or kill bin Laden, as it was Saddam Hussein, as well as to defeat Islamists militarily.
Indeed, the bin Laden raid reaffirms the superiority of U.S. technology, something the September 11 Attacks had made doubtful. The superiority of Western technology made Islamists feel inferior, as if Allah were no longer favoring their religion, as they believed he had originally, when Muhammad swiftly conquered vast territories. Western technology had given the West a military advantage that enabled it to push back the Muslim invaders. One of bin Laden’s goals in the September 11 Attacks was to suggest that Western technology was not an advantage, but a vulnerability, which his al-Qaeda terrorist organization accomplished by using Western technology (e.g. airplanes) against some of its most technologically-advanced buildings. Thus, the role of U.S. technology, in addition to the critical role of human intelligence, in carrying out the bin Laden raid is also a significant symbolic victory in the War on Terrorism.
It is also becoming apparent that the raid was a kill mission, not a capture or kill mission, as it was unlikely that bin Laden would not be regarded as a threat, which is just as well. The mission that resulted in the terrorist leader’s death was conducted in wartime – during a war that he had declared himself. Terrorists are known to believe in suicidal acts of murder, which necessitated his shooting by the Navy Seals in self-defense. Moreover, under international law, terrorists can be shot summarily.
It also appears that the Obama Administration does not want to admit this true nature of the mission, which partly explains its contradictory reports on the raid, for fear of reaction from the Left or the Islamic world. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder had declared that the U.S. would have to read bin Laden his rights, including the right to remain silent if he were captured. The Obama Administration would prefer to try most terrorists in civilian courts as common criminals instead of in military courts as war criminals.
Since I posted on the revelations that interrogations of terrorists during the Administration of President George W. Bush produced the intelligence leads that led to the raid, more information has been reported that provides even further evidence for crediting Bush’s policies. The initial lead came as far back as 2002 and was developed over time as more terrorists were captured. The interrogations by the Central Intelligence Agency on foreign soil (i.e. rendition) of terrorists, including the mastermind of the September 11 Attacks, Khalid Sheik Muhammad, were fruitful in developing the leads.
One key al-Qaeda operative was captured by the U.S. in Iraq, on his way to support Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Zarqawi was wanted by the U.S. before the Liberation of Iraq for the murder of an American diplomat in Jordan. In other words, contrary to the claims of critics of the Liberation of Iraq that the war distracted the U.S. from its goal of defeating al-Qaeda, the killing of bin Laden was one of the many fruits of the Liberation of Iraq, in addition to the destruction of al-Qaeda in Iraq.
In addition, the Bush Administration also reportedly had reached an agreement with Pakistan that the U.S. would send its forces into Pakistan without the latter’s knowledge or consent in pursuit of bin Laden or other high value targets in the War on Terrorism.
Although President Barak Obama has followed most of Bush’s policies, the raid was the result of a policy he continues to oppose, of harshly interrogating terrorists. See 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America, the link for which appears on the left-hand column on my blog, in which Debra Burlingame reports that President Barak Obama refused her request to give up consideration of prosecuting Americans who interrogated terrorists during the War on Terrorism.
In my initial post on the raid, I had referred to bin Laden’s significance as the founder and spiritual leader of al-Qaeda. Apparently, he was more than a spiritual leader, having retained a higher degree of operational control than believed. Nevertheless, it is critically important to capture or kill Ayman al-Zawahiri, the second in command of al-Qaeda. Zawahari, who had a hand in the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat, had founded a terrorist organization before bin Laden founded al-Qaeda. He merged his Egyptian Islamic Jihad with bin Laden’s organization. It is also necessary to capture or kill the leaders of the various organizations around the world that have pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda.
As I noted bin Laden’s death is a significant symbolic victory in the War on Terrorism and against Islamism in general. Al-Qaeda’s successful terrorist attacks and bin Laden’s ability to elude the United States suggested Allah’s favor, as if bin Laden were being anointed as the next Caliph. He had already issued religious edicts and was referred to as a “sheik” by his followers. Not only will bin Laden never be the next Caliph (i.e. the Muslim political and military leader and spiritual successor to Muhammad), but his death strongly suggests that Allah is not favoring al-Qaeda. It was important to capture or kill bin Laden, as it was Saddam Hussein, as well as to defeat Islamists militarily.
Indeed, the bin Laden raid reaffirms the superiority of U.S. technology, something the September 11 Attacks had made doubtful. The superiority of Western technology made Islamists feel inferior, as if Allah were no longer favoring their religion, as they believed he had originally, when Muhammad swiftly conquered vast territories. Western technology had given the West a military advantage that enabled it to push back the Muslim invaders. One of bin Laden’s goals in the September 11 Attacks was to suggest that Western technology was not an advantage, but a vulnerability, which his al-Qaeda terrorist organization accomplished by using Western technology (e.g. airplanes) against some of its most technologically-advanced buildings. Thus, the role of U.S. technology, in addition to the critical role of human intelligence, in carrying out the bin Laden raid is also a significant symbolic victory in the War on Terrorism.
It is also becoming apparent that the raid was a kill mission, not a capture or kill mission, as it was unlikely that bin Laden would not be regarded as a threat, which is just as well. The mission that resulted in the terrorist leader’s death was conducted in wartime – during a war that he had declared himself. Terrorists are known to believe in suicidal acts of murder, which necessitated his shooting by the Navy Seals in self-defense. Moreover, under international law, terrorists can be shot summarily.
It also appears that the Obama Administration does not want to admit this true nature of the mission, which partly explains its contradictory reports on the raid, for fear of reaction from the Left or the Islamic world. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder had declared that the U.S. would have to read bin Laden his rights, including the right to remain silent if he were captured. The Obama Administration would prefer to try most terrorists in civilian courts as common criminals instead of in military courts as war criminals.
Since I posted on the revelations that interrogations of terrorists during the Administration of President George W. Bush produced the intelligence leads that led to the raid, more information has been reported that provides even further evidence for crediting Bush’s policies. The initial lead came as far back as 2002 and was developed over time as more terrorists were captured. The interrogations by the Central Intelligence Agency on foreign soil (i.e. rendition) of terrorists, including the mastermind of the September 11 Attacks, Khalid Sheik Muhammad, were fruitful in developing the leads.
One key al-Qaeda operative was captured by the U.S. in Iraq, on his way to support Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Zarqawi was wanted by the U.S. before the Liberation of Iraq for the murder of an American diplomat in Jordan. In other words, contrary to the claims of critics of the Liberation of Iraq that the war distracted the U.S. from its goal of defeating al-Qaeda, the killing of bin Laden was one of the many fruits of the Liberation of Iraq, in addition to the destruction of al-Qaeda in Iraq.
In addition, the Bush Administration also reportedly had reached an agreement with Pakistan that the U.S. would send its forces into Pakistan without the latter’s knowledge or consent in pursuit of bin Laden or other high value targets in the War on Terrorism.
Although President Barak Obama has followed most of Bush’s policies, the raid was the result of a policy he continues to oppose, of harshly interrogating terrorists. See 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America, the link for which appears on the left-hand column on my blog, in which Debra Burlingame reports that President Barak Obama refused her request to give up consideration of prosecuting Americans who interrogated terrorists during the War on Terrorism.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
The Primary Election in Pennsylvania
Tuesday, May 17 is Primary Election Day in Pennsylvania. On the ballot statewide are seats for both Superior and Commonwealth Court, the Keystone State’s two appellate courts.
Locally, the offices of County Commissioners, County Row Offices and Magisterial District Judge are on the ballot, as well as Municipal offices and School Boards of Directors.
I am a candidate for Reading School Director. Here is the link for the voters’ guide from the Reading Eagle: http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=306818.
With the current economic and fiscal challenges, fiscally responsible candidates must be nominated by their parties for these important offices that affect people most directly.
Vote on Tuesday, May 17.
Locally, the offices of County Commissioners, County Row Offices and Magisterial District Judge are on the ballot, as well as Municipal offices and School Boards of Directors.
I am a candidate for Reading School Director. Here is the link for the voters’ guide from the Reading Eagle: http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=306818.
With the current economic and fiscal challenges, fiscally responsible candidates must be nominated by their parties for these important offices that affect people most directly.
Vote on Tuesday, May 17.
3,000th Visit to My Blog Tracked by StatCounter
A week ago, StatCounter tracked the 3,000th visit to my blog since April 2, 2009. As always, I count visits as pageviews from individuals at least one hour apart, and do not count my own visits.
As I have noted previously, Blogger tracks two or three times as many pageviews, especially from outside the United States. Nevertheless, StatCounter’s more specific statistical analysis is especially helpful. One example is that I can tailor the headlines of my posts to be more likely to appear in internet searches, as StatCounter enables me to see what the visitors are searching.
You may have noticed that I also am striving to avoid newspaper-style “headline-speak,” to coin a word.
I apologize that I have not posted as frequently lately as I would like because of the upcoming election, in which I am a candidate, but please visit again soon, as I intend to post more. Thank you for visiting my blog. Your patronage is appreciated.
As I have noted previously, Blogger tracks two or three times as many pageviews, especially from outside the United States. Nevertheless, StatCounter’s more specific statistical analysis is especially helpful. One example is that I can tailor the headlines of my posts to be more likely to appear in internet searches, as StatCounter enables me to see what the visitors are searching.
You may have noticed that I also am striving to avoid newspaper-style “headline-speak,” to coin a word.
I apologize that I have not posted as frequently lately as I would like because of the upcoming election, in which I am a candidate, but please visit again soon, as I intend to post more. Thank you for visiting my blog. Your patronage is appreciated.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Personal Thoughts on the Killing of Osama Bin Laden
I am grateful to have this opportunity to share my thoughts on the raid by United States forces that resulted in the death of al-Qaeda terrorist founder and leader Osama bin Laden, as an American and as a relative of one of one of the victims of al-Qaeda’s September 11 Attacks.
Upon hearing the news of the raid shortly after midnight, I was jubilant. My jubilation was not out of a sense of vengeance over the death of a human being or any desire that bin Laden be condemned to Hell, but for three reasons: 1) joyfulness that justice was served and that bin Laden knew that he was caught, 2) relief that he is no longer a threat and 3) pride in the U.S. military and intelligence services.
Although I had prayed for bin Laden’s conversion, which is the minimal extent of love for one’s enemy I could possibly have for someone who murdered a family member of mine and as an American, it cannot be ruled out that he responded to Jesus Christ’s call at the moment of death as bin Laden realized that Allah did not favor is evil enterprise. I pray especially for the victims of al-Qaeda.
As I watched the news reports on the raid, I was also proud of the crowds of Americans who took to the streets and the students who went to the grounds of their campuses in celebration of this great victory in the War on Terrorism. I was especially proud of the Phillies fans who chanted “U.S.A.! U.S.A.!” when the news of the raid broke during the baseball game at Citizens Bank Park in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and the Texans who came to the Dallas home of former President George W. Bush to thank him for the policies he put in place as he led America into the War on Terrorism that made the bin Laden raid possible, which was even before reports confirmed that it was intelligence leads that were first gained during the Bush Administration that led to the raid.
I, too, was out in the street after midnight, waiving an American flag, shortly after I had posted about the raid on my blog. Because of the hour and the fact that I did not observe anyone else outside, however, I refrained from making the celebratory noises as I had always intended upon hearing the long-sought news in the moment that came the closest to V.E. Day in my lifetime.
I believe that the photograph of the dead Osama bin Laden must at least be made available to Congress, which has the power to subpoena it as part of its oversight function. It ought to be made available also to the victims of al-Qaeda. By the victims, I mean not only the family of those who were killed in al-Qaeda’s various attacks on Americans, but also those who were wounded. Of course, every American was wounded emotionally by the September 11 Terrorist Attacks in particular, as intended by bin Laden. Therefore, all Americans ought to be allowed to see the photograph. Seeing the photograph will provide some sense of closure to Americans and other victims of bin Laden, but also have a deterrent effect. Throughout the War on Terrorism, I have supported the republishing of the horrible images of the September 11 Attacks, lest we forget the threat our enemies pose. Showing the image of bin Laden with a bullet wound to his head would prevent the Islamist militants from forgetting the reach of the American intelligence and armed services. Thus, showing the photograph would not be done merely as an act of triumphalism that might unnecessarily anger Muslims, but as a necessary act. We must not be intimidated by terrorists into acting according to their wishes instead of doing what is in our interests.
I am not disturbed by the fact that bin Laden was given a funeral according to Muslim tradition. It is good Christian practice to respect the dead, even one who committed such evil acts and who appeared to be unrepentant. I do not see the funeral as politically correct oversensitivity to Muslim reaction, unlike the refusal to show the photograph of bin Laden with the gunshot wound, or even a photograph of his burial at sea. The funeral was necessary, as is publishing the photograph.
In my next post on this subject, I shall provide more political commentary on the bin Laden raid, but wanted to limit the focus of this post to my personal thoughts.
Upon hearing the news of the raid shortly after midnight, I was jubilant. My jubilation was not out of a sense of vengeance over the death of a human being or any desire that bin Laden be condemned to Hell, but for three reasons: 1) joyfulness that justice was served and that bin Laden knew that he was caught, 2) relief that he is no longer a threat and 3) pride in the U.S. military and intelligence services.
Although I had prayed for bin Laden’s conversion, which is the minimal extent of love for one’s enemy I could possibly have for someone who murdered a family member of mine and as an American, it cannot be ruled out that he responded to Jesus Christ’s call at the moment of death as bin Laden realized that Allah did not favor is evil enterprise. I pray especially for the victims of al-Qaeda.
As I watched the news reports on the raid, I was also proud of the crowds of Americans who took to the streets and the students who went to the grounds of their campuses in celebration of this great victory in the War on Terrorism. I was especially proud of the Phillies fans who chanted “U.S.A.! U.S.A.!” when the news of the raid broke during the baseball game at Citizens Bank Park in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and the Texans who came to the Dallas home of former President George W. Bush to thank him for the policies he put in place as he led America into the War on Terrorism that made the bin Laden raid possible, which was even before reports confirmed that it was intelligence leads that were first gained during the Bush Administration that led to the raid.
I, too, was out in the street after midnight, waiving an American flag, shortly after I had posted about the raid on my blog. Because of the hour and the fact that I did not observe anyone else outside, however, I refrained from making the celebratory noises as I had always intended upon hearing the long-sought news in the moment that came the closest to V.E. Day in my lifetime.
I believe that the photograph of the dead Osama bin Laden must at least be made available to Congress, which has the power to subpoena it as part of its oversight function. It ought to be made available also to the victims of al-Qaeda. By the victims, I mean not only the family of those who were killed in al-Qaeda’s various attacks on Americans, but also those who were wounded. Of course, every American was wounded emotionally by the September 11 Terrorist Attacks in particular, as intended by bin Laden. Therefore, all Americans ought to be allowed to see the photograph. Seeing the photograph will provide some sense of closure to Americans and other victims of bin Laden, but also have a deterrent effect. Throughout the War on Terrorism, I have supported the republishing of the horrible images of the September 11 Attacks, lest we forget the threat our enemies pose. Showing the image of bin Laden with a bullet wound to his head would prevent the Islamist militants from forgetting the reach of the American intelligence and armed services. Thus, showing the photograph would not be done merely as an act of triumphalism that might unnecessarily anger Muslims, but as a necessary act. We must not be intimidated by terrorists into acting according to their wishes instead of doing what is in our interests.
I am not disturbed by the fact that bin Laden was given a funeral according to Muslim tradition. It is good Christian practice to respect the dead, even one who committed such evil acts and who appeared to be unrepentant. I do not see the funeral as politically correct oversensitivity to Muslim reaction, unlike the refusal to show the photograph of bin Laden with the gunshot wound, or even a photograph of his burial at sea. The funeral was necessary, as is publishing the photograph.
In my next post on this subject, I shall provide more political commentary on the bin Laden raid, but wanted to limit the focus of this post to my personal thoughts.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Prime Minister Stephen Harper Wins a Majority as He Steers Canada to the Right
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been reelected as he has won his Conservative Party a majority in Parliament for the first time since he came to power in a coalition in 2006.
Harper was rewarded for his fiscally conservative policies, including lowering taxes, that have helped Canada avoid recession despite the steep global economic downturn. His policies reflect the global trend toward austerity and his election also represents the global rightward shift I have been posting about, as voters recognize the need for less government spending. Harper was also able to convince his countrymen that the Canadian economy needed the stability of a majority government versus the instability of another coalition government, either between his Tories and others or between the opposition Liberals and the leftist New Democratic Party (NDP).
The NDP will be the primary opposition party for the first time, which will also be the first time the Liberals will not be either in government or the main opposition. The separtist Bloc Quebecois suffered a devestating loss of seats.
Harper has increased Canada's military, which had been reduced to a meager force under Liberal government, and has maintained a Canadian force in Afghanistan in the War on Terrorism. Canadians had been rejoicing within the last 24 hours over the killing by United States forces of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, who was responsible for the September 11 Terrorist Attacks in which 24 Canadians were among the nearly 3,000 people who were massacred.
Americans are grateful to have the Canadians as allies. I congratulate Prime Minister Harper and the Canadian people and wish our neighbors to the North all the best.
Harper was rewarded for his fiscally conservative policies, including lowering taxes, that have helped Canada avoid recession despite the steep global economic downturn. His policies reflect the global trend toward austerity and his election also represents the global rightward shift I have been posting about, as voters recognize the need for less government spending. Harper was also able to convince his countrymen that the Canadian economy needed the stability of a majority government versus the instability of another coalition government, either between his Tories and others or between the opposition Liberals and the leftist New Democratic Party (NDP).
The NDP will be the primary opposition party for the first time, which will also be the first time the Liberals will not be either in government or the main opposition. The separtist Bloc Quebecois suffered a devestating loss of seats.
Harper has increased Canada's military, which had been reduced to a meager force under Liberal government, and has maintained a Canadian force in Afghanistan in the War on Terrorism. Canadians had been rejoicing within the last 24 hours over the killing by United States forces of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, who was responsible for the September 11 Terrorist Attacks in which 24 Canadians were among the nearly 3,000 people who were massacred.
Americans are grateful to have the Canadians as allies. I congratulate Prime Minister Harper and the Canadian people and wish our neighbors to the North all the best.
President George W. Bush's Interrogations Policies Led to the Killing of Bin Laden
Although United States President Barak Obama deserves credit for authorizing the mission that resulted in the killing of Osama bin Laden by U.S. forces, the credit for the intelligence lead that led to the raid belongs to former President George W. Bush. The lead was developed several years ago as a result of Bush's policy of interrogating terrorist detainees. Bush's policy reflected his strategy of recognizing that Islamists were at war with the U.S.
Obama thus benefitted from the Bush lead, even though he weakened U.S. interrogation practices. Like President Bill Clinton, Obama has often treated terrorism like a criminal matter, not a war crime, as Bush did. Terrorists captured in the U.S. have been read their rights under the Obama Administration, including the right to remain silent, and criminally charged before proper interrogations could be conducted, while terrorists caught on the battlefield are subject to the same interrogation policy as in the U.S. Army Field Manual. The manual is published, which allows the terrorists to practice interrogation resistance techinques.
Liberals and some libertarians had harshly criticized Bush for not criminally charging the terrorists or treating them as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention, which would have protected the terrorists from interrogations, even though they are war criminals, not regular soldiers, who were the only ones intended to be covered under the Convention. The weakening of U.S. interrogations was the main policy difference between Obama and Bush on the War on Terrorism, as Obama has followed nearly every other Bush policy in the War, despite his previous criticisms of his predessor.
It is doubtful, therefore, that the human intelligence, which had been drastically cut under the Clinton Administration, that resulted in bin Laden's death would have been acquired under Clinton or Obama interrogation policies, or those advocated by their liberal supporters in Congress and in the general public. The killing of bin Laden by the American military as a result of the work of U.S. intelligence services represents the fruition of Bush's policies.
As I noted in my last post, the War on Terrorism is not yet won, but a major victory has been achieved by the U.S. Nevertheless, the greatness of President Bush on the War on Terrorism now is becoming increasingly apparent. I have repeatedly praised President Obama on this blog for continuing Bush's other policies in the War, but I now call upon him to return to Bush's interrogation policies which have proven to be successful.
I congratulate President Obama, President Bush, the U.S. military and intelligence services for the successful raid on bin Laden's compound. As a member of a family of one of the victims of the September 11 Terrorist Attacks, I especially thank you for bringing justice to bin Laden. May we always remember the victims of all of the al-Qaeda attacks. May God Bless America.
Please visit the website listed on my blog, 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America.
Obama thus benefitted from the Bush lead, even though he weakened U.S. interrogation practices. Like President Bill Clinton, Obama has often treated terrorism like a criminal matter, not a war crime, as Bush did. Terrorists captured in the U.S. have been read their rights under the Obama Administration, including the right to remain silent, and criminally charged before proper interrogations could be conducted, while terrorists caught on the battlefield are subject to the same interrogation policy as in the U.S. Army Field Manual. The manual is published, which allows the terrorists to practice interrogation resistance techinques.
Liberals and some libertarians had harshly criticized Bush for not criminally charging the terrorists or treating them as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention, which would have protected the terrorists from interrogations, even though they are war criminals, not regular soldiers, who were the only ones intended to be covered under the Convention. The weakening of U.S. interrogations was the main policy difference between Obama and Bush on the War on Terrorism, as Obama has followed nearly every other Bush policy in the War, despite his previous criticisms of his predessor.
It is doubtful, therefore, that the human intelligence, which had been drastically cut under the Clinton Administration, that resulted in bin Laden's death would have been acquired under Clinton or Obama interrogation policies, or those advocated by their liberal supporters in Congress and in the general public. The killing of bin Laden by the American military as a result of the work of U.S. intelligence services represents the fruition of Bush's policies.
As I noted in my last post, the War on Terrorism is not yet won, but a major victory has been achieved by the U.S. Nevertheless, the greatness of President Bush on the War on Terrorism now is becoming increasingly apparent. I have repeatedly praised President Obama on this blog for continuing Bush's other policies in the War, but I now call upon him to return to Bush's interrogation policies which have proven to be successful.
I congratulate President Obama, President Bush, the U.S. military and intelligence services for the successful raid on bin Laden's compound. As a member of a family of one of the victims of the September 11 Terrorist Attacks, I especially thank you for bringing justice to bin Laden. May we always remember the victims of all of the al-Qaeda attacks. May God Bless America.
Please visit the website listed on my blog, 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America.
OSAMA BIN LADEN HAS BEEN KILLED
Al-Qaeda terrorist leader Osama bin Laden has been killed by United States forces. Bin Laden had issued a fatwah in 1996 calling upon all Muslims to kill Americans. In 1998, his terrorist organization, al Qaeda, bombed the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Al-Qaeda bombed the U.S.S. Cole in 2000. Al-Qaeda's September 11, 2001 Attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon were the bloodiest in history. Al-Qaeda has been responsible for numerous other terrorist and guerilla attacks around the world.
Although these jihadist Islamist terrorists are likely to continue their ways, which will require our continued vigilance, bin Laden's death deprives them of their spiritual leader. The killing of bin Laden by the U.S. also proves that Allah did not favor bin Laden to be the next Caliph.
May God Bless America.
Although these jihadist Islamist terrorists are likely to continue their ways, which will require our continued vigilance, bin Laden's death deprives them of their spiritual leader. The killing of bin Laden by the U.S. also proves that Allah did not favor bin Laden to be the next Caliph.
May God Bless America.
Friday, April 22, 2011
William Rusher, In Memoriam
One of the co-founders of the American conservative movement, William A. Rusher, passed away this week at the age of 87. Rusher was a political advisor, debater, publisher, columnist, author and founder of a number of conservative organizations.
Rusher served in the Army Air Corps during World War II. He became an attorney while active in New York politics and was appointed associate counsel of the United States Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, a position that suited his anti-Communist views.
William F. Buckley hired Rusher as publisher of the National Review. Serving as the link between the magazine and conservative and Republican politics, he emphasized the need for National Review to be the leader of the conservative movement. Rusher strove for unity within the movement, i.e. of both fiscal and social conservatives.
In the 1960s, Rusher helped found Young Americans for Freedom, the New York State Conservative Party and the American Conservative Union, the oldest conservative lobbying organization in the U.S. He played a major role in the drafting of conservative Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater for President. Goldwater’s nomination by the Republican Party marked the first nomination of a modern conservative for president by a major American political party.
Meanwhile, Rusher became a political advisor of Ronald Reagan. He encouraged Reagan’s campaigns for the Republican nomination for president in 1968 and 1976. Rusher’s efforts paid off at long last in 1980 with the nomination and election of Reagan as President. He regarded the Reagan Presidency the greatest success of the conservative movement.
Rusher was a highly skilled debater on radio and television and popular syndicated columnist. He skewered the left thoroughly, exposing the fallacy of its arguments without conceding any good intentions on the part of liberals for their support of bad policies.
William Rusher has left the conservative movement a great legacy. May Rusher’s example of intellectual integrity and confidence inspire us to continue to promote conservative principles of good government.
Rusher served in the Army Air Corps during World War II. He became an attorney while active in New York politics and was appointed associate counsel of the United States Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, a position that suited his anti-Communist views.
William F. Buckley hired Rusher as publisher of the National Review. Serving as the link between the magazine and conservative and Republican politics, he emphasized the need for National Review to be the leader of the conservative movement. Rusher strove for unity within the movement, i.e. of both fiscal and social conservatives.
In the 1960s, Rusher helped found Young Americans for Freedom, the New York State Conservative Party and the American Conservative Union, the oldest conservative lobbying organization in the U.S. He played a major role in the drafting of conservative Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater for President. Goldwater’s nomination by the Republican Party marked the first nomination of a modern conservative for president by a major American political party.
Meanwhile, Rusher became a political advisor of Ronald Reagan. He encouraged Reagan’s campaigns for the Republican nomination for president in 1968 and 1976. Rusher’s efforts paid off at long last in 1980 with the nomination and election of Reagan as President. He regarded the Reagan Presidency the greatest success of the conservative movement.
Rusher was a highly skilled debater on radio and television and popular syndicated columnist. He skewered the left thoroughly, exposing the fallacy of its arguments without conceding any good intentions on the part of liberals for their support of bad policies.
William Rusher has left the conservative movement a great legacy. May Rusher’s example of intellectual integrity and confidence inspire us to continue to promote conservative principles of good government.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
The Pennsylvania House Approves Tort Reform
The Pennsylvania House of Representatives approved a reform of the Commonwealth's tort law in regard to joint and several liability. Joint and several liability means that if one defendant cannot pay money to satisfy a judgment against him, the other defendants must.
Pennsylvania is one of only a few states that lacks proportional liability, meaning that a defendant who is only 1% liable can end up paying 100% of the judgment. The unfair lack of proportionality encourages the naming of “deep pockets,” i.e. businesses that are only tangentially related to the cause of action, but have more money than the primary defendant who is 99% liable. The Keystone State's lack of proportional joint and several liability is regarded as an anti-business policy that harms its economic competitiveness.
The bill approved by the majority Republican House introduces a degree of proportionality by protecting defendants less than 20% liable from being required to pay the full amount of the judgment. The majority-Republican Senate is expected to approve the measure and Governor Tom Corbett, a Republican, is expected to sign it into law.
Pennsylvania is one of only a few states that lacks proportional liability, meaning that a defendant who is only 1% liable can end up paying 100% of the judgment. The unfair lack of proportionality encourages the naming of “deep pockets,” i.e. businesses that are only tangentially related to the cause of action, but have more money than the primary defendant who is 99% liable. The Keystone State's lack of proportional joint and several liability is regarded as an anti-business policy that harms its economic competitiveness.
The bill approved by the majority Republican House introduces a degree of proportionality by protecting defendants less than 20% liable from being required to pay the full amount of the judgment. The majority-Republican Senate is expected to approve the measure and Governor Tom Corbett, a Republican, is expected to sign it into law.
Update: Pennsylvania Senate and House Pass the Castle Doctrine Bill
The Pennsylvania House of Representatives has joined the state Senate in passing a bill that extends the Castle Doctrine beyond a person's home. I have posted about this proposal several times since last year. The measure, which would allow a person to defend himself with with a deadly weapon anywhere he has a legal right to be (e.g. in a car, at work, etc.) without first being obligated to retreat, was overwhelmingly approved last year by the then-Democratic House and Republican Senate, but vetoed by former Governor Ed Rendell, a Democrat. Governor Tom Corbett, a Republican, is expected to sign the Castle Doctrine bill into law.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Foreign Updates: Portugal, the European Monetary Union, Ivory Coast
As expected, Portugal has asked for a financial bailout from the European Union. The Portuguese are joining the Greeks and Irish in being bailed out by the European Monetary Union from debts, thereby putting more pressure on the E.U. Portugal, Greece and Ireland all use the Euro as their monetary unit. The E.U. is under pressure because of the bailouts of these smaller economies, but the ongoing crisis could impact the much larger economy of Spain, which could, in turn, trigger the collapse of the euro, even if its survives all the bailouts.
The recent rise of the Euro relative to the dollar is more of a sign of a weaker dollar than a stronger Euro.
The opposition forces, with the help of the French, have captured the former president of Ivory Coast, Laurent Gbagbo, who had refused to concede election defeat four months ago in the former French West African colony. A Muslim won the election over the Christian Gbagbo, but not one who is an Islamist. Ivory Coast, which had been a stable, relatively developed and prosperous state thanks to its leading global rank in exporting cocoa, has been beset by an intermittent civil war over its north-south/Muslim-Christian divide. Both sides have been accused of atrocities in the conflict. It is hoped that the Republic of Ivory Coast will soon enjoy peace, order, justice, healing, freedom and representative democracy.
The recent rise of the Euro relative to the dollar is more of a sign of a weaker dollar than a stronger Euro.
The opposition forces, with the help of the French, have captured the former president of Ivory Coast, Laurent Gbagbo, who had refused to concede election defeat four months ago in the former French West African colony. A Muslim won the election over the Christian Gbagbo, but not one who is an Islamist. Ivory Coast, which had been a stable, relatively developed and prosperous state thanks to its leading global rank in exporting cocoa, has been beset by an intermittent civil war over its north-south/Muslim-Christian divide. Both sides have been accused of atrocities in the conflict. It is hoped that the Republic of Ivory Coast will soon enjoy peace, order, justice, healing, freedom and representative democracy.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
The Legacy of the Congressional Lame Duck Session: Military Trials and the 2011 Budget Deal
Now that the deal has been reached on the 2011 federal budget, which I analyze in my last post, it is possible to consider more fully the legacy of the 2010 Lame Duck Session of Congress.
As I mentioned in my post in January of this year, Conservative Analysis of the Congressional Lame Duck Session, the then-minority Republicans won a concession from the majority Democrats and the President that a continuing resolution be approved for the 2011 federal budget, which left open the door for the Republicans, once they gained the majority in January, to approve a final budget that would include domestic spending cuts the liberal Democrats and President were unwilling to make. As a result, the deal reached last night accomplishes the conservative GOP goal.
Another conservative legacy of the Lame Duck Session was the Congressional defunding of civilian trials for the September 11 terrorist attack conspirators currently being held at a prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Obama Administration had intended to try these war criminals in civilian courts. The Administration has now reversed itself, as it has in other policies in the War on Terrorism, and will now keep Guantanamo Bay's prison camp open and try the terrorists there.
As I mentioned in my post in January of this year, Conservative Analysis of the Congressional Lame Duck Session, the then-minority Republicans won a concession from the majority Democrats and the President that a continuing resolution be approved for the 2011 federal budget, which left open the door for the Republicans, once they gained the majority in January, to approve a final budget that would include domestic spending cuts the liberal Democrats and President were unwilling to make. As a result, the deal reached last night accomplishes the conservative GOP goal.
Another conservative legacy of the Lame Duck Session was the Congressional defunding of civilian trials for the September 11 terrorist attack conspirators currently being held at a prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Obama Administration had intended to try these war criminals in civilian courts. The Administration has now reversed itself, as it has in other policies in the War on Terrorism, and will now keep Guantanamo Bay's prison camp open and try the terrorists there.
Conservative Commentary on the 2011 Federal Budget Deal
Conservatives won a significant victory in the deal struck between Congressional leaders and the President for the 2011 budget for the United States federal government. Led by the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, conservative Republicans won $38 billion of spending cuts.
The deal was necessary because the liberal Democratic Congress had failed to pass a budget last year. It had passed continuing resolutions, which maintained funding levels at the current rate. When Republicans gained the majority in January, they approved short-term continuing resolutions with $10 billion of spending cuts. The uncertainty because of the constant need for continuing resolutions was economically harmful and made weary legislators eager for a bill to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year (through the end of September). Without a budget, the authority for the federal government to make expenditures would have ended, thereby causing a government shutdown, as I explained in my last post.
The deal mostly cuts domestic spending. Although it does not end federal funding of Planned Parentood, the largest provider of abortions in the U.S., it ends the funding of abortions in the District of Columbia. It also provides vouchers for students to attend private schools in the District. Although it does not defund Barak Obama's federalization of health insurance, it prohibits the hiring of the requisite Internal Revenue Agents. There will be votes in the Senate, however, on defunding Planned Parenthood and the federalization of health insurance.
Nevertheless, the deal represented a lopsided victory for conservatives, as the Republicans had initially proposed $32 billion in spending cuts and the liberal Democrats none. The figure of $38 billion in annual savings represents the largest post-World War II cut in American history. These spending cuts and the compromises on the policy riders are especially amazing considering that Republicans control only one half of Congress, while the Democrats have not only the other half, but also the Executive Branch.
Moreover, the spending cuts in this budget deal represent an acknowledgment of the need for austerity, without raising taxes. In other words, conservatives, bolstered by the Republican victories in the 2010 Congressional elections, are winning the policy debate. Conservatives will now have the momentum going into the next two debates, both of which are coming soon, on raising the federal debt limit and on the 2012 budget.
The deal was necessary because the liberal Democratic Congress had failed to pass a budget last year. It had passed continuing resolutions, which maintained funding levels at the current rate. When Republicans gained the majority in January, they approved short-term continuing resolutions with $10 billion of spending cuts. The uncertainty because of the constant need for continuing resolutions was economically harmful and made weary legislators eager for a bill to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year (through the end of September). Without a budget, the authority for the federal government to make expenditures would have ended, thereby causing a government shutdown, as I explained in my last post.
The deal mostly cuts domestic spending. Although it does not end federal funding of Planned Parentood, the largest provider of abortions in the U.S., it ends the funding of abortions in the District of Columbia. It also provides vouchers for students to attend private schools in the District. Although it does not defund Barak Obama's federalization of health insurance, it prohibits the hiring of the requisite Internal Revenue Agents. There will be votes in the Senate, however, on defunding Planned Parenthood and the federalization of health insurance.
Nevertheless, the deal represented a lopsided victory for conservatives, as the Republicans had initially proposed $32 billion in spending cuts and the liberal Democrats none. The figure of $38 billion in annual savings represents the largest post-World War II cut in American history. These spending cuts and the compromises on the policy riders are especially amazing considering that Republicans control only one half of Congress, while the Democrats have not only the other half, but also the Executive Branch.
Moreover, the spending cuts in this budget deal represent an acknowledgment of the need for austerity, without raising taxes. In other words, conservatives, bolstered by the Republican victories in the 2010 Congressional elections, are winning the policy debate. Conservatives will now have the momentum going into the next two debates, both of which are coming soon, on raising the federal debt limit and on the 2012 budget.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Only Presidents, Not Congress, Have Shut Down the Government
Government shutdowns occur when government no longer has any legal authority to spend. When United States President George H.W. Bush vetoed the deficit-spending bills of the liberal Democratic-controlled Congress, Democrats and their allies in the liberal media blamed him for the brief government shutdown that ensued.
But when Bush’s successor, Bill Clinton, vetoed the spending reductions of the Republican-controlled Congress, the Democrats and the liberal media blamed the Congress instead of the President. Their only consistency was in blaming the Republicans for shutting down the government as a result of the fiscal dispute.
Constitutionally, in disputes between the Executive and Legislative Branches of the federal government, only a president can shut down the government because only he has the power to veto spending bills or an increase in the debt ceiling approved by Congress.
The only way Congress could ever be responsible for a government shut-down is if it were to fail to pass a bill authorizing spending, which would be unprecedented. Such a contingency would only be possible in two ways: either the House fails to approve a fiscal bill to prevent the shutdown or the Senate disagrees with the House bill.
After the Republicans won the majority in Congress in the 1994 elections, they proposed spending reductions in order to balance the budget. At the time, Clinton had raised taxes, dramatically cut the military and intelligence budget and yet increased the deficit (which, as I have noted previously, liberals in politics and the media referred to as his “deficit reduction plan”). Clinton projected $200 billion deficits indefinitely and was non-committal on how long it would take to balance the budget. In the meantime, he was well on his way to adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the federal debt, an increase that was not undone by the later temporary annual budget surpluses that have obscured his earlier spendthrift ways.
The Republicans in Congress adopted the strategy of passing spending cuts in order to present Clinton with the choice of vetoing the bill or shutting down the government, just as the Democrats had done with their deficit-spending proposals under his predecessor. The GOP strategy was not to shut down the government, but to force Clinton into the spending reductions. The liberal Democrats falsely portrayed the Republican strategy as intending to shut down the government. To liberal Democrats, government is the greatest force for good in the world and shutting it down, even temporarily in order to reduce the deficit, is a catastrophe. They employed the usual scare tactics that government spenders do by focusing on the most sensational aspects of the government shutdown while portraying the Republicans as “mean” for not wanting to spend more than the government took in while passing off the bill to future generations. For a time, the liberal scare tactics seemed to be working.
Then, despite the way it is still portrayed in the liberal media, public opinion began to turn against Clinton and the liberal Democrats as the American people began to regard the shutdown as the result of a lack of presidential leadership. In other words, they were increasingly recognizing Clinton’s veto as the cause of the government shutdown. The Republicans blinked first and compromised, although it was far short of their goals. Later, however, they built on their momentum and succeeded in forcing significant domestic spending cuts while increasing spending for the military and lowering some taxes. The reduction in the capital gains tax was particularly stimulative of the economic growth of the late 1990s that was the main cause of the later budget surpluses, not Clinton’s earlier tax increase which had slowed growth.
I raise the point that it is only the President or the Senate who can trigger a government shutdown in the current fiscal dispute. There is a possibility of a veto by President Barak Obama of any spending cuts approved by the Republican House of Representatives and agreed to by the Democratic Senate. This time, however, there could be a congressional failure to act if the Senate does not agree to the House’s spending cuts before there were any possibility of a presidential veto. Then, it would be the Senate’s fault for shutting down the government.
The consistent point is that regardless of the political party or motivation, only the President or the Senate can by their actions legally trigger the federal government to shut down for a lack of spending authority, as long as the representatives of the people do act.
At this time, the House wants to act, but is trying to approve a bill it knows the Senate and President would accept. If a compromise cannot be reached soon, the House will likely approve the spending cuts it wants and force the Senate or President to choose between reducing the deficit or shutting down the government. Conservatives must explain that the blame would lie with the liberal Democrats in the White House or Senate for failing to pass a fiscal bill, regardless of whether one agrees with the proposed Republican spending cuts or not. But given the fiscal crisis, conservatives ought to promote the cuts as the only fiscally, economically and morally responsible action.
But when Bush’s successor, Bill Clinton, vetoed the spending reductions of the Republican-controlled Congress, the Democrats and the liberal media blamed the Congress instead of the President. Their only consistency was in blaming the Republicans for shutting down the government as a result of the fiscal dispute.
Constitutionally, in disputes between the Executive and Legislative Branches of the federal government, only a president can shut down the government because only he has the power to veto spending bills or an increase in the debt ceiling approved by Congress.
The only way Congress could ever be responsible for a government shut-down is if it were to fail to pass a bill authorizing spending, which would be unprecedented. Such a contingency would only be possible in two ways: either the House fails to approve a fiscal bill to prevent the shutdown or the Senate disagrees with the House bill.
After the Republicans won the majority in Congress in the 1994 elections, they proposed spending reductions in order to balance the budget. At the time, Clinton had raised taxes, dramatically cut the military and intelligence budget and yet increased the deficit (which, as I have noted previously, liberals in politics and the media referred to as his “deficit reduction plan”). Clinton projected $200 billion deficits indefinitely and was non-committal on how long it would take to balance the budget. In the meantime, he was well on his way to adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the federal debt, an increase that was not undone by the later temporary annual budget surpluses that have obscured his earlier spendthrift ways.
The Republicans in Congress adopted the strategy of passing spending cuts in order to present Clinton with the choice of vetoing the bill or shutting down the government, just as the Democrats had done with their deficit-spending proposals under his predecessor. The GOP strategy was not to shut down the government, but to force Clinton into the spending reductions. The liberal Democrats falsely portrayed the Republican strategy as intending to shut down the government. To liberal Democrats, government is the greatest force for good in the world and shutting it down, even temporarily in order to reduce the deficit, is a catastrophe. They employed the usual scare tactics that government spenders do by focusing on the most sensational aspects of the government shutdown while portraying the Republicans as “mean” for not wanting to spend more than the government took in while passing off the bill to future generations. For a time, the liberal scare tactics seemed to be working.
Then, despite the way it is still portrayed in the liberal media, public opinion began to turn against Clinton and the liberal Democrats as the American people began to regard the shutdown as the result of a lack of presidential leadership. In other words, they were increasingly recognizing Clinton’s veto as the cause of the government shutdown. The Republicans blinked first and compromised, although it was far short of their goals. Later, however, they built on their momentum and succeeded in forcing significant domestic spending cuts while increasing spending for the military and lowering some taxes. The reduction in the capital gains tax was particularly stimulative of the economic growth of the late 1990s that was the main cause of the later budget surpluses, not Clinton’s earlier tax increase which had slowed growth.
I raise the point that it is only the President or the Senate who can trigger a government shutdown in the current fiscal dispute. There is a possibility of a veto by President Barak Obama of any spending cuts approved by the Republican House of Representatives and agreed to by the Democratic Senate. This time, however, there could be a congressional failure to act if the Senate does not agree to the House’s spending cuts before there were any possibility of a presidential veto. Then, it would be the Senate’s fault for shutting down the government.
The consistent point is that regardless of the political party or motivation, only the President or the Senate can by their actions legally trigger the federal government to shut down for a lack of spending authority, as long as the representatives of the people do act.
At this time, the House wants to act, but is trying to approve a bill it knows the Senate and President would accept. If a compromise cannot be reached soon, the House will likely approve the spending cuts it wants and force the Senate or President to choose between reducing the deficit or shutting down the government. Conservatives must explain that the blame would lie with the liberal Democrats in the White House or Senate for failing to pass a fiscal bill, regardless of whether one agrees with the proposed Republican spending cuts or not. But given the fiscal crisis, conservatives ought to promote the cuts as the only fiscally, economically and morally responsible action.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
A Conservative Refutation of Isolationists on the Libyan Civil War, Part I
In my first post on the Libyan Civil War, Conservative Commentary on the Libyan Crisis, I made the case that the Libyan Civil War was of international interest. In addition to the need to rescue foreign citizens from Libya, I cited the problem of refugees, political instability, the necessity to avoid moral complicity in crimes against humanity and the disruption of trade as concerns of the United States and its allies. In raising these points, I was mainly making the case of U.S. interest in the Libya, not the prudence of intervening beyond the imposition of economic sanctions and the freezing of assets.
The case for military intervention, however, was made particularly by my observation of the increasing fear that if Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi, who had retained some of his chemical weapons, had held onto power, he would return to terrorism against the U.S. and its Western allies.
The U.S. has global interests and Americans have a global presence. It also has the technical ability to intervene effectively, which imposes a moral duty on it to act to protect human lives. The U.S. military needs not serve as the “policeman of the world,” as isolationists on both the left and the right claim it would be if it intervenes, as they do every time. In fact, it does not serve as the policeman of much of the world, which is peaceful. Indeed, the American military does not even serve as the policeman of the United States! But U.S. interests and capabilities often compel it to act, sometimes non-militarily, sometimes militarily.
To isolationists, only one motive at a time is possible for any U.S. action. Thus, for example, if an intervention has a humanitarian aspect, they focus on that aspect alone and argue that the U.S. ought not to intervene militarily for humanitarian reasons. If an action benefits an ally, isolationists argue that it our alliance is “entangling” us in a war for our ally’s benefit, as if it is necessarily not in our interests. The motive of acting on additional interests is ignored.
In fact, whenever the U.S. acts in one way or another on behalf of its interests, isolationists oppose such intervention because they argue that it is not taken on behalf of a “vital interest,” which they insist is the standard for justifying intervention. Isolationists never have to explain what they mean by the term “vital interest,” which is not a term found in the U.S. Constitution they claim to follow strictly.
A closer examination of the term would be illuminating. “Vital interest” implies that there are interests less than vital, but isolationists never distinguish between the two. They always dismiss any interests as not being “vital interests” because they regard them as insignificant or illegitimate (e.g. they regard any economic interest, like stopping a thief, as illegitimate, while contradicting themselves by complaining about the economic cost of war). They declare a priori the lack of any “vital interests” that would justify action in defense of Americans or its interests or allies. Thus, isolationists conveniently do not have to make judgments about whether or not the U.S. has any interests, and, if so, whether they are truly vital.
Isolationists thereby fail to explain what criteria would make an interest vital. Does “vital” refer to the United States itself or to the lives of individual Americans? The responsibility of the U.S. is to protect not only the Union itself, but the American people. See my post, An Attack on Americans Anywhere Is an Attack on Us from September of 2009. If “vital” refers to the existence of the U.S., as opposed to the lives of individual Americans, then the September 11 Attacks did not threaten U.S. vital interests. Nearly three thousand people were killed in the attacks, but they argue that there was no direct threat to the viability of the Union. It was not an invasion, as the attackers were dead and al-Qaeda lacked even the potential for an invasion, they argue. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan did not commit the attacks, only certain members of al-Qaeda were allegedly responsible for the attacks whom could have been prosecuted or sued instead, and so on go their arguments.
Does “vital” mean an immediate interest, or the potential of one? If it means only the potential interest, then even the Pearl Harbor attack was not of “vital” U.S. interest, as the States were not yet under invasion. Remember, isolationists opposed even U.S. involvement in the Second World War.
Isolationists are always able to come up with an argument that there is no threat to U.S. “vital interest,” other than a theoretical invasion by foreigners, which is conveniently unlikely. Even then, they would likely minimize the threat. Indeed, isolationists never seem capable of recognizing any truly “vital” threats, while conveniently blaming the U.S. for causing the threats in the first place, as if to argue that it would not need to act if only it would withdraw from the world. They even cite Pearl Harbor and September 11 as proof of their theory. The term “vital interest,” therefore, and their insistence on it as a standard for intervention, is only an excuse for isolationists to oppose any action taken in defense of Americans and American interests or allies.
In short, the only “vital” threat isolationists see to the U.S. is the U.S. itself. Any foreign malevolence against Americans is blamed by them on American intervention, which they regard as the source of the problems in the world, in order to validate their theory. Isolationists fail to recognize the evil intent of an enemy whose ideology requires it to conquer as the source of the problems in the world.
Moreover, isolationists fail to see that the world does not want the U.S. to withdraw. It wants the U.S. to use its economic, technological or military resources to act for good.
In Part II, I shall explore recent examples of U.S. intervention and compare them to the Libyan Civil War.
The case for military intervention, however, was made particularly by my observation of the increasing fear that if Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi, who had retained some of his chemical weapons, had held onto power, he would return to terrorism against the U.S. and its Western allies.
The U.S. has global interests and Americans have a global presence. It also has the technical ability to intervene effectively, which imposes a moral duty on it to act to protect human lives. The U.S. military needs not serve as the “policeman of the world,” as isolationists on both the left and the right claim it would be if it intervenes, as they do every time. In fact, it does not serve as the policeman of much of the world, which is peaceful. Indeed, the American military does not even serve as the policeman of the United States! But U.S. interests and capabilities often compel it to act, sometimes non-militarily, sometimes militarily.
To isolationists, only one motive at a time is possible for any U.S. action. Thus, for example, if an intervention has a humanitarian aspect, they focus on that aspect alone and argue that the U.S. ought not to intervene militarily for humanitarian reasons. If an action benefits an ally, isolationists argue that it our alliance is “entangling” us in a war for our ally’s benefit, as if it is necessarily not in our interests. The motive of acting on additional interests is ignored.
In fact, whenever the U.S. acts in one way or another on behalf of its interests, isolationists oppose such intervention because they argue that it is not taken on behalf of a “vital interest,” which they insist is the standard for justifying intervention. Isolationists never have to explain what they mean by the term “vital interest,” which is not a term found in the U.S. Constitution they claim to follow strictly.
A closer examination of the term would be illuminating. “Vital interest” implies that there are interests less than vital, but isolationists never distinguish between the two. They always dismiss any interests as not being “vital interests” because they regard them as insignificant or illegitimate (e.g. they regard any economic interest, like stopping a thief, as illegitimate, while contradicting themselves by complaining about the economic cost of war). They declare a priori the lack of any “vital interests” that would justify action in defense of Americans or its interests or allies. Thus, isolationists conveniently do not have to make judgments about whether or not the U.S. has any interests, and, if so, whether they are truly vital.
Isolationists thereby fail to explain what criteria would make an interest vital. Does “vital” refer to the United States itself or to the lives of individual Americans? The responsibility of the U.S. is to protect not only the Union itself, but the American people. See my post, An Attack on Americans Anywhere Is an Attack on Us from September of 2009. If “vital” refers to the existence of the U.S., as opposed to the lives of individual Americans, then the September 11 Attacks did not threaten U.S. vital interests. Nearly three thousand people were killed in the attacks, but they argue that there was no direct threat to the viability of the Union. It was not an invasion, as the attackers were dead and al-Qaeda lacked even the potential for an invasion, they argue. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan did not commit the attacks, only certain members of al-Qaeda were allegedly responsible for the attacks whom could have been prosecuted or sued instead, and so on go their arguments.
Does “vital” mean an immediate interest, or the potential of one? If it means only the potential interest, then even the Pearl Harbor attack was not of “vital” U.S. interest, as the States were not yet under invasion. Remember, isolationists opposed even U.S. involvement in the Second World War.
Isolationists are always able to come up with an argument that there is no threat to U.S. “vital interest,” other than a theoretical invasion by foreigners, which is conveniently unlikely. Even then, they would likely minimize the threat. Indeed, isolationists never seem capable of recognizing any truly “vital” threats, while conveniently blaming the U.S. for causing the threats in the first place, as if to argue that it would not need to act if only it would withdraw from the world. They even cite Pearl Harbor and September 11 as proof of their theory. The term “vital interest,” therefore, and their insistence on it as a standard for intervention, is only an excuse for isolationists to oppose any action taken in defense of Americans and American interests or allies.
In short, the only “vital” threat isolationists see to the U.S. is the U.S. itself. Any foreign malevolence against Americans is blamed by them on American intervention, which they regard as the source of the problems in the world, in order to validate their theory. Isolationists fail to recognize the evil intent of an enemy whose ideology requires it to conquer as the source of the problems in the world.
Moreover, isolationists fail to see that the world does not want the U.S. to withdraw. It wants the U.S. to use its economic, technological or military resources to act for good.
In Part II, I shall explore recent examples of U.S. intervention and compare them to the Libyan Civil War.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)