Nearly everyone appears to be calling the recent attacks in Norway “terrorism.” However, the massacre does not meet the definition of terrorism.
As I have posted previously, terrorism is a strategy that targets innocent civilians (i.e. those who are not responsible for formulating or implementing government policies) with violence or the threat of violence in order to intimidate the populace into pressuring the government to give into the terrorists’ political demands.
In the attacks in Norway, the Norwegian government and ruling party were targeted. Attacks on government do not meet the definition of terrorism because they are not attacks targeting innocent civilians. The attack on the ruling party took place at a youth camp in which the killer callously killed youths, but it was a political target nonetheless. The killer opposed the policies of that party. He intended to assassinate leading Norwegian political figures. Thus, the massacre at the youth camp was not intended to intimidate the populace, but the party leadership. Both attacks were on the Norwegian ruling class.
Assuming the perpetrator of the Norwegian attacks is sane, the attacks were treasonous militant acts intended to spark a revolution, not terrorism. These heinous attacks were evil, but terrorism is even more evil because it is targeted at those who have no responsibility for government policies. Indeed, the less connection the victims have to government and policy (i.e. the more innocent they are), the more effective the terrorist act becomes, as the entire populace, and not only the ruling class, is made to feel targeted. Attacks upon only the ruling class fail to accomplish the strategic goal of intimidating the populace, as the people recognize they are not personally the targets of the terrorists and thus do not feel intimidated.
The false labeling of the Norwegian attacks is part of a pattern that has existed for decades. Over the last several months, in particular, I had observed several examples of acts incorrectly being classified by government, the media or other commentators as “terrorism” and had intended to post about them, but the Norwegian attack has made this matter timely.
In one case that was referred to as “terrorism,” a businessman attempted to sabotage a rival by placing vermin in his rival’s business. This attack was economic sabotage directed at one business, not an attempt to intimidate anyone for any political purpose.
Another example was also economic sabotage: counterfeiting. Counterfeiting, even if undertaken by an enemy in order to intimidate the populace, is economic sabotage. Although it might create fear, it lacks the element of violence that the vermin example at least had. Furthermore, an essential element of terrorism is that the terrorists must make demands on the government they target, or else the populace cannot be expected to support the changes to policy demanded by the terrorists. Counterfeiters do not admit their crime and, therefore, make no demands.
“Cyberterrorism” is another example that lacks the element of violence, unless it were specifically used for a violent purpose against innocent civilians. Otherwise, it is only economic sabotage, with the possible additional element of the loss of privacy.
The murder in Germany of two American troops by a citizen of Kosovo was called “terrorism,” even though the target was the military, not innocent civilians. The killings were a violent example of jihad carried out on behalf of militant Islam. This case was noteworthy for another pattern exhibited by government and the media of judging whether an act is terrorism if the perpetrator has a link to terrorists. A perpetrator’s intended target, not his link to terrorists, determines whether an act was terrorism. It is important to recognize that some terrorists alternate between terrorism and attacks on military or other government targets (e.g. al-Qaeda) or between innocent civilians and targeted individuals whose activities the perpetrator opposed (e.g. the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski). Therefore, a perpetrator may be linked to terrorists or is himself a terrorist, but his action may nevertheless not be terrorism.
The misuse of the word terrorism is diluting its meaning. Now, any acts of violence are called “terrorism,” even those taken in defense against terrorism, especially by the Islamist enemy that seeks to place itself on an equal moral level by accusing the government it opposes of the same thing they do, as if to justify their continued terrorism. Other anti-Americans on the Left eagerly agree with the charge for their own purposes. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Obama Administration’s missile strikes from aerial drones have been called “terrorism.” The United States does not target innocent civilians, only terrorists and other militants. Terrorists and other militants are usually civilians, but not innocent ones. Those civilians who harbor or finance the terrorists or other militants are not innocent civilians, either.
We conservatives must use the word terrorism correctly.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Monday, July 25, 2011
Autopsy Proves Allende Was Not Killed by the U.S.-Backed Coup
One of many myths long believed by the Left is that Chilean President Salvador Allende was killed in a coup d’etat backed by the United States. This myth can now included in the growing list of liberal historical beliefs that have been proven false, some of which I have posted about previously. The release of the results of a recent autopsy reveal that Allende was not killed, but committed suicide during the coup to avoid being captured, which is consistent with witness accounts and even the belief of his family.
Backed by the Soviet Union, Allende won a plurality in a close election in 1970 to become the first Marxist in the world to be elected democratically. He began to nationalize industries, ruin the Chilean economy and rule in an authoritarian manner. The judicial and legislative branches of Chile’s government called for his removal from power. The Chilean military overthrew Allende in a violent coup d’etat in 1973.
Although it did not necessarily participate in the coup, the U.S., under President Richard M. Nixon, did at least foster the conditions that helped lead to it. The Americans were not only concerned about their business interests there that were threatened by Allende’s socialist policies, but also the spread of Communism during the Cold War. Indeed, the Monroe Doctrine did not permit the establishment of Soviet puppet-states in the New World.
The Left especially hates the coup that overthrew Allende because it led to the military 1973-1990 dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet, who kept Chile independent and at peace with its neighbors and fostered its prosperity. When he left office, he left Chile free and democratic. Although Pinochet, who had to prevent Communists from taking power, was more brutally authoritarian than his predecessor, his legacy of accomplishment sharply contrasts with Allende’s.
Liberals, especially pro-Communist leftists, could never appreciate the benefits of anti-Communist U.S. allies, like Pinochet, as opposed to Communist puppets of the Soviets, like Allende. Pro-Communist leftists claim to be more concerned over human rights abuses committed by U.S. allies than enemies out of concern for the American image, which is an excuse to conceal their communist sympathies. The pro-Communist Left had to make the coup that overthrew Allende seem evil by blaming his death on the U.S. in order to impugn the motives of the Americans.
Liberals, including those who are not pro-Communist, do not want to acknowledge that an anti-Communist dictator put in power by the U.S. could do any significant good for his country. As I have noted in previous posts, they tend to support democratically-elected leftist leaders, even when those leaders become authoritarian, over any pro-American leaders who seize power by force, even if the pro-American leaders are not authoritarian. It seems as if liberals believe that elections legitimatize dictatorship, while coups necessarily deligitimatize any restoration of liberty. Therefore, they will ignore any positive results of the coup that overthrew Allende, regardless of the circumstances of his death.
Both pro-Communist leftists and other liberals claim to be more concerned about American image than defending liberty against threats, such as from Communism. Thus, they appear to have a double standard that holds U.S. allies to a higher standard than its enemies.
By contrast to the questions that had surrounded the circumstances of Allende’s death, there is no doubt that President Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam was assassinated after being captured in a U.S.-inspired coup in 1963 under President John F. Kennedy. The Americans had intended that the anti-Communist dictator Diem, who was an ally of the U.S., be given safe passage into exile, not executed. Not surprisingly, the Left is less outraged by the murder of the Vietnamese President, which it is careful to point out was unintended by Kennedy, because it opposed Diem, than it was over Allende’s death. Even now that we know that Allende was not murdered, because of their double standard, liberals are likely to continue to be more outraged over the coup that overthrew him than the one that resulted in the murder of Diem.
Liberals will continue to deligitimatize the Chilean coup by focusing only on the bad results that came from the regime that replaced Allende, while ignoring the good. At least now, because of the release of the autopsy results, Allende’s death can no longer be used as by the anti-American Left as proof of American evil. Instead, the results expose how willing the Left is to believe the worst about the United States a priori and how false those beliefs can be.
Backed by the Soviet Union, Allende won a plurality in a close election in 1970 to become the first Marxist in the world to be elected democratically. He began to nationalize industries, ruin the Chilean economy and rule in an authoritarian manner. The judicial and legislative branches of Chile’s government called for his removal from power. The Chilean military overthrew Allende in a violent coup d’etat in 1973.
Although it did not necessarily participate in the coup, the U.S., under President Richard M. Nixon, did at least foster the conditions that helped lead to it. The Americans were not only concerned about their business interests there that were threatened by Allende’s socialist policies, but also the spread of Communism during the Cold War. Indeed, the Monroe Doctrine did not permit the establishment of Soviet puppet-states in the New World.
The Left especially hates the coup that overthrew Allende because it led to the military 1973-1990 dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet, who kept Chile independent and at peace with its neighbors and fostered its prosperity. When he left office, he left Chile free and democratic. Although Pinochet, who had to prevent Communists from taking power, was more brutally authoritarian than his predecessor, his legacy of accomplishment sharply contrasts with Allende’s.
Liberals, especially pro-Communist leftists, could never appreciate the benefits of anti-Communist U.S. allies, like Pinochet, as opposed to Communist puppets of the Soviets, like Allende. Pro-Communist leftists claim to be more concerned over human rights abuses committed by U.S. allies than enemies out of concern for the American image, which is an excuse to conceal their communist sympathies. The pro-Communist Left had to make the coup that overthrew Allende seem evil by blaming his death on the U.S. in order to impugn the motives of the Americans.
Liberals, including those who are not pro-Communist, do not want to acknowledge that an anti-Communist dictator put in power by the U.S. could do any significant good for his country. As I have noted in previous posts, they tend to support democratically-elected leftist leaders, even when those leaders become authoritarian, over any pro-American leaders who seize power by force, even if the pro-American leaders are not authoritarian. It seems as if liberals believe that elections legitimatize dictatorship, while coups necessarily deligitimatize any restoration of liberty. Therefore, they will ignore any positive results of the coup that overthrew Allende, regardless of the circumstances of his death.
Both pro-Communist leftists and other liberals claim to be more concerned about American image than defending liberty against threats, such as from Communism. Thus, they appear to have a double standard that holds U.S. allies to a higher standard than its enemies.
By contrast to the questions that had surrounded the circumstances of Allende’s death, there is no doubt that President Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam was assassinated after being captured in a U.S.-inspired coup in 1963 under President John F. Kennedy. The Americans had intended that the anti-Communist dictator Diem, who was an ally of the U.S., be given safe passage into exile, not executed. Not surprisingly, the Left is less outraged by the murder of the Vietnamese President, which it is careful to point out was unintended by Kennedy, because it opposed Diem, than it was over Allende’s death. Even now that we know that Allende was not murdered, because of their double standard, liberals are likely to continue to be more outraged over the coup that overthrew him than the one that resulted in the murder of Diem.
Liberals will continue to deligitimatize the Chilean coup by focusing only on the bad results that came from the regime that replaced Allende, while ignoring the good. At least now, because of the release of the autopsy results, Allende’s death can no longer be used as by the anti-American Left as proof of American evil. Instead, the results expose how willing the Left is to believe the worst about the United States a priori and how false those beliefs can be.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Bombay vs. Mumbai; Peking vs. Beijing
The media has adopted the current trendy practice of renaming certain foreign cities, replacing their traditional, historical English names with the current local spelling and pronunciation of their names.
This confusing practice reflects cultural selectivity, as it is only being applied to Asian names. In fact, specifically it is only being applied to certain Asian states. We do not pronounce Paris (pah REE) instead of (PAA riss). We do not write Roma for Rome, Torino for Turin, Athina for Athens, Salonika for Thessaloniki, Munchen for Munich, or El Qahira for Cairo for example, even though all of these local spellings are well-known, nor do we even write Krung Thep for Bangkok.
Therefore, for Indian cities, we should continue to use Bombay, not Mumbai, Madras, not Chennai, Calcutta, not Kolkata, for example. For Burma (note I do not use the official name the Burmese military junta calls their state, “Myanmar”), Rangoon should be used, not Yangon, for example.
For China, we should continue to use Peking, not Beijing, Canton, not Guangzhou, Nanking, not Nanjing, and Tientsin, not Tianjin, for example. I should note that Beijing is pronounced (bay JING), not (bay ZHING), as many in the media pronounce it. Regardless, Beijing, as well as these other alternate spellings, are the pinyin renderings of Mandarin Chinese words into the Latin alphabet. Pinyin was made the official style of rendering by the Communist Chinese. The use of pinyin has extended to all of China, even to areas beyond where Mandarin Chinese is the native language. For example, Urumchi has become Urumqi. Thankfully, even the liberal media has resisted the Communist Chinese effort to erase the name Tibet by replacing it with the pinyin Xizang, but the political effort to Sinicize non-Chinese peoples is nonetheless apparent.
The practice of adopting local spellings or pronunciations of foreign cities and other place-names is historically confusing, inconsistent and politically biased. We conservatives especially should be careful not go along with this trend when speaking or writing to an audience that primarily comprises English-speakers, especially if the audience members do not share the same ethnicity as the people who created the local place-name. An acceptable practice would be to note the current local spelling or pronunciation for any place-name, but use the traditional English one primarily.
I am going to take this opportunity to criticize another media practice in regard to foreign cities. The media often includes the entire metropolitan area of a foreign city when reporting its population, without making it clear that it is referring not only to the city itself (the area within the city limits), but also its environs (the surrounding area, including its suburbs). This distinction should be made clear. Otherwise, it is false reporting. Although the population of the metropolitan area may be a useful datum in certain cases, it is misleading in a political or administrative context.
This confusing practice reflects cultural selectivity, as it is only being applied to Asian names. In fact, specifically it is only being applied to certain Asian states. We do not pronounce Paris (pah REE) instead of (PAA riss). We do not write Roma for Rome, Torino for Turin, Athina for Athens, Salonika for Thessaloniki, Munchen for Munich, or El Qahira for Cairo for example, even though all of these local spellings are well-known, nor do we even write Krung Thep for Bangkok.
Therefore, for Indian cities, we should continue to use Bombay, not Mumbai, Madras, not Chennai, Calcutta, not Kolkata, for example. For Burma (note I do not use the official name the Burmese military junta calls their state, “Myanmar”), Rangoon should be used, not Yangon, for example.
For China, we should continue to use Peking, not Beijing, Canton, not Guangzhou, Nanking, not Nanjing, and Tientsin, not Tianjin, for example. I should note that Beijing is pronounced (bay JING), not (bay ZHING), as many in the media pronounce it. Regardless, Beijing, as well as these other alternate spellings, are the pinyin renderings of Mandarin Chinese words into the Latin alphabet. Pinyin was made the official style of rendering by the Communist Chinese. The use of pinyin has extended to all of China, even to areas beyond where Mandarin Chinese is the native language. For example, Urumchi has become Urumqi. Thankfully, even the liberal media has resisted the Communist Chinese effort to erase the name Tibet by replacing it with the pinyin Xizang, but the political effort to Sinicize non-Chinese peoples is nonetheless apparent.
The practice of adopting local spellings or pronunciations of foreign cities and other place-names is historically confusing, inconsistent and politically biased. We conservatives especially should be careful not go along with this trend when speaking or writing to an audience that primarily comprises English-speakers, especially if the audience members do not share the same ethnicity as the people who created the local place-name. An acceptable practice would be to note the current local spelling or pronunciation for any place-name, but use the traditional English one primarily.
I am going to take this opportunity to criticize another media practice in regard to foreign cities. The media often includes the entire metropolitan area of a foreign city when reporting its population, without making it clear that it is referring not only to the city itself (the area within the city limits), but also its environs (the surrounding area, including its suburbs). This distinction should be made clear. Otherwise, it is false reporting. Although the population of the metropolitan area may be a useful datum in certain cases, it is misleading in a political or administrative context.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Independence for South Sudan
The Republic of South Sudan became an independent state today, splitting from Sudan after a referendum in January. As I have noted in previous posts, Sudan, which had been Africa’s largest state by territory, is dominated by Arab Muslims, while South Sudan is populated by Christian and animist Africans. The northern Sudanese had oppressed their southern countrymen, which led to a two-decades long civil war that killed millions. The referendum for independence had passed overwhelmingly.
The oil-rich border region of Abyei remains a source of contention between Sudan and South Sudan. A referendum there on whether to join the north or south has failed to take place. Violent clashes have occurred. Other problems concern residents of Sudan’s South Kordofan province who wish to join South Sudan, as well as Southern Sudanese who live in Sudan.
As I have noted in earlier posts, former United States President George W. Bush labored for years for the 2005 cease-fire in the Sudanese Civil War, elections in Sudan and the referendum on independence in South Sudan. CNS news reports that although the Obama Administration acknowledged two Bush Administration officials, Colin Powell and John Danforth, it gave no credit specifically to Bush, while giving itself the lion’s share of the credit. The Obama Administration deserves credit for helping to ensure that Sudan respected the process set in place by his predecessor, but today’s independence for Southern Sudan ought to be considered Bush’s legacy.
South Sudan joins East Timor as territories once controlled by militant Muslims that have broken away after violent oppression, followed by referenda supported by the international community. Militant Muslims believe that once a territory is claimed for Islam, it cannot be relinquished. The international community has a responsibility for the support and defense of South Sudan, especially during this War on Terrorism against militant Muslims.
Southern Sudanese independence was one of the required steps for the removal of Sudan from the U.S. State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism. Sudan had infamously harbored Osama bin Laden. Sudan must take other required steps in order to be removed from the list and escape the harsh sanctions that the U.S. imposes on states on the list.
The Southern Sudanese conflict predates the genocide being committed by Arab Sudanese with government backing in the western province of Darfur against black Muslims.
South Sudan is the 194th foreign state in the world, including the Republic of China (Taiwan) in addition to the 50 states in the American Union. I congratulate the Southern Sudanese. May God bless South Sudan.
The oil-rich border region of Abyei remains a source of contention between Sudan and South Sudan. A referendum there on whether to join the north or south has failed to take place. Violent clashes have occurred. Other problems concern residents of Sudan’s South Kordofan province who wish to join South Sudan, as well as Southern Sudanese who live in Sudan.
As I have noted in earlier posts, former United States President George W. Bush labored for years for the 2005 cease-fire in the Sudanese Civil War, elections in Sudan and the referendum on independence in South Sudan. CNS news reports that although the Obama Administration acknowledged two Bush Administration officials, Colin Powell and John Danforth, it gave no credit specifically to Bush, while giving itself the lion’s share of the credit. The Obama Administration deserves credit for helping to ensure that Sudan respected the process set in place by his predecessor, but today’s independence for Southern Sudan ought to be considered Bush’s legacy.
South Sudan joins East Timor as territories once controlled by militant Muslims that have broken away after violent oppression, followed by referenda supported by the international community. Militant Muslims believe that once a territory is claimed for Islam, it cannot be relinquished. The international community has a responsibility for the support and defense of South Sudan, especially during this War on Terrorism against militant Muslims.
Southern Sudanese independence was one of the required steps for the removal of Sudan from the U.S. State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism. Sudan had infamously harbored Osama bin Laden. Sudan must take other required steps in order to be removed from the list and escape the harsh sanctions that the U.S. imposes on states on the list.
The Southern Sudanese conflict predates the genocide being committed by Arab Sudanese with government backing in the western province of Darfur against black Muslims.
South Sudan is the 194th foreign state in the world, including the Republic of China (Taiwan) in addition to the 50 states in the American Union. I congratulate the Southern Sudanese. May God bless South Sudan.
Governor Corbett Signs Pennsylvania’s Budget and Welfare Reform Legislation
Pennsylvania’s Republican Governor Tom Corbett kept his campaign promise to eliminate the Commonwealth’s $4.5 billion deficit without raising taxes.
Pennsylvania is constitutionally required to balance its budget. The deficit had been run up during the last year of Democratic Governor Ed Rendell, together with a Democratic-controlled state House of Representatives. Governor Corbett signed a balanced budget for the 2011-2012 fiscal year that was approved by the new Republican-majority legislature on time. Passing budgets on time has been a rare occurrence over the least several years.
The new budget is balanced because it cuts wasteful spending. Corbett resisted pressure to impose an additional tax on the Marcellus shale natural gas industry in particular on top of the already-high corporate taxes paid by every industry, pending the recommendation of a study group he formed to consider an unnecessary so-called “impact fee.” It was excessive spending, not a lack of higher taxes, that had caused the deficits in the first place. Avoiding a tax increase will prevent harm to the Keystone State’s economy.
Some of the Governor’s critics claimed that there was a budget surplus that should have mitigated the spending cuts. There was no surplus, only a larger amount of revenue than projected, which did help reduce some of the budget cuts to education. Governor Corbett also successfully reserved some of the extra revenue to replenish the Commonwealth’s rainy day fund, which Rendell had drained. Regardless of whether there was a surplus in the general fund, even the general fund balance does not take into account the over $3 billion Pennsylvania still owes the federal government for unemployment compensation.
Public and higher education spending had grown in Pennsylvania much faster than inflation, which made it a reasonable part of the state budget from which to eliminate wasteful spending by forcing school districts and the four state-owned universities to make the same sort of sacrifices that private industries and citizens are making. Furthermore, most school districts had spent the Obama stimulus money in their general funds projects instead of on temporary projects, as they had been advised to do. The end of the stimulus does not represent a cut, as many liberal big-spenders in the education industry claim, but a return to the previous level of spending. Those districts that followed the advice not to spend the stimulus money except on temporary projects were well-prepared for the state budget cuts because they had already factored the end of the stimulus into their budgets.
The welfare reform bill Governor Corbett signed into law will provide for better enforcement against waste, fraud and abuse, thereby saving Pennsylvania taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, in addition to the recently-approved budget cuts. One provision would require those convicted of drug felonies to be tested thrice a year. Other provisions of the new welfare law will reduce some reimbursement rates and require more co-payments for recipients of certain benefits who earn twice the poverty limit. Unlike other states, Pennsylvania had hardly implemented any welfare reform in the 1990s. The Commonwealth allows too many loopholes and bureaucratic discretion for any effective reform. The new law will reduce the amount of payments to those who are not eligible, but more fundamental reform is needed. Nonetheless, it is a good start. I urge the Pennsylvania legislature to consider more significant welfare reform.
Pennsylvania is constitutionally required to balance its budget. The deficit had been run up during the last year of Democratic Governor Ed Rendell, together with a Democratic-controlled state House of Representatives. Governor Corbett signed a balanced budget for the 2011-2012 fiscal year that was approved by the new Republican-majority legislature on time. Passing budgets on time has been a rare occurrence over the least several years.
The new budget is balanced because it cuts wasteful spending. Corbett resisted pressure to impose an additional tax on the Marcellus shale natural gas industry in particular on top of the already-high corporate taxes paid by every industry, pending the recommendation of a study group he formed to consider an unnecessary so-called “impact fee.” It was excessive spending, not a lack of higher taxes, that had caused the deficits in the first place. Avoiding a tax increase will prevent harm to the Keystone State’s economy.
Some of the Governor’s critics claimed that there was a budget surplus that should have mitigated the spending cuts. There was no surplus, only a larger amount of revenue than projected, which did help reduce some of the budget cuts to education. Governor Corbett also successfully reserved some of the extra revenue to replenish the Commonwealth’s rainy day fund, which Rendell had drained. Regardless of whether there was a surplus in the general fund, even the general fund balance does not take into account the over $3 billion Pennsylvania still owes the federal government for unemployment compensation.
Public and higher education spending had grown in Pennsylvania much faster than inflation, which made it a reasonable part of the state budget from which to eliminate wasteful spending by forcing school districts and the four state-owned universities to make the same sort of sacrifices that private industries and citizens are making. Furthermore, most school districts had spent the Obama stimulus money in their general funds projects instead of on temporary projects, as they had been advised to do. The end of the stimulus does not represent a cut, as many liberal big-spenders in the education industry claim, but a return to the previous level of spending. Those districts that followed the advice not to spend the stimulus money except on temporary projects were well-prepared for the state budget cuts because they had already factored the end of the stimulus into their budgets.
The welfare reform bill Governor Corbett signed into law will provide for better enforcement against waste, fraud and abuse, thereby saving Pennsylvania taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, in addition to the recently-approved budget cuts. One provision would require those convicted of drug felonies to be tested thrice a year. Other provisions of the new welfare law will reduce some reimbursement rates and require more co-payments for recipients of certain benefits who earn twice the poverty limit. Unlike other states, Pennsylvania had hardly implemented any welfare reform in the 1990s. The Commonwealth allows too many loopholes and bureaucratic discretion for any effective reform. The new law will reduce the amount of payments to those who are not eligible, but more fundamental reform is needed. Nonetheless, it is a good start. I urge the Pennsylvania legislature to consider more significant welfare reform.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Follow-Up on the Number of U.S. Wars
In a post earlier this month, The Libyan and Yemeni Wars Are Not the Third and Fourth U.S. Wars, I observed that the United States has intermittently been involved in hostile action in Somalia since 2007, in the form of cruise missiles and bombardment by aircraft. Although no activity had been reported since 2010, I stated that there was a possibility of ongoing covert action or a resumption of overt action. Therefore, I argued, Somalia should be counted, along with the Philippines, as among the six current theaters or battles in the War on Terrorism.
It has since been reported that the U.S. has now launched its first ever drone missile attack in Somalia, which validated my point. Therefore, it is not a “sixth” U.S. war, as some have already called it, but the fourth (or fifth, if Yemen is dated to the first drone strike there early in the War on Terrorism and not only to the current strikes this year). In all of these conflicts, the U.S. is engaged in hostile action with al-Qaeda or its affiliates, at least, with the exception of Libya. But in all cases, these are interventions during the War on Terrorism in wars being waged by militant Muslims with a history of terrorism.
It has since been reported that the U.S. has now launched its first ever drone missile attack in Somalia, which validated my point. Therefore, it is not a “sixth” U.S. war, as some have already called it, but the fourth (or fifth, if Yemen is dated to the first drone strike there early in the War on Terrorism and not only to the current strikes this year). In all of these conflicts, the U.S. is engaged in hostile action with al-Qaeda or its affiliates, at least, with the exception of Libya. But in all cases, these are interventions during the War on Terrorism in wars being waged by militant Muslims with a history of terrorism.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Update: Pennsylvania Gov. Corbett Signs Castle Doctrine Expansion and Tort Reform Bills into Law
Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett, a Republican, signed two major bills into law. One act expands the Castle Doctrine, while the other act reforms joint and several liability in civil cases.
The Castle Doctrine, which allows citizens to use deadly force to defend themselves, is now expanded beyond the home to any place a person has a legal right to be.
The tort reform act changes the civil procedure rules for joint and several liability to make the payment of damages more proportional to a defendant's degree of liability. Previously, a civil defendant could be found 1% liable and yet be responsible for 100% of the damages if the primary defendant were unable to satisfy the judgment. Plaintiffs, through their civil trial lawyers, were using the old rule to sue businesses or other organizations as the “deep pockets,” in order to win damages when a defendant was unable to pay. The old rule was recognized as being anti-business and thus harmful to the economy. The new rule establishes a more proportional system of liability.
The Castle Doctrine, which allows citizens to use deadly force to defend themselves, is now expanded beyond the home to any place a person has a legal right to be.
The tort reform act changes the civil procedure rules for joint and several liability to make the payment of damages more proportional to a defendant's degree of liability. Previously, a civil defendant could be found 1% liable and yet be responsible for 100% of the damages if the primary defendant were unable to satisfy the judgment. Plaintiffs, through their civil trial lawyers, were using the old rule to sue businesses or other organizations as the “deep pockets,” in order to win damages when a defendant was unable to pay. The old rule was recognized as being anti-business and thus harmful to the economy. The new rule establishes a more proportional system of liability.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Morocco: First Fruits of the Arab Spring
King Muhammad VI of Morocco has proposed to give up his near absolute rule in favor of a liberal constitutional parliamentary monarchy. The King would continue as the head of state, but the prime minister would be the head of government. Freedoms would be guaranteed, including minority rights. Minorities in Morocco include Christians, Jews and ethnic groups.
Moroccans will vote for the proposal in a referendum this summer, which is expected to pass. Moroccans have favored the retention of the monarchy, but have wanted more freedom and representation. Only some small Islamist and Maoist parties oppose the referendum.
Morocco will have thereby accomplished with much less bloodshed what others throughout the Arab world have only been hoping to accomplish during the “Arab Spring.”
Moroccans will vote for the proposal in a referendum this summer, which is expected to pass. Moroccans have favored the retention of the monarchy, but have wanted more freedom and representation. Only some small Islamist and Maoist parties oppose the referendum.
Morocco will have thereby accomplished with much less bloodshed what others throughout the Arab world have only been hoping to accomplish during the “Arab Spring.”
European Digest: Serbia, European Monetary Union, Geert Wilders
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)