The last official combat units of American troops had already left Iraq earlier this month, but the formal end of Operation Iraqi Freedom (the Liberation of Iraq) is taking place now. Fifty-thousand United States soldiers will remain in Iraq to continue training the Iraqi security forces and for contingencies as Iraq becomes ever more capable of defending itself from the militant Islamist insurgency and Iranian machinations.
The fact that the current debate is whether or not President Barak Obama will give credit for the success in Iraq to his predecessor, George W. Bush, demonstrates the progress U.S. troops have made in Iraq. Obama had opposed the troop surge, which was the centerpiece of the Bush Administration’s counterinsurgency strategy, and predicted its failure. But Obama continued Bush’s policy in Iraq and copied it in Afghanistan, even putting General David Petraeus, the hero of the Iraqi troop surge, in charge of the Afghan War. Obama telephoned Bush and his administration is claiming credit for the victory in Iraq, but regardless of whether Obama gives credit to his predecessor, his actions vindicate Bush. Obama had opposed the Liberation of Iraq in the first place. He still refuses to use the word “victory” and has set artificial deadlines in both Iraq and Afghanistan for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. Nevertheless, his continuance thus far, for the most part, of Bush’s policies have led to the dramatic success that is underscored by the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Before the war began in 2003, public opinion polls indicated that Americans would support the Liberation of Iraq, as long as there were no more than an equal number of American troops killed as Americans who were killed in the September 11 Attacks (nearly 3,000). After seven years, despite the additional task of defeating al-Qaeda and other foreign jihadis who joined the Iraqi insurgency, American combat deaths in Operation Iraqi Freedom totaled over 3,400, with all U.S. deaths totaling over 4,000, yet public opinion had turned against the war long, long beforehand. Many people by then had forgotten the Iraqi sponsorship of terrorism and Iraq’s daily attacks on U.S.-led Coalition aircraft, its refusal to prove it had eliminated its weapons of mass destruction, as required by UN resolutions and the fear the serial agressor caused its neighbors. To some degree, the U.S. was a victim of its own success, as it had swiftly removed the Baathist regime led by Saddam Hussein with an unexpectedly low number of casualties, which raised the expectations of Americans for a quick, relatively painless victory, as the Afghan War had appeared to be at the time. But the U.S. troops then had to slog through the long Iraqi insurgency sparked by the Baathists that was joined by the other militant Muslims. At times, politicians like Obama declared the war unwinnable or not even worth trying, as if they would have preferred to have let Hussein remain in power; some, like Vice President Joe Biden, insisted that a united Iraq could never govern itself in freedom. The American soldiers who participated in Operation Iraqi Freedom and the Iraqi people themselves proved them wrong.
The achievements of the U.S. soldiers who participated in Operation Iraqi Freedom must be acknowledged: they removed a regime from power that had harbored and financed terrorists who targeted and killed Americans, defeated al-Qaeda and other jihadi terrorists in Iraq, ended the oppression of a brutal tyrant and allowed the Iraqi people to freely choose their own representative government – one that is now an ally in the War on Terrorism, brought Iraqi war criminals to justice, enforced United Nations resolutions, captured and destroyed the hundreds of known Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and removed a security threat to the region with a history of aggression which allowed the U.S. to withdraw its soldiers from Saudi Arabia, where al-Qaeda and other jihadis had been attacking them. As a bonus, Libya renounced terrorism and destroyed its WMD and ended its production program.
Congratulations to the soldiers of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Let us remember those who sacrificed their lives for this just cause and thank all the soldiers who served in it.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
The New Obama Tax on Depositors
When United States President Barak Obama signed the new banking regulation bill passed by the liberal Democratic Congress into law recently, he essentially was imposing a tax on those who deposit their money in banks.
The federal regulations on banks limited the fees banks could impose in certain situations, which reduced the profitability of their businesses during this recession. The banks have responded by raising fees or creating new fees on all depositors, especially for those with checking accounts. With interest rates at near record lows, the new fees are causing many depositors to lose money on their checking accounts. In other words, not only are checking accounts no longer free, thanks to Obama and the Democratic Congress, but depositors must actually pay the bank for the privilege of maintaining a checking account.
A regulation is a cost of government, like a tax. When government decides exactly what fees businesses may charge, such a regulation creates costs of doing business that are passed along to customers. Thus, the price of the federal policy to protect a few favored constituents is the higher fees that all will have to pay -- the Obama tax on depositors, just as the Republicans in Congress who opposed the new federal banking regulations had predicted.
The federal regulations on banks limited the fees banks could impose in certain situations, which reduced the profitability of their businesses during this recession. The banks have responded by raising fees or creating new fees on all depositors, especially for those with checking accounts. With interest rates at near record lows, the new fees are causing many depositors to lose money on their checking accounts. In other words, not only are checking accounts no longer free, thanks to Obama and the Democratic Congress, but depositors must actually pay the bank for the privilege of maintaining a checking account.
A regulation is a cost of government, like a tax. When government decides exactly what fees businesses may charge, such a regulation creates costs of doing business that are passed along to customers. Thus, the price of the federal policy to protect a few favored constituents is the higher fees that all will have to pay -- the Obama tax on depositors, just as the Republicans in Congress who opposed the new federal banking regulations had predicted.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Federal Judge Confirms that Law Takes Precedence over Executive Orders
A United States federal district judge has ruled that federal law takes precedence under the U.S. Constitution over federal regulation that is based upon a presidential executive order.
The judge granted a temporary injunction against federal funding for embryonic stem cell research that was permitted by a National Institute for Health regulation that implemented an executive order issued by President Barak Obama. Obama had issued the order shortly after he took office in order to lift a federal ban on embryonic stem cell research imposed by President George W. Bush. However, the judge ruled that a law approved annually since the late 1990s prohibits any federal funding that necessitated the destruction of human embryos. Bush had permitted federal funding for research only on pre-existing lines of embryonic stem cells, but the research Obama permitted would necessitate the destruction of the embryos, this violating the law, the judge ruled.
This ruling confirms the prediction I made in my post from March of this year, Federal Courts Would Rule that the Law Takes Precedence over an Executive Order, in which I note how Obama's executive order prohibiting federal funding for health insurance coverage for abortion would have no legal effect because the law he signed to federalize health insurance would require federal funding of health insurance coverage for abortion. See also my post, July Follow-Ups and Updates, in which I explained that Article I of the Constitution grants legislative power to Congress, not the Executive.
The judge granted a temporary injunction against federal funding for embryonic stem cell research that was permitted by a National Institute for Health regulation that implemented an executive order issued by President Barak Obama. Obama had issued the order shortly after he took office in order to lift a federal ban on embryonic stem cell research imposed by President George W. Bush. However, the judge ruled that a law approved annually since the late 1990s prohibits any federal funding that necessitated the destruction of human embryos. Bush had permitted federal funding for research only on pre-existing lines of embryonic stem cells, but the research Obama permitted would necessitate the destruction of the embryos, this violating the law, the judge ruled.
This ruling confirms the prediction I made in my post from March of this year, Federal Courts Would Rule that the Law Takes Precedence over an Executive Order, in which I note how Obama's executive order prohibiting federal funding for health insurance coverage for abortion would have no legal effect because the law he signed to federalize health insurance would require federal funding of health insurance coverage for abortion. See also my post, July Follow-Ups and Updates, in which I explained that Article I of the Constitution grants legislative power to Congress, not the Executive.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
A Mosque at the September 11 Site Would Represent a Militant Islamic Victory
The proposed mosque on the site of the September 11 Terrorist Attack on the World Trade Center in New York is intended as Islamic triumphalism. Indeed, minarets, which are the towers on mosques from which muezzins call Muslims to prayer, are symbols of Islamic military conquest.
The message a mosque at such a site in particular, unlike any other site, would convey is that the reward for a terrorist attack by Muslims on a Western target that destroys major buildings is that a mosque can then be built in its place, which would incentivize additional attacks by militant jihadis intend on spreading Islam through holy war. The presence of a mosque at the sight of a militant Muslim terrorist strike would suggest that the jihadist enemy is winning the War on Terrorism, which would thereby aid its morale and win new recruits to its cause of holy war against non-Muslims.
Moreover, as I have noted previously, Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, was highly successful in military conquest, which attracted others to convert to this new religion, as his success seemed to confirm that he was being favored by Allah, while others were converted by force. Muhammad’s successors were also successful in conquering vast lands and winning many new converts for Islam. There have been several waves of Islamic militancy ever since, including the present. Therefore, it is necessary to defeat militant Muslims on the battlefield in order to prove that their leaders are not divinely favored. The placement of the proposed mosque on such a battlefield would confirm Islamic victory and suggest divine approval of their cause and even their strategy of terrorism. Furthermore, it is also necessary to defeat them militarily because they will not stop until they have conquered all lands for Islam and forced everyone to submit.
Some have argued that the freedom of religion requires the proponents of the mosque to be allowed to practice their religion freely, even to the extent of placing a mosque wherever they wish. The militant Muslim enemy would interpret its ability to use Western permissive interpretations of liberty against the Christian West as a sign of Western weakness and, by contrast, Islamic strength, which would further suggest that Allah favors Islam over Christianity. No one has a right to spread his faith through violence, even if only indirectly, which is what the proponents of the mosque at the bloodiest site of the September 11 terrorist attack would be doing.
The message a mosque at such a site in particular, unlike any other site, would convey is that the reward for a terrorist attack by Muslims on a Western target that destroys major buildings is that a mosque can then be built in its place, which would incentivize additional attacks by militant jihadis intend on spreading Islam through holy war. The presence of a mosque at the sight of a militant Muslim terrorist strike would suggest that the jihadist enemy is winning the War on Terrorism, which would thereby aid its morale and win new recruits to its cause of holy war against non-Muslims.
Moreover, as I have noted previously, Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, was highly successful in military conquest, which attracted others to convert to this new religion, as his success seemed to confirm that he was being favored by Allah, while others were converted by force. Muhammad’s successors were also successful in conquering vast lands and winning many new converts for Islam. There have been several waves of Islamic militancy ever since, including the present. Therefore, it is necessary to defeat militant Muslims on the battlefield in order to prove that their leaders are not divinely favored. The placement of the proposed mosque on such a battlefield would confirm Islamic victory and suggest divine approval of their cause and even their strategy of terrorism. Furthermore, it is also necessary to defeat them militarily because they will not stop until they have conquered all lands for Islam and forced everyone to submit.
Some have argued that the freedom of religion requires the proponents of the mosque to be allowed to practice their religion freely, even to the extent of placing a mosque wherever they wish. The militant Muslim enemy would interpret its ability to use Western permissive interpretations of liberty against the Christian West as a sign of Western weakness and, by contrast, Islamic strength, which would further suggest that Allah favors Islam over Christianity. No one has a right to spread his faith through violence, even if only indirectly, which is what the proponents of the mosque at the bloodiest site of the September 11 terrorist attack would be doing.
Same-Sex “Marriage” Is Not a “Privilege or Immunity” under the Constitution
A federal United States judge recently ruled in striking down California’s ban on gay marriage that there is a previously-unknown federal right under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to have one’s marriage to whomever one wants be recognized by the state.
In light of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' brilliant concurring opinion in McDonald v. Chicago, the right to keep and bear arms case, it is necessary to explore whether or not gay marriage is a right under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. “Privileges and immunities” is another way of saying “freedoms and rights.” See my July post, A Conservative Federalist Commentary on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Ruling, in which I explain why this clause in the Amendment is controlling, not the Due Process Clause. The Privileges and Immunities Clause requires states to guarantee those pre-existing natural law rights endowed by our Creator that the states recognized under their own constitutions at the time of their ratification.
The institution of marriage has always been recognized by the States as between one man and one woman. Therefore, there is no right that requires a state to recognize any other relationship as a marriage, as it is neither a privilege nor immunity under a state constitution. Thus, the federal constitution does not require states to recognize a right to same-sex “marriage” or any other “marriage” between any individuals other than one man and one woman.
The Liberal Media Does Not Know the Facts of Obama’s Faith
The liberal media is reporting the results of a public opinion survey that reveals a significant number of Americans believe that Barak Obama is a Muslim. The media declares this opinion, which it finds disturbing, to be “incorrect,” even though it often does not correct the false opinions or factual errors stated by others, and even perpetuates many itself.
The media’s responsibility is to inform the public with facts. Instead, it has been focused on taking the opportunity to discredit Obama’s political opponents by refuting the more easily disprovable false allegations some of them have made, while the media has also revealed its liberal bias by attempting to debunk the theory that the President of the United States it supports is a Muslim by sometimes citing unconvincing evidence as fact.
The media has presented with certainty as fact that which is unknowable. Although the media should refute some of the factual errors that have been claimed about Obama’s faith and report his statements or practices that suggest he is a Christian, it is only for God to judge whether or not he truly is a Christian or a Muslim, as only He knows a person’s sincere beliefs. It is not for the media or for any man to judge the faith of another. In short, another person’s religion is not a provable fact. One can, at best, only form an opinion about another’s religion based upon the perception of that individual’s statements and actions.
The media’s citation of evidence of Obama’s Christianity sometimes demonstrates its ignorance of Islam. For example, the media and Obama’s supporters cite Obama’s reading of the Bible and his swearing into office upon it to prove his Christianity. Although his inauguration on the Bible disproves the false allegation that he was sworn in on a Koran, the Islamic scripture, one’s belief in the Bible does not necessarily prove one’s Christianity, as Muslims also believe in the Bible. Therefore, this piece of evidence fails to prove Obama’s Christianity.
As I noted in my June post, The Clintonian Cynicism and Deceptions of Obama and His Supporters, Obama made a statement during the presidential campaign when he was asked about his religion that did not adequately answer the question, declaring that he “prays to Jesus,” which implied that he might be a Christian, but which did not necessarily disprove that he was a Muslim. Prayer is not the equivalent of worship, and Muslims believe in Jesus – as a Prophet. One can sometimes read into the deceptively-worded statements of politicians like Obama what one wants. His answer allowed Christians to think he is a Christian, while allowing Muslims to cling to the hope that he might secretly be a Muslim concealing his faith in Islam in order to advance Islam or the interests of Muslims more effectively. Indeed, Muslims justify even lying if it is intended to advance Islam, which makes even most definitive statements of faith suspect. Obama’s stated purpose as a matter of foreign policy is to make Muslims believe that he understands them, which might explain his reluctance to confess definitely his Christian faith, so as not to alienate them. Another plausible explanation for Obama’s ambiguity about his faith could be his understandable fear of being accused of apostasy – a crime in Islam punishable by death – for renouncing the faith of his father, which, under Muslim law, makes him a Muslim, too.
Contrary to the assertion sometimes made in the media and by Obama’s supporters, Obama has apparently not necessarily declared himself definitively to be a Christian (i.e. that he recognizes Jesus Christ as the Divine Son of God), although he was “baptized” and has made a number of statements that suggest that he might recognize Christ as more than a Prophet. For example, he has stated that he recognizes Christ as his Redeemer. However, there are non-Christians who recognize Christ as the Redeemer who do not recognize Him as Divine. It is possible that Obama is uncomfortable expressing his Christian faith publicly, but his lack of clarity creates the public perception that he is either unsure of his faith or is concealing his true beliefs.
Regardless, Obama’s declarations of himself as a Christian do not necessarily make his Christianity a fact, nor do anyone’s self-declarations. I am not accusing him of being a hypocrite or a Muslim. I am discussing this matter not in an effort to judge Obama’s faith, but to demonstrate that the media knows nothing about it for certain. Based upon some of his statements and practices, I presume Obama is a Christian, or at least a follower of Christ and not of Islam, but neither I nor anyone else – not even the self-described “authoritative” media – can know with certainty what his religious beliefs are for a fact. The media has no authority to judge Obama’s faith or to label anyone else’s opinions about it “correct” or “incorrect.”
Given Obama’s mysterious background, including his own admission of his understanding of Islam based upon his childhood in Muslim Indonesia, his affiliation with a black radical church he has since disavowed, and his ambiguity about his true faith, it is understandable that a growing plurality of Americans are unsure of Obama’s faith and that a growing majority of the rest have developed a perception of him as a Muslim. If the media truly wants to settle the question of Obama’s faith in terms of public perception, then I call upon it to ask Obama to declare definitively whether or not he believes Muhammad is a true Prophet – the one belief about which no Muslim could lie – and whether or not he believes Jesus Christ is Divine.
The media’s responsibility is to inform the public with facts. Instead, it has been focused on taking the opportunity to discredit Obama’s political opponents by refuting the more easily disprovable false allegations some of them have made, while the media has also revealed its liberal bias by attempting to debunk the theory that the President of the United States it supports is a Muslim by sometimes citing unconvincing evidence as fact.
The media has presented with certainty as fact that which is unknowable. Although the media should refute some of the factual errors that have been claimed about Obama’s faith and report his statements or practices that suggest he is a Christian, it is only for God to judge whether or not he truly is a Christian or a Muslim, as only He knows a person’s sincere beliefs. It is not for the media or for any man to judge the faith of another. In short, another person’s religion is not a provable fact. One can, at best, only form an opinion about another’s religion based upon the perception of that individual’s statements and actions.
The media’s citation of evidence of Obama’s Christianity sometimes demonstrates its ignorance of Islam. For example, the media and Obama’s supporters cite Obama’s reading of the Bible and his swearing into office upon it to prove his Christianity. Although his inauguration on the Bible disproves the false allegation that he was sworn in on a Koran, the Islamic scripture, one’s belief in the Bible does not necessarily prove one’s Christianity, as Muslims also believe in the Bible. Therefore, this piece of evidence fails to prove Obama’s Christianity.
As I noted in my June post, The Clintonian Cynicism and Deceptions of Obama and His Supporters, Obama made a statement during the presidential campaign when he was asked about his religion that did not adequately answer the question, declaring that he “prays to Jesus,” which implied that he might be a Christian, but which did not necessarily disprove that he was a Muslim. Prayer is not the equivalent of worship, and Muslims believe in Jesus – as a Prophet. One can sometimes read into the deceptively-worded statements of politicians like Obama what one wants. His answer allowed Christians to think he is a Christian, while allowing Muslims to cling to the hope that he might secretly be a Muslim concealing his faith in Islam in order to advance Islam or the interests of Muslims more effectively. Indeed, Muslims justify even lying if it is intended to advance Islam, which makes even most definitive statements of faith suspect. Obama’s stated purpose as a matter of foreign policy is to make Muslims believe that he understands them, which might explain his reluctance to confess definitely his Christian faith, so as not to alienate them. Another plausible explanation for Obama’s ambiguity about his faith could be his understandable fear of being accused of apostasy – a crime in Islam punishable by death – for renouncing the faith of his father, which, under Muslim law, makes him a Muslim, too.
Contrary to the assertion sometimes made in the media and by Obama’s supporters, Obama has apparently not necessarily declared himself definitively to be a Christian (i.e. that he recognizes Jesus Christ as the Divine Son of God), although he was “baptized” and has made a number of statements that suggest that he might recognize Christ as more than a Prophet. For example, he has stated that he recognizes Christ as his Redeemer. However, there are non-Christians who recognize Christ as the Redeemer who do not recognize Him as Divine. It is possible that Obama is uncomfortable expressing his Christian faith publicly, but his lack of clarity creates the public perception that he is either unsure of his faith or is concealing his true beliefs.
Regardless, Obama’s declarations of himself as a Christian do not necessarily make his Christianity a fact, nor do anyone’s self-declarations. I am not accusing him of being a hypocrite or a Muslim. I am discussing this matter not in an effort to judge Obama’s faith, but to demonstrate that the media knows nothing about it for certain. Based upon some of his statements and practices, I presume Obama is a Christian, or at least a follower of Christ and not of Islam, but neither I nor anyone else – not even the self-described “authoritative” media – can know with certainty what his religious beliefs are for a fact. The media has no authority to judge Obama’s faith or to label anyone else’s opinions about it “correct” or “incorrect.”
Given Obama’s mysterious background, including his own admission of his understanding of Islam based upon his childhood in Muslim Indonesia, his affiliation with a black radical church he has since disavowed, and his ambiguity about his true faith, it is understandable that a growing plurality of Americans are unsure of Obama’s faith and that a growing majority of the rest have developed a perception of him as a Muslim. If the media truly wants to settle the question of Obama’s faith in terms of public perception, then I call upon it to ask Obama to declare definitively whether or not he believes Muhammad is a true Prophet – the one belief about which no Muslim could lie – and whether or not he believes Jesus Christ is Divine.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
2,000 Visits to My Blog
My blog has now been visited 2,000 times since I began tracking hits on April 2, 2009. Thank you for visiting!
As always, I do not count my own visits and only count page views that are at least one hour apart as separate visits. If I counted all such page views as hits besides my own plus visits to unidentified pages, there would be about 2,800.
The highlights since my last report include the 400th and 200th visits to my blog’s two most popular posts, respectively: The Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization and The Economy, Deficit and Debt at George W. Bush’s Inauguration. Five other posts have now been visited 50-100 times: Obama Did Not Inherit the Deficit from Bush, Radicals in the Obama Administration, Lepanto, by G.K. Chesterton, Follow-up on the Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization, and A Comparison of the Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina and the Haitian Earthquake. The next most popular posts also continue to receive visits. These figures include only visitors who landed on these pages, not those who might have viewed these pages from my blog homepage. In addition to those who viewed my blog homepage, visitors have landed on 119 posts and visited 14 more.
Visitors have come from 70 foreign states and Hong Kong, with the most from Malaysia, followed by Canada. There were even visits from Andorra, Cyprus and Micronesia since my last report. There were visitors from at least 49 American states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, with the most outside of Pennsylvania coming from California.
I am thankful that there are now 10 followers to my blog. I am especially grateful to my most loyal readers. Please continue to visit, comment or suggest topics or ask questions.
As always, in between posts, I make notes for future posts. I have dozens planned, in addition to being ready to respond to developing issues. Visit at least weekly in order not to miss any posts, as my homepage only displays the seven most recent posts (you may view older posts by clicking on the link to them on the bottom of the homepage of my blog or by using the links to the archive on the left-hand column).
I shall take this opportunity to add that after I observed in a post earlier this month that Europe is providing a model for the Obama Administration to cut spending, there was some commentary calling upon the Administration to follow that model instead of proposing more spending.
Also, I have noted how Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez has been spreading his Marxist revolution throughout Latin America. United States Representative Connie Mack (R-FL) has introduced a bill in Congress to declare Venezuela a state sponsor of terrorism for its aid to FARC, the Colombian narco-terrorist Marxist rebels. Venezuela provides aid and gives safe harbor to the terrorist organization, which meets the definition of a state sponsor of terrorism. The designation as a terrorist sponsor triggers several harsh measures against that state.
Again, I thank all of you for your patronage.
As always, I do not count my own visits and only count page views that are at least one hour apart as separate visits. If I counted all such page views as hits besides my own plus visits to unidentified pages, there would be about 2,800.
The highlights since my last report include the 400th and 200th visits to my blog’s two most popular posts, respectively: The Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization and The Economy, Deficit and Debt at George W. Bush’s Inauguration. Five other posts have now been visited 50-100 times: Obama Did Not Inherit the Deficit from Bush, Radicals in the Obama Administration, Lepanto, by G.K. Chesterton, Follow-up on the Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization, and A Comparison of the Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina and the Haitian Earthquake. The next most popular posts also continue to receive visits. These figures include only visitors who landed on these pages, not those who might have viewed these pages from my blog homepage. In addition to those who viewed my blog homepage, visitors have landed on 119 posts and visited 14 more.
Visitors have come from 70 foreign states and Hong Kong, with the most from Malaysia, followed by Canada. There were even visits from Andorra, Cyprus and Micronesia since my last report. There were visitors from at least 49 American states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, with the most outside of Pennsylvania coming from California.
I am thankful that there are now 10 followers to my blog. I am especially grateful to my most loyal readers. Please continue to visit, comment or suggest topics or ask questions.
As always, in between posts, I make notes for future posts. I have dozens planned, in addition to being ready to respond to developing issues. Visit at least weekly in order not to miss any posts, as my homepage only displays the seven most recent posts (you may view older posts by clicking on the link to them on the bottom of the homepage of my blog or by using the links to the archive on the left-hand column).
I shall take this opportunity to add that after I observed in a post earlier this month that Europe is providing a model for the Obama Administration to cut spending, there was some commentary calling upon the Administration to follow that model instead of proposing more spending.
Also, I have noted how Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez has been spreading his Marxist revolution throughout Latin America. United States Representative Connie Mack (R-FL) has introduced a bill in Congress to declare Venezuela a state sponsor of terrorism for its aid to FARC, the Colombian narco-terrorist Marxist rebels. Venezuela provides aid and gives safe harbor to the terrorist organization, which meets the definition of a state sponsor of terrorism. The designation as a terrorist sponsor triggers several harsh measures against that state.
Again, I thank all of you for your patronage.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
More Media Errors
I am continuing my series on media errors. The media, which presents itself as authoritative, makes numerous factual, grammatical and pronunciation errors, as well as misleading statements. The following is my compilation of additional ones I have noticed since my last post on this topic:
Referring to Sufism as a “sect”
Sufism is not a sect, but Islamic mysticism.
“54,000” Americans killed in the Korean War
There were 37,000 Americans killed in the Korean War. The higher figure is a well-known error that people, including in the media, continue to repeat.
Referring to the oil well in the Gulf of Mexico as “busted”
“Busted” is a basic grammatical error. The correct word is “broken,” although in this case, because the well was blown out, it would be acceptable to say that the well had “burst.”
See also my posts, Media Errors on Iraq and Afghanistan, from March of 2009, Misleading Media Phrases, from May of 2009 and Afghanistan Is Not the Longest Ever U.S. War, from June of 2010.
Referring to Sufism as a “sect”
Sufism is not a sect, but Islamic mysticism.
“54,000” Americans killed in the Korean War
There were 37,000 Americans killed in the Korean War. The higher figure is a well-known error that people, including in the media, continue to repeat.
Referring to the oil well in the Gulf of Mexico as “busted”
“Busted” is a basic grammatical error. The correct word is “broken,” although in this case, because the well was blown out, it would be acceptable to say that the well had “burst.”
See also my posts, Media Errors on Iraq and Afghanistan, from March of 2009, Misleading Media Phrases, from May of 2009 and Afghanistan Is Not the Longest Ever U.S. War, from June of 2010.
A Lesson from Italy for Obama and the Congressional Liberal Democrats
Like many European states facing large budget deficits, Italy is focusing on reducing its deficit. The Italian parliament recently approved the government’s austerity measures, which included spending reductions and a crackdown on delinquent taxpayers. Unlike the austerity plans of many other European states, however, Italy’s plan does not include a tax increase.
United States President Barak Obama and the liberal Congressional Democrats plan to allow some of the tax cuts signed into law by President George W. Bush to expire, which would represent a massive tax increase. Income taxes would rise not only for the wealthy, but also for many small businesses for which the owners file personal tax returns. Additionally, many middle class taxpayers will be among those whose taxes will increase because of a significant increase in the capital gains tax.
The Obama Administration, which, unlike the European governments it usually likes to copy, has been conducting an unprecedented spending spree, claims that raising taxes is a responsible way to reduce the deficit. However, as the conservative Italian government recognizes, tax increases are counterproductive to reducing deficits because they reduce economic growth by removing more money from the private sector, which, in turn, reduces government revenue. Tax increases are especially harmful to the economy during recessions. Conversely, tax cuts increase economic growth.
A better way than raising taxes to reduce deficits is to reduce spending. The European states are cutting spending by reducing the generous pensions of government workers, for example, or even their salaries. Obama and the Congressional liberal Democrats ought to adopt the best European budget-cutting practices and the Italian model of avoiding tax increases in particular.
United States President Barak Obama and the liberal Congressional Democrats plan to allow some of the tax cuts signed into law by President George W. Bush to expire, which would represent a massive tax increase. Income taxes would rise not only for the wealthy, but also for many small businesses for which the owners file personal tax returns. Additionally, many middle class taxpayers will be among those whose taxes will increase because of a significant increase in the capital gains tax.
The Obama Administration, which, unlike the European governments it usually likes to copy, has been conducting an unprecedented spending spree, claims that raising taxes is a responsible way to reduce the deficit. However, as the conservative Italian government recognizes, tax increases are counterproductive to reducing deficits because they reduce economic growth by removing more money from the private sector, which, in turn, reduces government revenue. Tax increases are especially harmful to the economy during recessions. Conversely, tax cuts increase economic growth.
A better way than raising taxes to reduce deficits is to reduce spending. The European states are cutting spending by reducing the generous pensions of government workers, for example, or even their salaries. Obama and the Congressional liberal Democrats ought to adopt the best European budget-cutting practices and the Italian model of avoiding tax increases in particular.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Commentary on the Roman Influence on America Exhibit at the Constitution Center
The National Constitution Center in Philadelphia hosted the world premiere of an exhibit, together with the cultural ministry of Italy, called “Ancient Rome and America.” The exhibit was focused on the influence of Ancient Rome on the American Revolution and the founding of the United States. It featured hundreds of Ancient Roman and American artifacts.
Although it is often thought that the democracy of Ancient Greece was the primary inspiration for the American form of government, Americans were clearly influenced by the example of the Roman Republic, founded in 509 B.C., which was nearly contemporaneous to Greek democracy. The U.S. and each of the states of the Union have republican forms of government, not democracies, as the Founding Fathers recognized the dangers to liberty of direct popular rule. The Founders, for example, adopted the Roman Republican model of two legislative assemblies: a lower body that was popularly elected and an upper one, the “Senate,” that was comprised of aristocrats. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution established a similar model of a popularly-elected lower chamber, the “House of Representatives,” and an upper one, also called a “Senate,” that was appointed by state legislators. The Senate would serve as a check on the House.
The Americans also adopted the Roman model of divided government, with separate executive and legislative branches. Roman law, which was promulgated in writing, of which there were several examples in the exhibit, also influenced the Founding Fathers. One Roman practice in particular they adopted was the census. The Roman concept of citizenship, which they expanded during the Imperial age to all the male inhabitants of the Empire, also inspired the American ideal of equality.
That the American Founding Fathers were heavily influenced by ancient Rome is not surprising, considering that they had received the typical education of the time (the Medieval trivium and quadrivium), which included reading Ancient Greek and Roman classics, several Eighteenth-Century copies of which were exhibited. The Americans especially admired those Romans who favored the republican form of government, such as Livy and Cicero, or who esteemed virtue.
The model of duty and humility provided by the Roman Republican General Cincinnatus inspired George Washington, for example. Cincinnatus, a farmer, was called from his field to fight the enemy, but after defeating it, instead of becoming the dictator, he returned to farming. The exhibit included depictions of Washington as Cincinnatus and artifacts from the Society of the Cincinnati, the association of retired American Revolutionary War officers. A bust of Washington in a Roman toga portrayed him as the Roman general Fabius, known for “Fabian” tactics during the Second Punic War with Hannibal. Fabian tactics refer to the avoidance of a direct confrontation with a superior force and the conduct of hit-and-run attacks against smaller units of the enemy, a strategy which General Washington successfully used during the War of American Independence to harass the British.
Busts of several other Founding Fathers in togas also appeared throughout the exhibit. The exhibit demonstrated in many ways how some of the leading early Americans and even their spouses saw themselves as modern Romans. The Grand Tours of Europe they would take or the books about Roman ruins influenced American architectural and artistic styles. The Romans invented the arch, for example, which is symbolic of Ancient Rome and seen in American architecture in its basic form, as most notably in the from of the dome, such as the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol.
There were numerous examples of American symbols in the exhibit that were inspired by Roman symbols, with which they were juxtaposed for comparison. Indeed, the Roman symbols of the eagle (adopted by the Roman army as a symbol of strength), the Goddess Liberty, and the fasces (a symbol of power; a fasces called the “mace” symbolizes authority in the House of Representatives) were featured in numerous Roman artifacts beside American examples. For example, the Roman depictions of the Goddess Liberty were compared with American depictions of the allegorical figure of Liberty on coinage.
I hope the exhibit and my post about it will inspire Americans to learn more about the influence of the Roman Republic on America. On a personal note, I was pleased also to participate in a Tea Party that was being held today on Independence Mall near the Constitution Center with the same spirit of independence and liberty that inspired the American Patriots during the Revolution and the Federal Period. I recall the words of Benjamin Franklin, buried a few yards away, who, when asked what the delegates to the Constitutional Convention at Independence Hall had created, replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” May we keep the Republic! May God Bless America!
Although it is often thought that the democracy of Ancient Greece was the primary inspiration for the American form of government, Americans were clearly influenced by the example of the Roman Republic, founded in 509 B.C., which was nearly contemporaneous to Greek democracy. The U.S. and each of the states of the Union have republican forms of government, not democracies, as the Founding Fathers recognized the dangers to liberty of direct popular rule. The Founders, for example, adopted the Roman Republican model of two legislative assemblies: a lower body that was popularly elected and an upper one, the “Senate,” that was comprised of aristocrats. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution established a similar model of a popularly-elected lower chamber, the “House of Representatives,” and an upper one, also called a “Senate,” that was appointed by state legislators. The Senate would serve as a check on the House.
The Americans also adopted the Roman model of divided government, with separate executive and legislative branches. Roman law, which was promulgated in writing, of which there were several examples in the exhibit, also influenced the Founding Fathers. One Roman practice in particular they adopted was the census. The Roman concept of citizenship, which they expanded during the Imperial age to all the male inhabitants of the Empire, also inspired the American ideal of equality.
That the American Founding Fathers were heavily influenced by ancient Rome is not surprising, considering that they had received the typical education of the time (the Medieval trivium and quadrivium), which included reading Ancient Greek and Roman classics, several Eighteenth-Century copies of which were exhibited. The Americans especially admired those Romans who favored the republican form of government, such as Livy and Cicero, or who esteemed virtue.
The model of duty and humility provided by the Roman Republican General Cincinnatus inspired George Washington, for example. Cincinnatus, a farmer, was called from his field to fight the enemy, but after defeating it, instead of becoming the dictator, he returned to farming. The exhibit included depictions of Washington as Cincinnatus and artifacts from the Society of the Cincinnati, the association of retired American Revolutionary War officers. A bust of Washington in a Roman toga portrayed him as the Roman general Fabius, known for “Fabian” tactics during the Second Punic War with Hannibal. Fabian tactics refer to the avoidance of a direct confrontation with a superior force and the conduct of hit-and-run attacks against smaller units of the enemy, a strategy which General Washington successfully used during the War of American Independence to harass the British.
Busts of several other Founding Fathers in togas also appeared throughout the exhibit. The exhibit demonstrated in many ways how some of the leading early Americans and even their spouses saw themselves as modern Romans. The Grand Tours of Europe they would take or the books about Roman ruins influenced American architectural and artistic styles. The Romans invented the arch, for example, which is symbolic of Ancient Rome and seen in American architecture in its basic form, as most notably in the from of the dome, such as the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol.
There were numerous examples of American symbols in the exhibit that were inspired by Roman symbols, with which they were juxtaposed for comparison. Indeed, the Roman symbols of the eagle (adopted by the Roman army as a symbol of strength), the Goddess Liberty, and the fasces (a symbol of power; a fasces called the “mace” symbolizes authority in the House of Representatives) were featured in numerous Roman artifacts beside American examples. For example, the Roman depictions of the Goddess Liberty were compared with American depictions of the allegorical figure of Liberty on coinage.
I hope the exhibit and my post about it will inspire Americans to learn more about the influence of the Roman Republic on America. On a personal note, I was pleased also to participate in a Tea Party that was being held today on Independence Mall near the Constitution Center with the same spirit of independence and liberty that inspired the American Patriots during the Revolution and the Federal Period. I recall the words of Benjamin Franklin, buried a few yards away, who, when asked what the delegates to the Constitutional Convention at Independence Hall had created, replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” May we keep the Republic! May God Bless America!
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Arizona Border Control Law Update: A Federal Judge Violates States’ Rights
A Clinton-appointed federal district judge has imposed an injunction on the most significant parts of Arizona’s law that enables its police to enforce federal border control law regulating the entry of foreign visitors. The judge based her opinion on the Obama Administration’s argument that federal law pre-empts state law. The Administration was the plaintiff. However, there is nothing in the United States Constitution that pre-empts state border control laws.
Passing border control laws is a pre-existing sovereign right of the states. Indeed, before the 1880s, there was no federal immigration law. The only relevant section of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, addresses naturalization, not the entry or exit of foreign visitors. Furthermore, nothing in that founding document prohibits states from controlling their own borders. Rights not prohibited to the states by the Constitution are retained by them under the Tenth Amendment.
Moreover, the Arizona law in question does not conflict with federal law. It only enforces federal law. As I noted in a previous post, the Obama Administration is being sued in federal court by many states that object to being forced to enforce federal law they oppose (the federal mandate for citizens of the states to purchase health insurance as a condition of residence in the U.S.), while the Administration is suing Arizona for enforcing federal law it supports.
The Framers of the Constitution established a system of limited government, known as federalism, in order to prevent the concentration of power. The Arizona border control ruling, which certainly will be appealed, represents an example of the Obama Administration’s general policy of violating states' rights in order to centralize power in the federal government.
Passing border control laws is a pre-existing sovereign right of the states. Indeed, before the 1880s, there was no federal immigration law. The only relevant section of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, addresses naturalization, not the entry or exit of foreign visitors. Furthermore, nothing in that founding document prohibits states from controlling their own borders. Rights not prohibited to the states by the Constitution are retained by them under the Tenth Amendment.
Moreover, the Arizona law in question does not conflict with federal law. It only enforces federal law. As I noted in a previous post, the Obama Administration is being sued in federal court by many states that object to being forced to enforce federal law they oppose (the federal mandate for citizens of the states to purchase health insurance as a condition of residence in the U.S.), while the Administration is suing Arizona for enforcing federal law it supports.
The Framers of the Constitution established a system of limited government, known as federalism, in order to prevent the concentration of power. The Arizona border control ruling, which certainly will be appealed, represents an example of the Obama Administration’s general policy of violating states' rights in order to centralize power in the federal government.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Four Obama Policies that Have Increased Unemployment
There are at least four major specific ways United States President Barak Obama has increased unemployment in the United States:
1) Obama increased the minimum wage. Increasing the cost of labor makes it more expensive to employ workers, especially younger workers. Naturally, the unemployment rate has risen among young workers, especially minorities.
2) He closed thousands of automobile dealerships when the federal government took over much of General Motors and Chrysler corporations, which caused a loss of tens of thousands of jobs. A recent study concluded that the closings unnecessarily harmed the economy.
3) Obama has extended unemployment compensation. The surest way to increase something, including unemployment, is to subsidize it. Some unemployed workers wait until their unemployment benefits are about to expire in order to search seriously for work, while others eschew temporary work for fear of losing their benefits or part-time work because it is more worthwhile to earn the unemployment compensation instead.
4) His moratorium on offshore oil drilling is causing oil companies to move rigs overseas, at the loss of American jobs.
The ripple effect of these job losses is that these unemployed workers have less disposable income in order to consume (i.e. purchase goods or services), which leads to more unemployment. These Obama policies are in addition to the uncertainty and pessimism his fiscal and regulatory policies are causing. He has already significantly increased government regulation, both of health insurance and banks, for example, the full effects of which will be unknown for years, while proposing costly energy regulation and higher taxes. Additionally, Obama is causing economic pessimism because of his massive increase in the debt from his spending spree. Indeed, the only major area where he has increased employment is in government. The prospect of these significant changes causes a climate of uncertainty and fear. Fear and pessimism discourage investors to invest, lenders to lend and employers to hire.
I invite you to suggest other major Obama policies that are significantly increasing unemployment.
1) Obama increased the minimum wage. Increasing the cost of labor makes it more expensive to employ workers, especially younger workers. Naturally, the unemployment rate has risen among young workers, especially minorities.
2) He closed thousands of automobile dealerships when the federal government took over much of General Motors and Chrysler corporations, which caused a loss of tens of thousands of jobs. A recent study concluded that the closings unnecessarily harmed the economy.
3) Obama has extended unemployment compensation. The surest way to increase something, including unemployment, is to subsidize it. Some unemployed workers wait until their unemployment benefits are about to expire in order to search seriously for work, while others eschew temporary work for fear of losing their benefits or part-time work because it is more worthwhile to earn the unemployment compensation instead.
4) His moratorium on offshore oil drilling is causing oil companies to move rigs overseas, at the loss of American jobs.
The ripple effect of these job losses is that these unemployed workers have less disposable income in order to consume (i.e. purchase goods or services), which leads to more unemployment. These Obama policies are in addition to the uncertainty and pessimism his fiscal and regulatory policies are causing. He has already significantly increased government regulation, both of health insurance and banks, for example, the full effects of which will be unknown for years, while proposing costly energy regulation and higher taxes. Additionally, Obama is causing economic pessimism because of his massive increase in the debt from his spending spree. Indeed, the only major area where he has increased employment is in government. The prospect of these significant changes causes a climate of uncertainty and fear. Fear and pessimism discourage investors to invest, lenders to lend and employers to hire.
I invite you to suggest other major Obama policies that are significantly increasing unemployment.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
A Conservative Federalist Commentary on the Right to Bear Arms Ruling
When the United States Supreme Court ruled in June that the right to keep and bear arms applies to the states, I had mixed feelings. Although I agreed that this right is a “fundamental” liberty, I objected on federalist grounds that the Second Amendment to the Constitution is binding on the states by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Then I read Justice Clarence Thomas’ remarkable concurring opinion, to which Justice Antonin Scalia expressed some support in a separate concurring opinion.
The Bill of Rights (the First Ten Amendments to the United States Constitution) originally limited only the federal government from abridging liberty. Part of it was made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which declares that no one could be denied liberty “without due process of law.” At first, the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause referred only to procedural rights of the accused, (e.g. to trial by jury, to compel witnesses, etc.), not substantive rights (e.g. freedom of speech or assembly). Such application of the Bill of Rights to the states is called “incorporation,” meaning that the Bill of Rights are thus made a part of the body of the Fourteenth Amendment because they define the “liberty” referred to in the Due Process Clause.
An argument was advanced that the entire Bill of Rights was made applicable to the states by the Due Process Clause, including even the substantive rights, but the Court rejected this idea and has never held that the Bill of Rights was incorporated in toto, not even all the procedural rights (for example, the right to a grand jury). Gradually, however, the Court has selectively incorporated most of the Bill of Rights, but only those that are judged “fundamental” to liberty, as opposed to those not essential to liberty.
In Heller v. District of Columbia in 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment of the Constitution was an individual liberty that may not be abridged by the United States, but this case was only applicable to federal territory, as it was not necessary for the Court to rule whether the Second Amendment was a fundamental liberty, binding on the states through its incorporation by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a question that remained unsettled law until it ruled in McDonald v. Chicago last month.
In striking down Chicago’s ban on handguns, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in McDonald that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental liberty, binding on the states through the Due Process Clause. In its opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, the plurality cited the intent of the Framers of the Constitution, who recognized the right to keep and bear arms as a pre-existing right fundamental to liberty. They also cited the history of the post-Civil War period and the denial of this right to freed blacks by some of the states that necessitated the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Justice Thomas, however, suggests a broader, easier and more federalist method of determining what freedoms and rights are binding on the states. His original intent approach would also better prevent liberal justices from continuing their practice of making up rights as “fundamental” that were never contemplated as such at the time of the ratification, while denying those rights they dislike by judging them non-essential. In his concurring opinion, he states the issue of what liberty is protected by the Constitution does not depend upon “process” or whether it is judged a “fundamental” liberty incorporated into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but whether it is protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States”). Privileges and immunities mean “freedoms” and “rights.” The issue, then, is which freedoms and rights were understood at the ratification of the state constitutions as inalienable (i.e. Natural law, meaning granted to man by the Creator).
These privileges and immunities, freedoms and rights are not based upon the Bill of Rights, which was intended only to limit the federal government. Indeed, even under the federal Constitution, Natural law is not limited to those rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, but includes rights that were not enumerated, which the Ninth Amendment declares are retained by the people. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are examples of privileges and immunities that represent the minimum standard of liberty. The source of freedoms and rights is not the Bill of Rights, but Natural law as recognized as inalienable at the time of ratification. Thus, the Privileges and Immunities Clause prohibits states from denying liberty, not the Due Process Clause by incorporating the Bill of Rights. The Privileges and Immunities Clause not only prevents a state from abridging the rights and freedoms of some citizens while protecting those rights of others, but requires the states to guarantee liberty, much as the Bill of Rights requires the federal government.
Thomas cited legislative history and early Supreme Court precedent that suggests the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to protect liberty through the Privileges and Immunities Clause, including specifically the right to keep and bear arms. This right is a pre-existing, inalienable Natural law right. Therefore, all such pre-existing rights are protected through the Privileges and Immunities Clause, not by the Due Process Clause.
In conclusion, in both Thomas’ and the plurality’s interpretation, the right to keep and bear arms is a “fundamental” liberty that pre-existed the Constitution. Unlike the plurality, however, Thomas does not find it necessary to determine whether a freedom or right is “fundamental” in order for it to be constitutionally binding on the states by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but whether it is recognized as inalienable by each of the states themselves in their own constitutions, which the Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities Clause requires them to uphold. Therefore, the Amendment does not violate the principle of federalism, but is dependent upon the states' own recognition of Natural law.
The Bill of Rights (the First Ten Amendments to the United States Constitution) originally limited only the federal government from abridging liberty. Part of it was made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which declares that no one could be denied liberty “without due process of law.” At first, the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause referred only to procedural rights of the accused, (e.g. to trial by jury, to compel witnesses, etc.), not substantive rights (e.g. freedom of speech or assembly). Such application of the Bill of Rights to the states is called “incorporation,” meaning that the Bill of Rights are thus made a part of the body of the Fourteenth Amendment because they define the “liberty” referred to in the Due Process Clause.
An argument was advanced that the entire Bill of Rights was made applicable to the states by the Due Process Clause, including even the substantive rights, but the Court rejected this idea and has never held that the Bill of Rights was incorporated in toto, not even all the procedural rights (for example, the right to a grand jury). Gradually, however, the Court has selectively incorporated most of the Bill of Rights, but only those that are judged “fundamental” to liberty, as opposed to those not essential to liberty.
In Heller v. District of Columbia in 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment of the Constitution was an individual liberty that may not be abridged by the United States, but this case was only applicable to federal territory, as it was not necessary for the Court to rule whether the Second Amendment was a fundamental liberty, binding on the states through its incorporation by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a question that remained unsettled law until it ruled in McDonald v. Chicago last month.
In striking down Chicago’s ban on handguns, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in McDonald that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental liberty, binding on the states through the Due Process Clause. In its opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, the plurality cited the intent of the Framers of the Constitution, who recognized the right to keep and bear arms as a pre-existing right fundamental to liberty. They also cited the history of the post-Civil War period and the denial of this right to freed blacks by some of the states that necessitated the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Justice Thomas, however, suggests a broader, easier and more federalist method of determining what freedoms and rights are binding on the states. His original intent approach would also better prevent liberal justices from continuing their practice of making up rights as “fundamental” that were never contemplated as such at the time of the ratification, while denying those rights they dislike by judging them non-essential. In his concurring opinion, he states the issue of what liberty is protected by the Constitution does not depend upon “process” or whether it is judged a “fundamental” liberty incorporated into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but whether it is protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States”). Privileges and immunities mean “freedoms” and “rights.” The issue, then, is which freedoms and rights were understood at the ratification of the state constitutions as inalienable (i.e. Natural law, meaning granted to man by the Creator).
These privileges and immunities, freedoms and rights are not based upon the Bill of Rights, which was intended only to limit the federal government. Indeed, even under the federal Constitution, Natural law is not limited to those rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, but includes rights that were not enumerated, which the Ninth Amendment declares are retained by the people. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are examples of privileges and immunities that represent the minimum standard of liberty. The source of freedoms and rights is not the Bill of Rights, but Natural law as recognized as inalienable at the time of ratification. Thus, the Privileges and Immunities Clause prohibits states from denying liberty, not the Due Process Clause by incorporating the Bill of Rights. The Privileges and Immunities Clause not only prevents a state from abridging the rights and freedoms of some citizens while protecting those rights of others, but requires the states to guarantee liberty, much as the Bill of Rights requires the federal government.
Thomas cited legislative history and early Supreme Court precedent that suggests the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to protect liberty through the Privileges and Immunities Clause, including specifically the right to keep and bear arms. This right is a pre-existing, inalienable Natural law right. Therefore, all such pre-existing rights are protected through the Privileges and Immunities Clause, not by the Due Process Clause.
In conclusion, in both Thomas’ and the plurality’s interpretation, the right to keep and bear arms is a “fundamental” liberty that pre-existed the Constitution. Unlike the plurality, however, Thomas does not find it necessary to determine whether a freedom or right is “fundamental” in order for it to be constitutionally binding on the states by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but whether it is recognized as inalienable by each of the states themselves in their own constitutions, which the Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities Clause requires them to uphold. Therefore, the Amendment does not violate the principle of federalism, but is dependent upon the states' own recognition of Natural law.
Friday, July 16, 2010
July Follow-Ups and Updates
Obama's Clintonian Deceptions
In my post last month, The Clintonian Cynicism and Deception of Obama and His Supporters, I observed how United States President Barak Obama follows the example of his predecessor, Bill Clinton, in making statements into which either conservative or liberal listeners might read whatever they wish, which is a misleading tactic. I cited a number of examples and have since thought of another worth exposing. Obama has said that President George W. Bush “didn’t pay for” his prescription drug program, a statement that allows his listeners to read into it what they want. Conservatives think he means that Bush failed to make spending cuts in order to pay for the program while liberals think Obama means Bush failed to increase taxes. The liberals were right, but Obama succeeded in fooling people without having to say what he truly believed.
States' Rights/The Federalization of Health Insurance/Border Control
The states are rebelling against federal violations of states’ rights committed by the Obama Administration. The Administration is being sued by 20 states for its federal mandate to purchase health insurance, and nine states over its lawsuit against Arizona’s decision to exercise its pre-existing power to control its border, as well as to enforce federal law. In other words, the Obama Administration is contradicting itself by ordering states to do something in order to enforce federal law on the one hand and suing one of them for enforcing federal law on the other hand.
It has been reported that already new regulations written by the Obama Administration under the federalization of health insurance will require taxpayers to pay for insurance polices that pay for abortions, despite Obama’s executive order prohibiting abortion funding. Regardless, executive orders do not have the constitutional force of law that legislation does, as Article I of the Constitution vests all legislative power in Congress, which means that a federal court would rule that Obama’s order is superseded by the legislation that permits federal funding of abortion.
Italian Crucifixes in the Schools
The Italian news agency ANSA reported that Italy has appealed the European court’s ruling that it must remove crucifixes from its schools and that many other European states joined the Italian Republic in support.
Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction
Former presidential advisor Karl Rove admitted that his biggest mistake was not defending United States President George W. Bush against the false accusations from liberal Democrats that Bush had lied about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq, a point I have been making since shortly before I launched this blog a few weeks after the 2008 election. The failure to adequately defend the record of the Republican Congressional majority contributed to its defeat in the 2006 elections and the failure to adequately defend the Bush Administration, especially in regard to the issue of WMDs in Iraq, contributed to the Republican defeat in the 2008 presidential election. Rove observed that the repeated Democratic accusation that Bush had lied succeeded in gradually changing people’s perceptions of the honesty of the 43rd President.
Although Rove did not point out that hundreds of WMDs, in fact, have been found in the form of artillery shells with chemical warheads (the same ones that United Nations inspectors knew existed and which Saddam Hussein failed to prove after the inspectors left Iraq that he had destroyed), as well as missiles of a longer range than permitted under U.N. resolutions, he did quote leading Democrats who insisted before the Liberation of Iraq that its Baathist regime had WMDs and cited the findings of various investigations that established the lack of any deception on the part of the Bush Administration even if not all of the intelligence reports that it sincerely believed turned out to be inaccurate. He also hailed the results of the U.S.-led war: the removal of an enemy in Hussein’s regime and its replacement with an ally, the defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq, as well as the liberation of the Iraqi people and the justice of the war crimes trials for Hussein and his henchmen. Rove observed that the liberal Democrat’s false accusations tarnished their own reputations.
In my post last month, The Clintonian Cynicism and Deception of Obama and His Supporters, I observed how United States President Barak Obama follows the example of his predecessor, Bill Clinton, in making statements into which either conservative or liberal listeners might read whatever they wish, which is a misleading tactic. I cited a number of examples and have since thought of another worth exposing. Obama has said that President George W. Bush “didn’t pay for” his prescription drug program, a statement that allows his listeners to read into it what they want. Conservatives think he means that Bush failed to make spending cuts in order to pay for the program while liberals think Obama means Bush failed to increase taxes. The liberals were right, but Obama succeeded in fooling people without having to say what he truly believed.
States' Rights/The Federalization of Health Insurance/Border Control
The states are rebelling against federal violations of states’ rights committed by the Obama Administration. The Administration is being sued by 20 states for its federal mandate to purchase health insurance, and nine states over its lawsuit against Arizona’s decision to exercise its pre-existing power to control its border, as well as to enforce federal law. In other words, the Obama Administration is contradicting itself by ordering states to do something in order to enforce federal law on the one hand and suing one of them for enforcing federal law on the other hand.
It has been reported that already new regulations written by the Obama Administration under the federalization of health insurance will require taxpayers to pay for insurance polices that pay for abortions, despite Obama’s executive order prohibiting abortion funding. Regardless, executive orders do not have the constitutional force of law that legislation does, as Article I of the Constitution vests all legislative power in Congress, which means that a federal court would rule that Obama’s order is superseded by the legislation that permits federal funding of abortion.
Italian Crucifixes in the Schools
The Italian news agency ANSA reported that Italy has appealed the European court’s ruling that it must remove crucifixes from its schools and that many other European states joined the Italian Republic in support.
Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction
Former presidential advisor Karl Rove admitted that his biggest mistake was not defending United States President George W. Bush against the false accusations from liberal Democrats that Bush had lied about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq, a point I have been making since shortly before I launched this blog a few weeks after the 2008 election. The failure to adequately defend the record of the Republican Congressional majority contributed to its defeat in the 2006 elections and the failure to adequately defend the Bush Administration, especially in regard to the issue of WMDs in Iraq, contributed to the Republican defeat in the 2008 presidential election. Rove observed that the repeated Democratic accusation that Bush had lied succeeded in gradually changing people’s perceptions of the honesty of the 43rd President.
Although Rove did not point out that hundreds of WMDs, in fact, have been found in the form of artillery shells with chemical warheads (the same ones that United Nations inspectors knew existed and which Saddam Hussein failed to prove after the inspectors left Iraq that he had destroyed), as well as missiles of a longer range than permitted under U.N. resolutions, he did quote leading Democrats who insisted before the Liberation of Iraq that its Baathist regime had WMDs and cited the findings of various investigations that established the lack of any deception on the part of the Bush Administration even if not all of the intelligence reports that it sincerely believed turned out to be inaccurate. He also hailed the results of the U.S.-led war: the removal of an enemy in Hussein’s regime and its replacement with an ally, the defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq, as well as the liberation of the Iraqi people and the justice of the war crimes trials for Hussein and his henchmen. Rove observed that the liberal Democrat’s false accusations tarnished their own reputations.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
War on Terrorism Update: Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea
Afghanistan
General David Petraeus was confirmed by the United States Senate to be the new commander of the Afghan War. During his confirmation hearings, he made a number of noteworthy statements. General Petraeus acknowledged that the July of 2011 deadline to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan that was announced by U.S. President Barak Obama at the same time he announced he would implement the troop surge strategy for the Afghan front in the War on Terrorism that the idea was not one that was proposed by the military. It was a policy based upon the political ideology of the civilian leadership of the Obama Administration, not an example of sound military doctrine. Obama’s arbitrary deadline has damaged the morale of American troops in the Afghan theater of operations, caused U.S. allies there to doubt American resolve to remain as long as necessary to win this critical battle in the War on Terrorism and encouraged the Taliban and al-Qaeda enemy that they could wait until the U.S. withdrawal to return to power and reestablish a safe haven for terrorism in Afghanistan.
Gen. Petraeus also declared that the withdrawal of American troops will not be immediate, but phased. Most importantly, it will be based on the conditions on the Afghan front, not political expedience. He also indicated that the rules of engagement would be revised in a way that better allows N.A.T.O. troops to defeat the enemy while avoiding innocent civilian casualties, which, like his other statements, should improve morale for U.S. troops. In short, Gen. Petraeus is correcting the mistakes of the Obama Administration, which is increasing the chance for victory in Afghanistan and the War on Terrorism.
See also my post from last month, Two Recent Obama Contradictions, in which I explain the contradiction of nominating Gen. Petraeus, the architect of the Iraqi troop surge, after Obama predicted its failure and after its implementation insisted that it was failing, despite the evidence supplied by the General and long after it became obvious the surge was succeeding, a strategy Obama has since adopted for Afghanistan, as the Bush Administration had proposed. Ironically, the turn of events in Iraq and Afghanistan has allowed Gen. Petraeus to become the only man in which both the Administration and the Democrats and Republics in Congress had confidence could successfully implement the Obama strategy by making the proper changes in order to win the Afghan War.
Obama recently called the battle of Afghanistan the “longest war” in American history, a statement that is at odds with the U.S. government’s official position, is that the Vietnamese War lasted from 1964-1973, but includes the Mayaguez Incident in 1975, a period which alone (not including U.S. combat in the Vietnamese War from 1961-1963) would make it longer than the Afghan War, which began in 2001. See also my post last month, Afghanistan Is Not the Longest Ever U.S. War.
Iran
Obama signed a new set of U.S. sanctions on Iran into law in response to Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The sanctions were imposed unilaterally because he failed to obtain United Nations Security Council approval of another round of multilateral sanctions on the Islamic Republic. Both Obama and his predecessor implemented several previous rounds of sanctions on Iran without successfully halting the Iranian development of a nuclear weapon.
North Korea
North Korea was removed by the United States State Department under President George W. Bush from the list of terrorist-sponsoring states. The consequences for being on the list are comprehensive and harsh. Removal from the list was a North Korean precondition to returning to the Six-Party talks aimed at eliminating its nuclear weapons. The Bush Administration cited the fact that North Korea state had not committed any acts of terrorism since 1987. Although it has not sponsored any such acts in decades, the Communist state continues to harbor members of the Japanese Red Army, a terrorist organization.
Recently, a debate has emerged over whether North Korea should be relisted as a state sponsor of terrorism. Some have labeled the sinking of the South Korean ship, the Chenoan, was an act of terrorism, but an attack on a military target does not constitute terrorism, as would an attack on innocent civilians, for terrorism is a violent attack on innocent civilians in order to intimidate the populace to give into the demands of the terrorists. The two Koreas remain in a state of war, having signed an armistice in 1953, but no peace treaty. Others have cited the North Korean assassination of a high-ranking government official who defected to the South as an act of terrorism, but, again, although an act of war, it did not represent an attack on innocent civilians.
Communist North Korean aid to terrorist organizations and other state sponsors of terrorism, however, clearly represents an act of terrorism which would justify relisting North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism.
General David Petraeus was confirmed by the United States Senate to be the new commander of the Afghan War. During his confirmation hearings, he made a number of noteworthy statements. General Petraeus acknowledged that the July of 2011 deadline to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan that was announced by U.S. President Barak Obama at the same time he announced he would implement the troop surge strategy for the Afghan front in the War on Terrorism that the idea was not one that was proposed by the military. It was a policy based upon the political ideology of the civilian leadership of the Obama Administration, not an example of sound military doctrine. Obama’s arbitrary deadline has damaged the morale of American troops in the Afghan theater of operations, caused U.S. allies there to doubt American resolve to remain as long as necessary to win this critical battle in the War on Terrorism and encouraged the Taliban and al-Qaeda enemy that they could wait until the U.S. withdrawal to return to power and reestablish a safe haven for terrorism in Afghanistan.
Gen. Petraeus also declared that the withdrawal of American troops will not be immediate, but phased. Most importantly, it will be based on the conditions on the Afghan front, not political expedience. He also indicated that the rules of engagement would be revised in a way that better allows N.A.T.O. troops to defeat the enemy while avoiding innocent civilian casualties, which, like his other statements, should improve morale for U.S. troops. In short, Gen. Petraeus is correcting the mistakes of the Obama Administration, which is increasing the chance for victory in Afghanistan and the War on Terrorism.
See also my post from last month, Two Recent Obama Contradictions, in which I explain the contradiction of nominating Gen. Petraeus, the architect of the Iraqi troop surge, after Obama predicted its failure and after its implementation insisted that it was failing, despite the evidence supplied by the General and long after it became obvious the surge was succeeding, a strategy Obama has since adopted for Afghanistan, as the Bush Administration had proposed. Ironically, the turn of events in Iraq and Afghanistan has allowed Gen. Petraeus to become the only man in which both the Administration and the Democrats and Republics in Congress had confidence could successfully implement the Obama strategy by making the proper changes in order to win the Afghan War.
Obama recently called the battle of Afghanistan the “longest war” in American history, a statement that is at odds with the U.S. government’s official position, is that the Vietnamese War lasted from 1964-1973, but includes the Mayaguez Incident in 1975, a period which alone (not including U.S. combat in the Vietnamese War from 1961-1963) would make it longer than the Afghan War, which began in 2001. See also my post last month, Afghanistan Is Not the Longest Ever U.S. War.
Iran
Obama signed a new set of U.S. sanctions on Iran into law in response to Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The sanctions were imposed unilaterally because he failed to obtain United Nations Security Council approval of another round of multilateral sanctions on the Islamic Republic. Both Obama and his predecessor implemented several previous rounds of sanctions on Iran without successfully halting the Iranian development of a nuclear weapon.
North Korea
North Korea was removed by the United States State Department under President George W. Bush from the list of terrorist-sponsoring states. The consequences for being on the list are comprehensive and harsh. Removal from the list was a North Korean precondition to returning to the Six-Party talks aimed at eliminating its nuclear weapons. The Bush Administration cited the fact that North Korea state had not committed any acts of terrorism since 1987. Although it has not sponsored any such acts in decades, the Communist state continues to harbor members of the Japanese Red Army, a terrorist organization.
Recently, a debate has emerged over whether North Korea should be relisted as a state sponsor of terrorism. Some have labeled the sinking of the South Korean ship, the Chenoan, was an act of terrorism, but an attack on a military target does not constitute terrorism, as would an attack on innocent civilians, for terrorism is a violent attack on innocent civilians in order to intimidate the populace to give into the demands of the terrorists. The two Koreas remain in a state of war, having signed an armistice in 1953, but no peace treaty. Others have cited the North Korean assassination of a high-ranking government official who defected to the South as an act of terrorism, but, again, although an act of war, it did not represent an attack on innocent civilians.
Communist North Korean aid to terrorist organizations and other state sponsors of terrorism, however, clearly represents an act of terrorism which would justify relisting North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism.
Obama’s Comment on Anti-Immigrant Discrimination Is Misleading
In his recent speech promoting his goal of comprehensive immigration reform, United States President Barak Obama said, “A century ago,” Irish, Italian and Polish immigrants were “subject to rank discrimination” and were the object of negative stereotypes.
Although this statement is true, and the acknowledgement of such behavior by the President is appreciated, it is nonetheless misleading. It is true that these immigrants were subject to discrimination and negative stereotypes a century ago, but Obama’s remark implies that these European immigrants are no longer subject to them, as if it were only true “a century ago.” However, public opinion surveys suggest that a disturbingly large number of Americans hold negative stereotypes about Italian immigrants and Americans of Italian descent, for example. Typically, the entertainment industry portrays Italian-Americans either as criminals or buffoons. Even commercial advertisements often play on such negative stereotypes. As a result, despite historically having one of the lowest crime rates of any ethnic group, a majority of Americans falsely believe that most Italian-Americans are involved with organized crime.
Furthermore, Obama’s statement seems to contradict a federal law signed by President Bill Clinton in which the United States admitted that it interred Italian immigrants, as well as immigrants from other Axis Powers during World War II, in addition to the more well-known internment of Japanese immigrants. Even some U.S. citizens of Italian origin were among the internees. Immigrants from these foreign states were also subject to a variety of other discriminatory practices by the federal government itself. See also my post from May of this year, Proposed Textbooks Debunk a Liberal Myth of American Racism, in which I discuss this matter in more detail and note how recent history, as written in proposed new textbooks, debunks the liberal opinion that only Japanese-Americans suffered discrimination from the U.S. because of American racism.
Obama’s minimization of discrimination against European immigrants reflects the liberal view that America is racist, which fails to recognize a more general anti-immigrant populist strain of American opinion that is not necessarily based upon racial discrimination. It also reflects the liberals’ simplistic tendency in regard to the issue of race to lump all European ethnic groups into the monolithic group of “whites,” regardless of their level of culpability in or victimization from racial discrimination in American history, as well as liberal favoritism toward certain groups they regard as political constituencies. But in order for all prejudice to be eliminated, it is first necessary to acknowledge prejudice in every form it takes without minimizing it and to better understand its origins.
Although this statement is true, and the acknowledgement of such behavior by the President is appreciated, it is nonetheless misleading. It is true that these immigrants were subject to discrimination and negative stereotypes a century ago, but Obama’s remark implies that these European immigrants are no longer subject to them, as if it were only true “a century ago.” However, public opinion surveys suggest that a disturbingly large number of Americans hold negative stereotypes about Italian immigrants and Americans of Italian descent, for example. Typically, the entertainment industry portrays Italian-Americans either as criminals or buffoons. Even commercial advertisements often play on such negative stereotypes. As a result, despite historically having one of the lowest crime rates of any ethnic group, a majority of Americans falsely believe that most Italian-Americans are involved with organized crime.
Furthermore, Obama’s statement seems to contradict a federal law signed by President Bill Clinton in which the United States admitted that it interred Italian immigrants, as well as immigrants from other Axis Powers during World War II, in addition to the more well-known internment of Japanese immigrants. Even some U.S. citizens of Italian origin were among the internees. Immigrants from these foreign states were also subject to a variety of other discriminatory practices by the federal government itself. See also my post from May of this year, Proposed Textbooks Debunk a Liberal Myth of American Racism, in which I discuss this matter in more detail and note how recent history, as written in proposed new textbooks, debunks the liberal opinion that only Japanese-Americans suffered discrimination from the U.S. because of American racism.
Obama’s minimization of discrimination against European immigrants reflects the liberal view that America is racist, which fails to recognize a more general anti-immigrant populist strain of American opinion that is not necessarily based upon racial discrimination. It also reflects the liberals’ simplistic tendency in regard to the issue of race to lump all European ethnic groups into the monolithic group of “whites,” regardless of their level of culpability in or victimization from racial discrimination in American history, as well as liberal favoritism toward certain groups they regard as political constituencies. But in order for all prejudice to be eliminated, it is first necessary to acknowledge prejudice in every form it takes without minimizing it and to better understand its origins.
Elena Kagan's Unconstitutional Views Disqualify Her from the U.S. Supreme Court
United States President Barak Obama has nominated Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. The constitutional duty of a justice of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution and federal laws as intended by their authors. Kagan’s statements in her confirmation hearing before the Senate reveal that she would not fulfill her duty because she believes that a federal judge may impose her own view instead. Therefore, has disqualified herself from Senate confirmation.
In my last post, I discussed Elena Kagan’s refusal to accept the concept of natural law as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration affirms that the rights of man come from the Creator, not from the state. She insists that she would only rule on the rights as enumerated in the Constitution, even though the Constitution presupposes these rights and freedoms (i.e. it does not establish any freedoms and rights, but prohibits the United States from abridging those rights it enumerates) and, through the Ninth Amendment, it reserves to the people the rights that it does not enumerate. Kagan’s view suggests that rights come from government, which not only allows government to limit the enumerated freedoms and rights in whatever way it wants, but also to choose not to acknowledge or protect the rights and freedoms that are not expressed in the Constitution. Her opinion is thus contrary to the intent of the Framers of the Constitution, which ought to disqualify her from being confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice.
An additional disqualifying view held by Kagan is that the interpretation of the Constitution changes over time, which would substitute the whim of liberal judges for the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution and each of its Amendments. The Constitution and each of its Amendments were approved democratically by the representatives of the people through the deliberative, legislative process established by the Constitution itself. Whenever they are confronted with the legislative history that is contrary to their opinion, liberals like Kagan conveniently prefer to change the meaning of the words of the Constitution to match their preferences and to insist that their own interpretation is acceptable under the theory that the Constitution is a “living document.” Treating the law as changeable by judicial activism is another way of saying that liberals may change the law and the Constitution undemocratically through unelected judges whenever they are politically unable to change the Constitution through its amendment process or change legislation through Congress.
The combination of Kagan’s two unconstitutional views means that she would interpret natural law freedoms and rights in whatever way she wanted, despite the original intent of the Framers, even to the extent of not even acknowledging a right or freedom that is expressed in the Constitution, let alone those that are not. For example, she has expressed her opposition to the right to keep and bear arms expressed in the Constitution, which the Supreme Court ruled the Framers intended as a personal right. The Court was closely-divided in that case, which means that it could deny that right if only one vote on the Court changes. The recent closely-divided Citizens United case suggests that the liberal minority of four of the nine Justices which Kagan would join if confirmed by the Senate would even limit the freedom of speech or of the press.
On the other hand, liberal judges create new “fundamental” rights never intended by the Framers, even if it is necessary to limit basic freedoms like the right to life as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, such as the right to an abortion, even though the denial of the right to life without due process of law is prohibited by the Constitution. Indeed, when she worked in the Clinton Administration, Kagan reworded a medical association’s statement regarding partial birth abortion that suggested the procedure might be medically necessary, contrary to the association’s opinion – a change which was erroneously relied upon by the Supreme Court in overturning a state ban on partial birth abortion as if it were scientific fact and not political expedience masqueraded as science.
Kagan, as dean of Harvard University also infamously banned the military from recruitment on campus she was dean of that school, despite federal law requiring schools that accept federal funding to allow equal access to the military as private recruiters. The nominee for federal court continued her ban even after a federal court ruled it was illegal.
Although Kagan’s views of abortion and her record on discrimination against the military are troubling, her overall radical judicial activist philosophy of rejecting natural law and interpreting the Constitution any way she prefers, despite the intent of its Framers, suggest she would threaten liberty through the tyranny of judicial activism instead of protecting liberty by fulfilling her duty of interpreting the Constitution and the law as its authors intended. Therefore, her opinions disqualify her from confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. Conservatives must demand that the Senate reject the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.
In my last post, I discussed Elena Kagan’s refusal to accept the concept of natural law as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration affirms that the rights of man come from the Creator, not from the state. She insists that she would only rule on the rights as enumerated in the Constitution, even though the Constitution presupposes these rights and freedoms (i.e. it does not establish any freedoms and rights, but prohibits the United States from abridging those rights it enumerates) and, through the Ninth Amendment, it reserves to the people the rights that it does not enumerate. Kagan’s view suggests that rights come from government, which not only allows government to limit the enumerated freedoms and rights in whatever way it wants, but also to choose not to acknowledge or protect the rights and freedoms that are not expressed in the Constitution. Her opinion is thus contrary to the intent of the Framers of the Constitution, which ought to disqualify her from being confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice.
An additional disqualifying view held by Kagan is that the interpretation of the Constitution changes over time, which would substitute the whim of liberal judges for the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution and each of its Amendments. The Constitution and each of its Amendments were approved democratically by the representatives of the people through the deliberative, legislative process established by the Constitution itself. Whenever they are confronted with the legislative history that is contrary to their opinion, liberals like Kagan conveniently prefer to change the meaning of the words of the Constitution to match their preferences and to insist that their own interpretation is acceptable under the theory that the Constitution is a “living document.” Treating the law as changeable by judicial activism is another way of saying that liberals may change the law and the Constitution undemocratically through unelected judges whenever they are politically unable to change the Constitution through its amendment process or change legislation through Congress.
The combination of Kagan’s two unconstitutional views means that she would interpret natural law freedoms and rights in whatever way she wanted, despite the original intent of the Framers, even to the extent of not even acknowledging a right or freedom that is expressed in the Constitution, let alone those that are not. For example, she has expressed her opposition to the right to keep and bear arms expressed in the Constitution, which the Supreme Court ruled the Framers intended as a personal right. The Court was closely-divided in that case, which means that it could deny that right if only one vote on the Court changes. The recent closely-divided Citizens United case suggests that the liberal minority of four of the nine Justices which Kagan would join if confirmed by the Senate would even limit the freedom of speech or of the press.
On the other hand, liberal judges create new “fundamental” rights never intended by the Framers, even if it is necessary to limit basic freedoms like the right to life as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, such as the right to an abortion, even though the denial of the right to life without due process of law is prohibited by the Constitution. Indeed, when she worked in the Clinton Administration, Kagan reworded a medical association’s statement regarding partial birth abortion that suggested the procedure might be medically necessary, contrary to the association’s opinion – a change which was erroneously relied upon by the Supreme Court in overturning a state ban on partial birth abortion as if it were scientific fact and not political expedience masqueraded as science.
Kagan, as dean of Harvard University also infamously banned the military from recruitment on campus she was dean of that school, despite federal law requiring schools that accept federal funding to allow equal access to the military as private recruiters. The nominee for federal court continued her ban even after a federal court ruled it was illegal.
Although Kagan’s views of abortion and her record on discrimination against the military are troubling, her overall radical judicial activist philosophy of rejecting natural law and interpreting the Constitution any way she prefers, despite the intent of its Framers, suggest she would threaten liberty through the tyranny of judicial activism instead of protecting liberty by fulfilling her duty of interpreting the Constitution and the law as its authors intended. Therefore, her opinions disqualify her from confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. Conservatives must demand that the Senate reject the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.
Friday, July 2, 2010
July 2: The True Independence Day and Birthday of the States
The Continental Congress approved Richard Henry Lee’s resolution to declare the independence of the Thirteen American Colonies as States on this day in 1776; July 2 is thus the true date of American Independence. Indeed, it is the date that Founding Father John Adams recommended by commemorated annually by celebrations, including parades and fireworks. Two days later, the Congress approved the Declaration of Independence. The prominent July 4 date on that great document probably contributed to the popular belief that the Fourth of July marked the beginning of American Independence, although this date, too, is worthy of celebration.
The independence of the states that was approved on July 2 and eloquently declared on the July 4, 1776 represents the birthday of each of the Thirteen States in particular and American Independence in general. But it is not the birthday of the “United States of America,” which was only founded upon the implementation of the U.S. Constitution.
The Declaration of Independence acknowledges the equality of all men and that the rights of man come not from government, but from our Creator, which is “the American Creed.” It also states that government exists to protect these rights and that it derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. The Framers of the Constitution, who accepted the American Creed, presupposed the concept of natural law rights, which is why they did not consider it necessary to enumerate them in the Constitution, as if to imply that government grants rights instead of God. They only agreed to adopt a Bill of Rights as a safeguard of liberty in order to win the ratification of the Constitution. Indeed, the Bill of Rights, the First Ten Amendments to the Constitution, does not grant any freedoms or rights, but prohibits the United States from abridging the enumerated freedoms and rights that every person has by birthright. The Ninth Amendment even acknowledges the presupposition of natural law rights by reserving any additional rights of man that were not expressly listed in the Constitution.
The American Creed, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, has long been accepted as the basis for the Constitution. U.S. President Abraham Lincoln and American civil rights leader Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. famously reminded their fellow Americans that the equality and rights of the people come from God, not men, and that the Constitution must by interpreted only in the context of the Declaration of Independence.
President Barak Obama has nominated someone for the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, who shockingly refused this week during her confirmation hearing to acknowledge the principle of natural law. Instead, she insisted that only those rights enumerated in the Constitution could be interpreted by a federal judge to exist, in contradiction of the Framers of the Constitution and the Ninth Amendment. There are several major grounds for the Senate to oppose the confirmation of this Obama Administration radical, which will be the subject of a future post, but Kagan's rejection of natural law is enough to disqualify her from serving as a justice entrusted to safeguard liberty, a concept she does not believe exists by nature, but only by the whim of judges.
Let us reflect on American Independence and the great document that declared it and acknowledged God as the source of our life and liberty. Let us also remember and be grateful to those who sacrificed in order for their posterity to enjoy freedom. May we continue remain ever vigilant in defending our independence and freedom from all enemies foreign and domestic. May God bless America! Happy Independence Day!
The independence of the states that was approved on July 2 and eloquently declared on the July 4, 1776 represents the birthday of each of the Thirteen States in particular and American Independence in general. But it is not the birthday of the “United States of America,” which was only founded upon the implementation of the U.S. Constitution.
The Declaration of Independence acknowledges the equality of all men and that the rights of man come not from government, but from our Creator, which is “the American Creed.” It also states that government exists to protect these rights and that it derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. The Framers of the Constitution, who accepted the American Creed, presupposed the concept of natural law rights, which is why they did not consider it necessary to enumerate them in the Constitution, as if to imply that government grants rights instead of God. They only agreed to adopt a Bill of Rights as a safeguard of liberty in order to win the ratification of the Constitution. Indeed, the Bill of Rights, the First Ten Amendments to the Constitution, does not grant any freedoms or rights, but prohibits the United States from abridging the enumerated freedoms and rights that every person has by birthright. The Ninth Amendment even acknowledges the presupposition of natural law rights by reserving any additional rights of man that were not expressly listed in the Constitution.
The American Creed, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, has long been accepted as the basis for the Constitution. U.S. President Abraham Lincoln and American civil rights leader Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. famously reminded their fellow Americans that the equality and rights of the people come from God, not men, and that the Constitution must by interpreted only in the context of the Declaration of Independence.
President Barak Obama has nominated someone for the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, who shockingly refused this week during her confirmation hearing to acknowledge the principle of natural law. Instead, she insisted that only those rights enumerated in the Constitution could be interpreted by a federal judge to exist, in contradiction of the Framers of the Constitution and the Ninth Amendment. There are several major grounds for the Senate to oppose the confirmation of this Obama Administration radical, which will be the subject of a future post, but Kagan's rejection of natural law is enough to disqualify her from serving as a justice entrusted to safeguard liberty, a concept she does not believe exists by nature, but only by the whim of judges.
Let us reflect on American Independence and the great document that declared it and acknowledged God as the source of our life and liberty. Let us also remember and be grateful to those who sacrificed in order for their posterity to enjoy freedom. May we continue remain ever vigilant in defending our independence and freedom from all enemies foreign and domestic. May God bless America! Happy Independence Day!
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Two Recent Obama Contradictions
United States President Barak Obama and his Administration have contradicted themselves in both of the major current issues:
1) Opening a Criminal Investigation into the BP Oil Leak While Imposing a Moratorium on All Drilling
The Obama Administration has opened a criminal investigation into the BP oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico. Thus, the message the Administration is implying is that BP’s behavior constituted criminal recklessness, which is in addition to any implication from any civil action the Administration is threatening that BP’s conduct demonstrated gross negligence. At the same time, the Administration has used the leak as an excuse to re-impose a moratorium on offshore oil drilling for six months, which it justified as necessary in order to determine the safety of deepwater drilling. Thankfully, a federal judge ruled against the Obama Administration, calling its action “arbitrary and capricious” and finding that it also made misleading statements in falsely claiming that certain scientists who participated in a study the government cited agreed with the moratorium. The six-month moratorium would have obligated drillers to remove their rigs from the Gulf of Mexico and send them to foreign areas, meaning that it could have been years until drilling resumed there, to the detriment of the local economy.
The point is that on the one hand, the Administration is declaring BP’s actions that led to the leak as outside the legal norm and thereby different from the actions of the other drillers it has not accused of similar misconduct, while justifying its moratorium on the contradictory grounds that drilling is inherently unsafe, regardless of whether BP or other drillers are behaving lawfully. In other words, if drilling is inherently unsafe, then BP ought not to be sued or criminally charged for any actions that led to the leak, for the Obama Administration should have barred BP from drilling in the first place instead of allowing it to continue, and the degree of BP’s recklessness or negligence would be irrelevant. The Administration’s actions in this matter would be like grounding all of a certain model of aircraft because of one crash – caused by a bad pilot, after already blaming the accident on pilot error.
2) Promoting General David Petraeus after Declaring the Troop Surge He Led in Iraq a Failure
As a Senator, Barak Obama joined most other liberal Democrats in opposing President George W. Bush’s troop surge for Iraq, wrongly predicting that it would fail or even make matters worse and criticizing General Petraeus for any optimistic reports that he gave that cited evidence that proved the surge was working. Even long after it had become abundantly clear that the surge, in fact, had worked and that the Liberation of Iraq had been successful both in its initial goal of removing a terrorism-sponsoring regime from power, as well as in defeating al-Qaeda and other jihadists who made Iraq a central battle in the War on Terrorism, Obama refused to admit that the surge had worked and that he had been completely wrong on the most significant issue of the time. However, he used the Iraqi surge largely as a model for agreeing with Bush’s proposed troop surge for Afghanistan, which was a tacit admission that the strategy had worked.
Now, President Obama has appointed Gen. Petraeus, the architect and hero of the Iraqis troop surge, to lead the War in Afghanistan in carrying out the troop surge strategy there, which is even more of an admission that Bush and Petraeus were successful, without Obama ever expressly admitting it. Indeed, the Obama Administration has acknowledged the United States victory in Iraq, which it has cited as justifying the continuation of the withdrawal of troops from there that had begun under the Bush Administration. The Obama Administration has even tried to claim credit for the victory in Iraq. Therefore, either Obama’s actions in the War on Terrorism in the battles of Iraq and Afghanistan represent a contradiction of his opposition to the Iraqi troop surge, or he has changed his mind and has completely vindicated Bush. Either way, Obama refuses to say.
Obama’s contention that the troop surge in Iraq did not work was itself a contradiction of his criticism of the Bush Administration’s conduct of the Liberation of Iraq prior to the surge, which he insisted was a failure. However, if the surge was not responsible for the U.S. victory in Iraq, then the conditions before it (under the Bush Administration’s management) must have been adequate enough apart from the surge to have produced the victory.
1) Opening a Criminal Investigation into the BP Oil Leak While Imposing a Moratorium on All Drilling
The Obama Administration has opened a criminal investigation into the BP oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico. Thus, the message the Administration is implying is that BP’s behavior constituted criminal recklessness, which is in addition to any implication from any civil action the Administration is threatening that BP’s conduct demonstrated gross negligence. At the same time, the Administration has used the leak as an excuse to re-impose a moratorium on offshore oil drilling for six months, which it justified as necessary in order to determine the safety of deepwater drilling. Thankfully, a federal judge ruled against the Obama Administration, calling its action “arbitrary and capricious” and finding that it also made misleading statements in falsely claiming that certain scientists who participated in a study the government cited agreed with the moratorium. The six-month moratorium would have obligated drillers to remove their rigs from the Gulf of Mexico and send them to foreign areas, meaning that it could have been years until drilling resumed there, to the detriment of the local economy.
The point is that on the one hand, the Administration is declaring BP’s actions that led to the leak as outside the legal norm and thereby different from the actions of the other drillers it has not accused of similar misconduct, while justifying its moratorium on the contradictory grounds that drilling is inherently unsafe, regardless of whether BP or other drillers are behaving lawfully. In other words, if drilling is inherently unsafe, then BP ought not to be sued or criminally charged for any actions that led to the leak, for the Obama Administration should have barred BP from drilling in the first place instead of allowing it to continue, and the degree of BP’s recklessness or negligence would be irrelevant. The Administration’s actions in this matter would be like grounding all of a certain model of aircraft because of one crash – caused by a bad pilot, after already blaming the accident on pilot error.
2) Promoting General David Petraeus after Declaring the Troop Surge He Led in Iraq a Failure
As a Senator, Barak Obama joined most other liberal Democrats in opposing President George W. Bush’s troop surge for Iraq, wrongly predicting that it would fail or even make matters worse and criticizing General Petraeus for any optimistic reports that he gave that cited evidence that proved the surge was working. Even long after it had become abundantly clear that the surge, in fact, had worked and that the Liberation of Iraq had been successful both in its initial goal of removing a terrorism-sponsoring regime from power, as well as in defeating al-Qaeda and other jihadists who made Iraq a central battle in the War on Terrorism, Obama refused to admit that the surge had worked and that he had been completely wrong on the most significant issue of the time. However, he used the Iraqi surge largely as a model for agreeing with Bush’s proposed troop surge for Afghanistan, which was a tacit admission that the strategy had worked.
Now, President Obama has appointed Gen. Petraeus, the architect and hero of the Iraqis troop surge, to lead the War in Afghanistan in carrying out the troop surge strategy there, which is even more of an admission that Bush and Petraeus were successful, without Obama ever expressly admitting it. Indeed, the Obama Administration has acknowledged the United States victory in Iraq, which it has cited as justifying the continuation of the withdrawal of troops from there that had begun under the Bush Administration. The Obama Administration has even tried to claim credit for the victory in Iraq. Therefore, either Obama’s actions in the War on Terrorism in the battles of Iraq and Afghanistan represent a contradiction of his opposition to the Iraqi troop surge, or he has changed his mind and has completely vindicated Bush. Either way, Obama refuses to say.
Obama’s contention that the troop surge in Iraq did not work was itself a contradiction of his criticism of the Bush Administration’s conduct of the Liberation of Iraq prior to the surge, which he insisted was a failure. However, if the surge was not responsible for the U.S. victory in Iraq, then the conditions before it (under the Bush Administration’s management) must have been adequate enough apart from the surge to have produced the victory.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Commentary on the Colombian Elections
The candidate of the ruling conservative party easily, Juan Manuel Santos, won election to the presidency of Colombia. The results suggest strong public approval for outgoing President Alvaro Uribe, who is constitutionally limited to serving two terms.
Uribe, with help from the United States over the last several years, has scored unprecedented victories against the Marxist narco-terrorists that have been fighting in a civil war since 1965. Because Santos is expected to continue Uribe’s policies, the presidential election represents an American victory in the War on Terrorism, as well as toward efforts to eradicate cocaine in order to limit the smuggling of it into the U.S.
Because Colombia’s security is improving, its economy has also been improving. Its establishment of the rule of law, liberalization of the economy, and conservative fiscal policies, for which Santos was partly responsible as a minister in Uribe’s government, have helped its economy to grow.
Former U.S. President George W. Bush negotiated a free trade agreement with Colombia, but the liberal Democratic Senate has not ratified it and President Barak Obama has failed even to call for the ratification of free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea, all of which were signed by Bush. The agreements would be mutually beneficial economically because they would increase trade by eliminating each party’s tariffs on imports, which would lower prices for consumers. However, labor unions that supported Obama’s presidential campaign fear the competition from lower-cost imports. They oppose the agreements, despite the increase in employment that is produced by an increase in exports. The excuse Big Labor has been using against the free trade agreement with Colombia in particular is its human rights record, which has improved under Uribe.
In addition to the economic benefits for the Americans, Colombia’s economy is in the interest of the U.S. because of the significance of Colombia to the War on Terrorism and the reduction of drug abuse. Colombia, the strongest ally of the U.S. in the region, needs the economic benefits of free trade in order to continue to defeat the Marxist rebels and deserves a reward for its successes in its fight against them and the reforms it has undertaken.
Uribe, with help from the United States over the last several years, has scored unprecedented victories against the Marxist narco-terrorists that have been fighting in a civil war since 1965. Because Santos is expected to continue Uribe’s policies, the presidential election represents an American victory in the War on Terrorism, as well as toward efforts to eradicate cocaine in order to limit the smuggling of it into the U.S.
Because Colombia’s security is improving, its economy has also been improving. Its establishment of the rule of law, liberalization of the economy, and conservative fiscal policies, for which Santos was partly responsible as a minister in Uribe’s government, have helped its economy to grow.
Former U.S. President George W. Bush negotiated a free trade agreement with Colombia, but the liberal Democratic Senate has not ratified it and President Barak Obama has failed even to call for the ratification of free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea, all of which were signed by Bush. The agreements would be mutually beneficial economically because they would increase trade by eliminating each party’s tariffs on imports, which would lower prices for consumers. However, labor unions that supported Obama’s presidential campaign fear the competition from lower-cost imports. They oppose the agreements, despite the increase in employment that is produced by an increase in exports. The excuse Big Labor has been using against the free trade agreement with Colombia in particular is its human rights record, which has improved under Uribe.
In addition to the economic benefits for the Americans, Colombia’s economy is in the interest of the U.S. because of the significance of Colombia to the War on Terrorism and the reduction of drug abuse. Colombia, the strongest ally of the U.S. in the region, needs the economic benefits of free trade in order to continue to defeat the Marxist rebels and deserves a reward for its successes in its fight against them and the reforms it has undertaken.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Manute Bol, Rest in Peace
Manute Bol, a former National Basketball player and humanitarian from Sudan, died recently of natural causes at the age of 47. Bol, who at the time was the tallest player in history, played for several NBA teams from 1985-1994. He still holds or shares a number of records for blocking shots. But it is humanitarian work that merits his memorialization.
Bol, a Christian from the Dinka tribe, donated most of his millions of dollars in earnings to humanitarian work in Sudan. In Bol’s native Southern Sudan, the Arab Muslim-dominated government based in Khartoum in the northern part of Sudan, committed gross human rights abuses, including murder and enslavement, against the mostly Christian and animist South over a two-decades long war that resulted in the deaths of one to two million people. Bol not only donated and raised money for his suffering countrymen, but raised public awareness about the plight of the Southern Sudanese. He was forced by the Muslim Northern Sudanese government to become a refugee from Sudan, settling in the United States, where he resided at the time of his death. Bol was continuing his work with the Southern Sudanese government in a humanitarian capacity.
Bol, a national hero in Southern Sudan, is an example of how a Christian can sanctify athletics.
The Administration of President George W. Bush negotiated a settlement of the Sudanese Civil War. As part of the agreement, a plebiscite on independence for Southern Sudan is scheduled for next year. However, as I noted in my post from April of this year, Analysis of the Sudanese Elections, the government in Khartoum may be backpedaling from its promise to allow the plebiscite. In addition, the Arab Muslim Northern Sudanese government is responsible for the ongoing genocide being committed against black Muslims in the western Sudanese province of Darfur. I hope that Bol’s death reminds the world of the suffering in Sudan from a government with one of the worst human rights records in the world today.
Bol, a Christian from the Dinka tribe, donated most of his millions of dollars in earnings to humanitarian work in Sudan. In Bol’s native Southern Sudan, the Arab Muslim-dominated government based in Khartoum in the northern part of Sudan, committed gross human rights abuses, including murder and enslavement, against the mostly Christian and animist South over a two-decades long war that resulted in the deaths of one to two million people. Bol not only donated and raised money for his suffering countrymen, but raised public awareness about the plight of the Southern Sudanese. He was forced by the Muslim Northern Sudanese government to become a refugee from Sudan, settling in the United States, where he resided at the time of his death. Bol was continuing his work with the Southern Sudanese government in a humanitarian capacity.
Bol, a national hero in Southern Sudan, is an example of how a Christian can sanctify athletics.
The Administration of President George W. Bush negotiated a settlement of the Sudanese Civil War. As part of the agreement, a plebiscite on independence for Southern Sudan is scheduled for next year. However, as I noted in my post from April of this year, Analysis of the Sudanese Elections, the government in Khartoum may be backpedaling from its promise to allow the plebiscite. In addition, the Arab Muslim Northern Sudanese government is responsible for the ongoing genocide being committed against black Muslims in the western Sudanese province of Darfur. I hope that Bol’s death reminds the world of the suffering in Sudan from a government with one of the worst human rights records in the world today.
The Clintonian Cynicism and Deception of Obama and His Supporters
As I noted in my previous post, Bill Clinton was the conduit for the Obama Administration’s corrupt offer of federal offices to candidates in exchange for their withdrawal from the Democratic Primary in order to clear the field for other Democratic candidates favored by the Administration.
Liberal Democratic supporters of the Obama Administration have falsely used the “everybody does it” defense – which is not a defense, but an admission – in order to excuse the scandal, just as they did when Clinton was accused of perjury and obstruction of justice for lying under oath in a federal sexual harassment lawsuit. As I explained in my previous post, this cynical defense of the Obama Administration is false. Even the scandal-prone Clinton Administration, for example, was never accused of offering offices in exchange for political favors, just as the allegation liberal Democrats’ made in defense of Clinton about all the Presidents or Founding Fathers committing such crimes or even that they had committed adultery is either false or – at worst – in a few cases, unprovable. In both cases, the liberal Democrats’ cynically impugned others, including many innocent people, in order to make the President they supported seem less bad by comparison.
Indeed, this scandal reveals a tactic of the corrupt Clinton Administration the Obama Administration itself and its supporters have copied: repeatedly denying an allegation for months in order to cover it up and then, once the Administration is forced to admit the allegations are true, declaring that there is nothing new to the charges, dismissing them as old news, and then accusing its critics of focusing on the past for political advantage and instead of on the “real issues” the Administration claims it is addressing.
These examples are part of a broader pattern of Clintonian tactics Obama has adopted. Obama makes Clintonian-style misleading statements that allow people to read falsely into them what they want without lying, which, like the defense offered of his Administration by its liberal Democratic supporters, depends upon a cynical view of the ignorance of the people, as well as an arrogant confidence in his ability to fool them.
As a presidential candidate, Clinton made statements that allowed people to read into them whatever they wanted. For example, he stated that he was against the “brain dead politics” of Congress. Because Democrats were in the majority in Congress at the time, Republicans thought that he was sounding moderate by criticizing his own party, while Democrats thought that he was sounding liberal by referring to the significant Republican minority they blamed for blocking them from taxing and spending more. The massive tax and spend policies Clinton pursued once in office (despite his labeling of his plan that he correctly predicted would increase the deficit as a “deficit reduction plan”) proved that he had fooled the Republicans by leading them to draw a false conclusion.
Another example was when Clinton was asked by a reporter whether he had been unfaithful to his wife. He replied that he had “caused pain in” in his marriage. The media reported that he had thereby admitted to adultery, which made him seem forthright, contrite and humble. The apparent admission of infidelity appeared to definitively address the allegations of adultery made against him by Gennifer Flowers that were damaging his campaign. However, a closer examination of Clinton’s words reveals that he did not admit to adultery, only to having “caused pain,” which could have been for the most minor peccadillo that was not even in the category of a sin against marriage, or perhaps even was because of some idiosyncrasy his wife found unacceptable. Indeed, he has never admitted adultery with Flowers or any of the several other women who claimed they were his mistresses, even after a test found his DNA on Monica Lewinsky’s dress. Using careful legal language, he only admitted vaguely to “an inappropriate relationship” with Lewinsky. To this day, his most ardent supporters deny that he ever committed adultery with her.
Similarly, when asked as a presidential candidate whether he were a Muslim or a Christian, Obama declared that he “prays to Jesus every night.” His statement allowed Christians to read into it that he was a Christian while Muslims could read into it that he was not denying he was a Muslim because of the absence of anything in his statement that specifically rejected Islam. Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet. Although some Christians falsely equate prayer with worship, prayer means “asking;” most Christians believe that God permits the living to ask the holy souls in Heaven for their intercession, as the Bible says that He is more receptive to the prayers of the righteous, and that with God, all things are possible. Therefore, Obama’s admission that he prays to Jesus does not necessarily mean his acceptance of Jesus as Divine, which is the most basic definition of a Christian. It is unclear what Obama’s religious views exactly are, as he has repudiated the church responsible for his supposed conversion to Christianity – an anti-American Black Nationalist church that honored the leader of the largest Black Muslim organization in the United States. He then made a Clintonian declaration that he now disagreed with its pastor's radical statements, without ever stating with what he specifically disagreed.
I would prefer to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, but his habit of adopting Clinton’s style of deception makes it clear that he has failed to answer the important question about his religion adequately. I suspect that he is a Christian, but that he does not want to publicly reject Islam, either because he once made the shahada (the witness of the basic Muslim tenet), and thus would be regarded by Muslims as an apostate for rejecting Islam, or, as part of his foreign policy, because he wants to fool Muslims into believing that he shares their faith.
We conservatives must be careful to examine Obama’s words carefully without either cynically assuming he is lying or naively assuming he is telling the truth. We ought to ask Obama better questions in order to draw out the truth.
Liberal Democratic supporters of the Obama Administration have falsely used the “everybody does it” defense – which is not a defense, but an admission – in order to excuse the scandal, just as they did when Clinton was accused of perjury and obstruction of justice for lying under oath in a federal sexual harassment lawsuit. As I explained in my previous post, this cynical defense of the Obama Administration is false. Even the scandal-prone Clinton Administration, for example, was never accused of offering offices in exchange for political favors, just as the allegation liberal Democrats’ made in defense of Clinton about all the Presidents or Founding Fathers committing such crimes or even that they had committed adultery is either false or – at worst – in a few cases, unprovable. In both cases, the liberal Democrats’ cynically impugned others, including many innocent people, in order to make the President they supported seem less bad by comparison.
Indeed, this scandal reveals a tactic of the corrupt Clinton Administration the Obama Administration itself and its supporters have copied: repeatedly denying an allegation for months in order to cover it up and then, once the Administration is forced to admit the allegations are true, declaring that there is nothing new to the charges, dismissing them as old news, and then accusing its critics of focusing on the past for political advantage and instead of on the “real issues” the Administration claims it is addressing.
These examples are part of a broader pattern of Clintonian tactics Obama has adopted. Obama makes Clintonian-style misleading statements that allow people to read falsely into them what they want without lying, which, like the defense offered of his Administration by its liberal Democratic supporters, depends upon a cynical view of the ignorance of the people, as well as an arrogant confidence in his ability to fool them.
As a presidential candidate, Clinton made statements that allowed people to read into them whatever they wanted. For example, he stated that he was against the “brain dead politics” of Congress. Because Democrats were in the majority in Congress at the time, Republicans thought that he was sounding moderate by criticizing his own party, while Democrats thought that he was sounding liberal by referring to the significant Republican minority they blamed for blocking them from taxing and spending more. The massive tax and spend policies Clinton pursued once in office (despite his labeling of his plan that he correctly predicted would increase the deficit as a “deficit reduction plan”) proved that he had fooled the Republicans by leading them to draw a false conclusion.
Another example was when Clinton was asked by a reporter whether he had been unfaithful to his wife. He replied that he had “caused pain in” in his marriage. The media reported that he had thereby admitted to adultery, which made him seem forthright, contrite and humble. The apparent admission of infidelity appeared to definitively address the allegations of adultery made against him by Gennifer Flowers that were damaging his campaign. However, a closer examination of Clinton’s words reveals that he did not admit to adultery, only to having “caused pain,” which could have been for the most minor peccadillo that was not even in the category of a sin against marriage, or perhaps even was because of some idiosyncrasy his wife found unacceptable. Indeed, he has never admitted adultery with Flowers or any of the several other women who claimed they were his mistresses, even after a test found his DNA on Monica Lewinsky’s dress. Using careful legal language, he only admitted vaguely to “an inappropriate relationship” with Lewinsky. To this day, his most ardent supporters deny that he ever committed adultery with her.
Similarly, when asked as a presidential candidate whether he were a Muslim or a Christian, Obama declared that he “prays to Jesus every night.” His statement allowed Christians to read into it that he was a Christian while Muslims could read into it that he was not denying he was a Muslim because of the absence of anything in his statement that specifically rejected Islam. Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet. Although some Christians falsely equate prayer with worship, prayer means “asking;” most Christians believe that God permits the living to ask the holy souls in Heaven for their intercession, as the Bible says that He is more receptive to the prayers of the righteous, and that with God, all things are possible. Therefore, Obama’s admission that he prays to Jesus does not necessarily mean his acceptance of Jesus as Divine, which is the most basic definition of a Christian. It is unclear what Obama’s religious views exactly are, as he has repudiated the church responsible for his supposed conversion to Christianity – an anti-American Black Nationalist church that honored the leader of the largest Black Muslim organization in the United States. He then made a Clintonian declaration that he now disagreed with its pastor's radical statements, without ever stating with what he specifically disagreed.
I would prefer to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, but his habit of adopting Clinton’s style of deception makes it clear that he has failed to answer the important question about his religion adequately. I suspect that he is a Christian, but that he does not want to publicly reject Islam, either because he once made the shahada (the witness of the basic Muslim tenet), and thus would be regarded by Muslims as an apostate for rejecting Islam, or, as part of his foreign policy, because he wants to fool Muslims into believing that he shares their faith.
We conservatives must be careful to examine Obama’s words carefully without either cynically assuming he is lying or naively assuming he is telling the truth. We ought to ask Obama better questions in order to draw out the truth.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
The Liberal Democrats’ Cynical Defense of the Obama Administration
The Obama Administration has caused a scandal by offering federal offices to two individuals in exchange for withdrawing their candidacies for the Democratic Party nomination for United States Senate in order to clear the field for Democratic candidates favored by the Administration. The offer of Administration jobs to the Democratic Senatorial candidates in Pennsylvania and Colorado were in exchange for withdrawing from the Democratic primary were a possible violation of federal law.
Barak Obama, although not allegedly corrupt personally, was supported by the corrupt Democratic Chicago machine, and refused to support a reform candidate who ran against the machine. As President, he has surrounded himself with advisers from that machine, including the most important one, his chief of staff, who practiced the “Chicago Way.” Crooked politicians are often so inured to corrupt practices that they think that such practices are legally and morally acceptable.
The jobs-for-withdrawal scandal reveals that Obama Administration officials spent their time influencing state Democratic primary elections. It is one thing to influence public opinion in order to advance a political platform, even to the point of approving a particular candidate for public office, but another thing for public officials, who are paid by the taxpayers, to interfere with a primary election, where the motivation for the inference is not to support a candidate favoring a certain plank of the platform, but which candidate would make a better nominee for his political party. Offices are apparently awarded in the Obama Administration not to the most qualified candidate, or even as a reward to a qualified, trusted supporter, but in exchange for a political favor to advance the interests of the Democratic Party.
The liberal Democrats’ defense of the Obama Administration is to ask “So what?” or say, “That is politics” or to claim “everybody does it.” However, it is not true that everyone does it. I know from my own political experience that many people involved politics are honest citizens who idealistically want better government. Others are deterred from corrupt behavior by the law. Honest candidates for public office – even for state offices – are careful to avoid appearing to promise any jobs to supporters while volunteers are careful to avoid even asking for any. Honest people know it is illegal to promise jobs in exchange for support.
It is cynical to believe in stereotypes about politicians that suggest they are all or mostly all corrupt. It is unfair to the honest ones, scares away other honest people from getting involved in politics, and, moreover, represents cynicism about people in general, as politicians reflect the general population that elects them from its ranks. Yet the Obama Administration and its supporters rely upon these cynical stereotypes in order to defend itself, which only reinforces the stereotypes. Indeed, the liberal Democrats’ defense of the Obama Administration is to declare that the Administration is no worse than any other, which is an admission that, despite promises of “hope” and “change,” it is no better than the previous Administration they harshly criticized.
The Obama Administration’s liberal Democratic supporters claim that because the jobs offered to the Democratic candidates were non-paying, no violation of the law prohibiting the offer of a job in exchange for a favor occurred, despite the language in the law covering even such non-paying posts. However, the Administration itself apparently thought that the job it offered must have been of sufficient value, regardless of the level of compensation, in order to entice the candidate to withdraw his candidacy.
Furthermore, the Obama Administration engaged in a cover-up of the jobs-for-withdrawal scandal. It gave no answer for months to repeated questioning by reporters, declaring that it either did not have any information or would get back to the reporters with information. Then suddenly, the Administration got the White House Counsel, another taxpayer-funded official, to act as the criminal defense attorney for other Administration officials and declare that the now-admitted behavior was legal. There was no explanation given by the Administration as to what took it months to admit something it regarded as legal.
Interestingly, former President Bill Clinton was the Obama Administration’s conduit for making the corrupt job offer to the Pennsylvania Democratic Senatorial candidate. In my next post, I shall discuss how this Obama Administration scandal is part of a pattern of Clintonian tactics and how the same cynical defense of Clinton’s corruption is being used by liberal Democrats to excuse it in the Obama Administration.
Barak Obama, although not allegedly corrupt personally, was supported by the corrupt Democratic Chicago machine, and refused to support a reform candidate who ran against the machine. As President, he has surrounded himself with advisers from that machine, including the most important one, his chief of staff, who practiced the “Chicago Way.” Crooked politicians are often so inured to corrupt practices that they think that such practices are legally and morally acceptable.
The jobs-for-withdrawal scandal reveals that Obama Administration officials spent their time influencing state Democratic primary elections. It is one thing to influence public opinion in order to advance a political platform, even to the point of approving a particular candidate for public office, but another thing for public officials, who are paid by the taxpayers, to interfere with a primary election, where the motivation for the inference is not to support a candidate favoring a certain plank of the platform, but which candidate would make a better nominee for his political party. Offices are apparently awarded in the Obama Administration not to the most qualified candidate, or even as a reward to a qualified, trusted supporter, but in exchange for a political favor to advance the interests of the Democratic Party.
The liberal Democrats’ defense of the Obama Administration is to ask “So what?” or say, “That is politics” or to claim “everybody does it.” However, it is not true that everyone does it. I know from my own political experience that many people involved politics are honest citizens who idealistically want better government. Others are deterred from corrupt behavior by the law. Honest candidates for public office – even for state offices – are careful to avoid appearing to promise any jobs to supporters while volunteers are careful to avoid even asking for any. Honest people know it is illegal to promise jobs in exchange for support.
It is cynical to believe in stereotypes about politicians that suggest they are all or mostly all corrupt. It is unfair to the honest ones, scares away other honest people from getting involved in politics, and, moreover, represents cynicism about people in general, as politicians reflect the general population that elects them from its ranks. Yet the Obama Administration and its supporters rely upon these cynical stereotypes in order to defend itself, which only reinforces the stereotypes. Indeed, the liberal Democrats’ defense of the Obama Administration is to declare that the Administration is no worse than any other, which is an admission that, despite promises of “hope” and “change,” it is no better than the previous Administration they harshly criticized.
The Obama Administration’s liberal Democratic supporters claim that because the jobs offered to the Democratic candidates were non-paying, no violation of the law prohibiting the offer of a job in exchange for a favor occurred, despite the language in the law covering even such non-paying posts. However, the Administration itself apparently thought that the job it offered must have been of sufficient value, regardless of the level of compensation, in order to entice the candidate to withdraw his candidacy.
Furthermore, the Obama Administration engaged in a cover-up of the jobs-for-withdrawal scandal. It gave no answer for months to repeated questioning by reporters, declaring that it either did not have any information or would get back to the reporters with information. Then suddenly, the Administration got the White House Counsel, another taxpayer-funded official, to act as the criminal defense attorney for other Administration officials and declare that the now-admitted behavior was legal. There was no explanation given by the Administration as to what took it months to admit something it regarded as legal.
Interestingly, former President Bill Clinton was the Obama Administration’s conduit for making the corrupt job offer to the Pennsylvania Democratic Senatorial candidate. In my next post, I shall discuss how this Obama Administration scandal is part of a pattern of Clintonian tactics and how the same cynical defense of Clinton’s corruption is being used by liberal Democrats to excuse it in the Obama Administration.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Helen Thomas, Liberal Pioneer of Adversarial Reporting
Helen Thomas, senior correspondent for the Associated Press and the dean of the White House press corps, resigned after her recent remarks in which she repeated the myth that Jews have not lived continuously in the Holy Land in characteristically rude terms, declaring that Jews should “get . . . out of Palestine” and “go back” to Germany and Poland. Despite being killed, enslaved or scattered by the Romans after the last Jewish Revolt, there has remained a continuous presence of a number of Jews in the Holy Land for thousands of years, such as in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem. The Lebanese-American reporter’s statement was the latest in her history of anti-Israel comments.
The liberal media establishment disavowed Thomas for her bigoted comments, but still hailed her as a pioneer for reporters, especially for females. The near-nonagenarian’s career as a White House correspondent lasted through the Administrations of eleven presidents, beginning with President Dwight Eisenhower. For decades, protocol was for the president to call upon Thomas first as the most senior correspondent in terms of length of service, a custom President George W. Bush ended. To his credit, at times he even pointedly did not call upon the senior reporter for the largest wire service at all, despite her presence in the front row of the small press room in a privileged seat labeled with the AP brass plate (I know because I saw it on a private tour of the West Wing in 2001; in addition to standing at the podium, hers was the one seat I could not resist sitting in).
Despite being considered a reporter, Thomas was also an opinion journalist, a conflict that was a matter of some controversy within the media establishment. She expressed her liberal views in her column, but they also were reflected in her questions and statements at White House press conferences. Indeed, Thomas’ questions were not asked, especially of Republican presidents, in order to report information to her readers, but were asked in an adversarial manner in order to score rhetorical points, as if the Fourth Estate had been elected to debate the president like members of a parliament question their colleague serving as prime minister. Her questions of Democratic presidents were tough only when they strayed from liberalism.
Now the anti-Semitism behind Helen Thomas’ left-wing views has been revealed, but not as a mar on an otherwise good record, as the liberal media portrays it, but as a true reflection of her liberal anti-Israel, anti-American views.
The liberal media establishment disavowed Thomas for her bigoted comments, but still hailed her as a pioneer for reporters, especially for females. The near-nonagenarian’s career as a White House correspondent lasted through the Administrations of eleven presidents, beginning with President Dwight Eisenhower. For decades, protocol was for the president to call upon Thomas first as the most senior correspondent in terms of length of service, a custom President George W. Bush ended. To his credit, at times he even pointedly did not call upon the senior reporter for the largest wire service at all, despite her presence in the front row of the small press room in a privileged seat labeled with the AP brass plate (I know because I saw it on a private tour of the West Wing in 2001; in addition to standing at the podium, hers was the one seat I could not resist sitting in).
Despite being considered a reporter, Thomas was also an opinion journalist, a conflict that was a matter of some controversy within the media establishment. She expressed her liberal views in her column, but they also were reflected in her questions and statements at White House press conferences. Indeed, Thomas’ questions were not asked, especially of Republican presidents, in order to report information to her readers, but were asked in an adversarial manner in order to score rhetorical points, as if the Fourth Estate had been elected to debate the president like members of a parliament question their colleague serving as prime minister. Her questions of Democratic presidents were tough only when they strayed from liberalism.
Now the anti-Semitism behind Helen Thomas’ left-wing views has been revealed, but not as a mar on an otherwise good record, as the liberal media portrays it, but as a true reflection of her liberal anti-Israel, anti-American views.
The Obama Administration Is Unable to Define the Enemy
The Obama Administration has been unable to define the enemy in the War on Terrorism or even what to call the struggle to resist terrorism or attacks on the United States military by militants. Indeed, it is unable to accept that the U.S. is at war with its enemy or even that the enemy is at war with the U.S. Instead, the Administration refers to “overseas contingencies” instead of “war” and calls terrorist attacks “man-made disasters,” as if it were afraid to accuse anyone of terrorism or any form of militancy.
The Obama Administration’s attitude reflects its ideology and sets the tone for its actions. The Administration is still treating terrorism as a law enforcement matter instead of as a war. For example, it read Miranda warnings, including the right to remain silent, to the Christmas Day and Times Square Bombers shortly after arresting them, instead of allowing their interrogation to continue.
Moreover, the Administration’s statements suggest that it does not understand the religious motivation of Muslims engaged in militant jihad (Islamic holy war). A senior Obama Administration counterterrorism official, John Brennan, recently explained why the Administration avoids using certain terms. He stated that the term “War on Terror” is not apt because terror is a state of mind, but incorrectly stated that it is wrong to use the term “War on Terrorism” because terrorism is “a tactic.” Terrorism is a strategy, not a tactic. Hijacking airplanes and crashing them into buildings is an example of a tactic. Targeting innocent civilians instead of engaging a military in battle is a strategy. Regardless, it is possible to describe a conflict as a war against a particular misbehavior, such as piracy, as long as it is understood that a state cannot literally be at war with misbehavior, but with those perpetrating it.
The Obama Administration also eschews the use of the words “Islamic” or “Islamist” in describing the self-described jihadists who attack the U.S. military or innocent civilians because it maintains the view that these Islamic holy warriors are not true Muslims, but are incorrectly interpreting the Koran, the Islamic scripture. The Obama Administration is thus defining Islam as if the President is a caliph, the Muslim version of a pope. Although President Barak Obama was taught in a Muslim school as a youth in Indonesia, most liberals who lack all but the barest knowledge of Islam confidently hold the same view. Even some conservatives subscribe to this belief, referring to the terrorists as “hijacking” a religion of peace, for example. Many people refer to militant Muslims as “radicals,” which means that they believe that militant Muslims want to tear up Islam at its roots instead of to get back to its roots, as the jihadists insist they are trying to do. In fact, militant Muslims cite certain verses of the Koran in order to justify their violent actions carried out in the name of jihad as reflective of true Islam and some Islamic scholars agree with them, even to the point of accepting terrorism as a legitimate strategy and suicide attacks as a legitimate tactic. Therefore, regardless of whether their interpretation of Islamic scripture is the correct one, the point is that militant Muslims believe that they are acting out of religious conviction. To acknowledge that they are is not necessarily to accept that their interpretation is correct, but simply to acknowledge the religious source of their political ideology.
Brennan also explained why the Obama Administration avoids even the word “jihad,” besides its religious connotation. He noted that jihad can be “legitimate.” Jihad can be interpreted as spiritual warfare against the Devil, but it is not necessarily limited to spiritual struggle. The point is not whether it is legitimate, which is not for non-Muslims to judge, but whether or not it can be militant, as I noted it can be.
Apparently, there is no comprehensive definition from the Obama Administration either of the enemy or the resistance to it. Thus, the Administration fails to recognize the enemy’s ideology, which is religious in motivation, regardless of whether the enemy’s religious interpretation of its scripture is correct. It is difficult to identify – let alone to resist – an enemy that cannot even be defined.
I submit that “militant Muslims” is the best description of the enemy and, although the “War on Terrorism” is adequate, the “War Against Militant Islam” would be better, at least from the American perspective, and something like the “War of Militant Islam Against the World,” from a historical or global perspective, the optimum choice, as explained in my last post and in the posts referred to within it. Terms like “militant Islam” adequately identify the enemy and suggest the religious source of his ideology without making a judgment about whether or not the enemy truly represents Islam. They are also inclusive enough to include secular militant Muslims. As I have noted in my earlier posts, it is critical to understand that militant Islam of all kinds is encouraged by the religious belief that Allah favors Muslims in their military conquests and that once a territory is gained for Allah, it cannot be relinquished to non-believers. Therefore, it is necessary to defeat Muslims militarily, in addition to using other necessary methods, in order to prove that Allah is not blessing the efforts of jihadists engaged in terrorism or other forms of militancy against non-Muslims and that these militants are not the divinely-chosen leaders other Muslims ought to follow.
The Obama Administration’s attitude reflects its ideology and sets the tone for its actions. The Administration is still treating terrorism as a law enforcement matter instead of as a war. For example, it read Miranda warnings, including the right to remain silent, to the Christmas Day and Times Square Bombers shortly after arresting them, instead of allowing their interrogation to continue.
Moreover, the Administration’s statements suggest that it does not understand the religious motivation of Muslims engaged in militant jihad (Islamic holy war). A senior Obama Administration counterterrorism official, John Brennan, recently explained why the Administration avoids using certain terms. He stated that the term “War on Terror” is not apt because terror is a state of mind, but incorrectly stated that it is wrong to use the term “War on Terrorism” because terrorism is “a tactic.” Terrorism is a strategy, not a tactic. Hijacking airplanes and crashing them into buildings is an example of a tactic. Targeting innocent civilians instead of engaging a military in battle is a strategy. Regardless, it is possible to describe a conflict as a war against a particular misbehavior, such as piracy, as long as it is understood that a state cannot literally be at war with misbehavior, but with those perpetrating it.
The Obama Administration also eschews the use of the words “Islamic” or “Islamist” in describing the self-described jihadists who attack the U.S. military or innocent civilians because it maintains the view that these Islamic holy warriors are not true Muslims, but are incorrectly interpreting the Koran, the Islamic scripture. The Obama Administration is thus defining Islam as if the President is a caliph, the Muslim version of a pope. Although President Barak Obama was taught in a Muslim school as a youth in Indonesia, most liberals who lack all but the barest knowledge of Islam confidently hold the same view. Even some conservatives subscribe to this belief, referring to the terrorists as “hijacking” a religion of peace, for example. Many people refer to militant Muslims as “radicals,” which means that they believe that militant Muslims want to tear up Islam at its roots instead of to get back to its roots, as the jihadists insist they are trying to do. In fact, militant Muslims cite certain verses of the Koran in order to justify their violent actions carried out in the name of jihad as reflective of true Islam and some Islamic scholars agree with them, even to the point of accepting terrorism as a legitimate strategy and suicide attacks as a legitimate tactic. Therefore, regardless of whether their interpretation of Islamic scripture is the correct one, the point is that militant Muslims believe that they are acting out of religious conviction. To acknowledge that they are is not necessarily to accept that their interpretation is correct, but simply to acknowledge the religious source of their political ideology.
Brennan also explained why the Obama Administration avoids even the word “jihad,” besides its religious connotation. He noted that jihad can be “legitimate.” Jihad can be interpreted as spiritual warfare against the Devil, but it is not necessarily limited to spiritual struggle. The point is not whether it is legitimate, which is not for non-Muslims to judge, but whether or not it can be militant, as I noted it can be.
Apparently, there is no comprehensive definition from the Obama Administration either of the enemy or the resistance to it. Thus, the Administration fails to recognize the enemy’s ideology, which is religious in motivation, regardless of whether the enemy’s religious interpretation of its scripture is correct. It is difficult to identify – let alone to resist – an enemy that cannot even be defined.
I submit that “militant Muslims” is the best description of the enemy and, although the “War on Terrorism” is adequate, the “War Against Militant Islam” would be better, at least from the American perspective, and something like the “War of Militant Islam Against the World,” from a historical or global perspective, the optimum choice, as explained in my last post and in the posts referred to within it. Terms like “militant Islam” adequately identify the enemy and suggest the religious source of his ideology without making a judgment about whether or not the enemy truly represents Islam. They are also inclusive enough to include secular militant Muslims. As I have noted in my earlier posts, it is critical to understand that militant Islam of all kinds is encouraged by the religious belief that Allah favors Muslims in their military conquests and that once a territory is gained for Allah, it cannot be relinquished to non-believers. Therefore, it is necessary to defeat Muslims militarily, in addition to using other necessary methods, in order to prove that Allah is not blessing the efforts of jihadists engaged in terrorism or other forms of militancy against non-Muslims and that these militants are not the divinely-chosen leaders other Muslims ought to follow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)