Suzanne Fields
We weep for Gilad Shaar, Naftali Frenkel, Eyal
Yifrach, the three Jewish teenagers whose lives
were brutally cut short because they chose to
walk home from their religious school, hoping
to catch a ride like teenage boys safely do in
the civilized neighborhoods of the world. How
cruel to hear that in their boyish innocence
they were swept up by terrorists with evil in
their hearts.
There are suggestions in Israel that the
kidnappers became frightened when they
thought they were followed, and rather than
use the boys for ransom, they decided to kill
the only unfriendly witnesses, the kidnapped
boys.
We weep as well for Mohammed Abu Khdeir,
16, the innocent victim of a revenge murder.
We don't yet know exactly what happened, but
we do know that three Jewish suspects have
confessed and are in Israeli custody while the
killers of the three Jewish boys are still at
large.
The murders give rise again to "moral
equivalence," a discarded phrase that first
proclaimed that the ideological theories of East
and West in the Cold War were of equal
measure, that the totalitarianism of the Soviet
Union, with its Iron Curtain, was as well-
intentioned as the democracies of the West.
The notion has long been discredited in the
accounts of the Cold War, but in the Middle
East, where the ink still runs blood red,
defenders of the Hamas terrorists characterize
the murders of the four teenagers as reflecting
similar moral values.
Of course they don't. The murders are rooted
in the evil that men do in any place, any time,
in any century, when barbarism rises to the
surface of the human imagination and
galvanizes murderous instincts. The reaction
to these brutal deeds, however, tells another
story.
When the Palestinians got word that three
Jewish boys had been kidnapped, unbridled
excitement swept through the West Bank. They
praised the kidnappers as heroes. Cheering
Palestinian crowds raised the three-finger
salute associated with the release of Gilad
Shalit, the captured Israeli soldier who was
exchanged in 2011 for more than 1,027 Arab
prisoners. The Arab prisoners together were
responsible for killing more than 500 Israelis.
Many Israelis thought that such Israeli
repatriation was foolish, giving incentives to
future kidnappers, but they knew it showed
the importance of a single life to the Jews.
They demonstrated no anger at the
government. Nobody rioted.
When news of the three kidnapped Jewish
boys was first revealed, Arab celebrants
mocked the value Jews place on a single life,
"which contrasts so sharply with the value
(Palestinians) place on taking Jewish life,"
Ruth Wisse, Harvard professor of Jewish
literature, writes in The Wall Street Journal. "It
is one of the ironies of Israel that Jewish
parents whose children are murdered by Arabs
are not guaranteed justice as surely as Arabs
whose children are murdered by Jews
Collective grief cannot always contain
destructive impulses, and it's a tragedy that
Jews mourning the three murdered teenagers
killed a Palestinian boy to take revenge.
Heinous as that crime is, action for justice has
been swift, just as Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu promised. Suspects are in custody,
and no one doubts that the guilty will stand
trial and, if found guilty, will go to a long
harsh life in prison. Neither the Palestinian
Authority nor Hamas has found the killers of
the three Jewish boys, nor is there evidence
that they have tried.
She doesn't know who killed her son, but the
mother of one of the murdered Israeli boys
raged on behalf of the family of the Arab boy,
and pleaded for compassion in the name of
her faith.
"It is difficult for me to describe how
distressed we are by the outrage committed in
Jerusalem -- the shedding of innocent blood in
defiance of all morality, of the Torah, of the
foundation of the lives of our boys and of all
of us in this country," said Rachel Fraenkel,
mother of Naftali Fraenkel, 16, who was
murdered and his body thrown in a ditch with
his two companions.
The silence of the Arab mothers expressing
outrage at the deaths of the Jewish boys is
deafening.
Jews in America often memorialize a death by
planting a tree in Israel in honor of a person
who died. If the rockets unleashed by Hamas
didn't prevent them, Jews in Israel today
would plant four trees, one each for Gilad
Shaar, Naftali Frenkel, Eyal Yifrach, -- and
Mohammed Abu Khdeir.
11 Jul 2014
THE BATTLE OF THE BORDER
Rich Galen
It is one thing for Republicans to point fingers
at President Barack Obama. It is something
else for a Democrat to point a finger at Barack
Obama.
Henry Cuellar is the Democratic Congressman
from west Texas. In fact his district, the 28th,
runs from San Antonio about 7,271 miles
south, southwest along the Mexican border.
When you talk about America's border
problems, you are talking Henry Cuellar's
problems.
You might have read that President Obama is
on another fund-raising trip. This time to
Colorado and to Texas.
It was suggested that the President, as long as
he was going to be in Texas and all, might
want to make a trip to the border to see what
all the hoo-hah is about.
This suggestion was made by Henry Cuellar.
After he saw photos of the President playing
pool and drinking beer with Colorado
Governor John Hickenlooper during the
Colorado segment of his trip.
Cuellar said on Fox News that the President
should zip on down to the border while he's in
Texas. The Dallas Morning News reported that
Cuellar said:
"He can get on Air Force One, be there in a
half an hour ? right after he finishes his
fundraising in Texas"
You don't need a PhD in political science to
understand why the White House doesn't want
the President physically anywhere near the
issue of unaccompanied children storming the
barricades.
They know that while the President's position
on immigration generally might be popular
with many Americans, but his apparent
paralysis in stemming the tide of tens of
thousands of children illegally entering the
United States is not helpful to his already
dismal job approval ratings.
The Obama Administration is as close to total
paralysis as any Presidency since Richard
Nixon's Watergate days.
The IRS, the Department of Veterans Affairs,
the Middle East? you name it and the President
is ignoring it.
The last time there was an issue like the Battle
of the Border, was the British Petroleum oil
spill.
The White House made a big deal of sending
the Secretary of Energy who, as it happened,
was a nuclear physicist not a chemist, a
oceanographer, nor a geologist.
It took James Carville - JAMES CARVILLE - to
light a fire under the White House to get the
President to go to Louisiana.
Carville said, on ABC News:
"Man, you got to get down here and take
control of this, put somebody in charge of
this thing and get this moving. We're about
to die down here."
According to the Los Angeles Times , Texas
Republican Senator Ted Cruz did his James
Carville imitation saying,
"Apparently there's no time [for Obama] to
look at the devastation that's being caused
by his policies."
Which is another example of one of my
favorite sayings: No matter how good your
cause, there is always someone who agrees
with you that you wish didn't
Remember the agony that George W. Bush
went through when he had Air Force One fly
over the damage done by Hurricane Katrina?
He never fully recovered from that decision.
Obama made that same mistake in 2010 with
the BP oil spill and he's making it again in 2014
with the Bebé Border Crisis.
There is a growing suspicion in our Nation's
Capital that President Obama is more-or-less
playing out the string. His administration has
until January 20, 2017 to go.
He is likely to spend the majority of that time
with a House and Senate in control of
Republicans. His attempt to reinvent American
foreign policy is a failure. And his signature
domestic accomplishment - the ACA - is
limping along costing far more to insure far
fewer people than promised.
Kudos to Henry Cuellar for calling BS on the
President's refusal to do a side trip to, at a
minimum, show the American people he at
least pretends to care about the Battle of the
Border.
It is one thing for Republicans to point fingers
at President Barack Obama. It is something
else for a Democrat to point a finger at Barack
Obama.
Henry Cuellar is the Democratic Congressman
from west Texas. In fact his district, the 28th,
runs from San Antonio about 7,271 miles
south, southwest along the Mexican border.
When you talk about America's border
problems, you are talking Henry Cuellar's
problems.
You might have read that President Obama is
on another fund-raising trip. This time to
Colorado and to Texas.
It was suggested that the President, as long as
he was going to be in Texas and all, might
want to make a trip to the border to see what
all the hoo-hah is about.
This suggestion was made by Henry Cuellar.
After he saw photos of the President playing
pool and drinking beer with Colorado
Governor John Hickenlooper during the
Colorado segment of his trip.
Cuellar said on Fox News that the President
should zip on down to the border while he's in
Texas. The Dallas Morning News reported that
Cuellar said:
"He can get on Air Force One, be there in a
half an hour ? right after he finishes his
fundraising in Texas"
You don't need a PhD in political science to
understand why the White House doesn't want
the President physically anywhere near the
issue of unaccompanied children storming the
barricades.
They know that while the President's position
on immigration generally might be popular
with many Americans, but his apparent
paralysis in stemming the tide of tens of
thousands of children illegally entering the
United States is not helpful to his already
dismal job approval ratings.
The Obama Administration is as close to total
paralysis as any Presidency since Richard
Nixon's Watergate days.
The IRS, the Department of Veterans Affairs,
the Middle East? you name it and the President
is ignoring it.
The last time there was an issue like the Battle
of the Border, was the British Petroleum oil
spill.
The White House made a big deal of sending
the Secretary of Energy who, as it happened,
was a nuclear physicist not a chemist, a
oceanographer, nor a geologist.
It took James Carville - JAMES CARVILLE - to
light a fire under the White House to get the
President to go to Louisiana.
Carville said, on ABC News:
"Man, you got to get down here and take
control of this, put somebody in charge of
this thing and get this moving. We're about
to die down here."
According to the Los Angeles Times , Texas
Republican Senator Ted Cruz did his James
Carville imitation saying,
"Apparently there's no time [for Obama] to
look at the devastation that's being caused
by his policies."
Which is another example of one of my
favorite sayings: No matter how good your
cause, there is always someone who agrees
with you that you wish didn't
Remember the agony that George W. Bush
went through when he had Air Force One fly
over the damage done by Hurricane Katrina?
He never fully recovered from that decision.
Obama made that same mistake in 2010 with
the BP oil spill and he's making it again in 2014
with the Bebé Border Crisis.
There is a growing suspicion in our Nation's
Capital that President Obama is more-or-less
playing out the string. His administration has
until January 20, 2017 to go.
He is likely to spend the majority of that time
with a House and Senate in control of
Republicans. His attempt to reinvent American
foreign policy is a failure. And his signature
domestic accomplishment - the ACA - is
limping along costing far more to insure far
fewer people than promised.
Kudos to Henry Cuellar for calling BS on the
President's refusal to do a side trip to, at a
minimum, show the American people he at
least pretends to care about the Battle of the
Border.
WAS GEORGE WASHINGTON A DOMESTIC TERRORIST?
John Nantz
“…the American revolution was violent and it
was illegal.” Bill Ayers, Co-Founder of Weather
Underground.
Radicals compare themselves to America’s
Founding Fathers. However, it’s hard to
envision George Washington cowering behind
a bush while pressing a detonator. In battle,
Washington rode on horseback, completely
exposed, leading his army of citizen soldiers
into leaden clouds of heavy musket balls fired
from sneering, massed English troops bent on
dealing death and mayhem. But, Washington
was no stranger to valor. Prior to the War for
Independence, Washington displayed the
heroism which was to become his hallmark
when, during the Battle of Monongahela , he
was so exposed to enemy fire that two horses
were shot from underneath him and his coat
was pierced by four musket balls. A petty
criminal like Bill Ayers is reduced to the
stature of a tapeworm in the shadow of
General Washington. It is breathtakingly ironic
that radicals compare themselves to the
founders of a society that they are desperate to
destroy.
Radicals like Ayers lurk in the shadows, hurl
bombs at innocents, and then flee the scene of
the crime. Conversely, America’s founders
stood before God and king and made their
cause known and their intended actions plain.
The American Revolution began with
America’s intellectual and social elite. It was
not a mob action, but an orderly defense of
human rights by men and women of dignity
and means. They were not a desperate mob of
lemmings but leaders in political theory,
thoughtful, temperate, highly educated, with
their lives and fortunes at risk. The American
Revolution was not a “bottom up” enterprise.
Though the continental army was composed of
citizen soldiers from every walk of life, the
founders were characterized by greatness and
produced the most noble and unique political
document in human history. In a world
characterized by violence and slavery, they
made the promise of equality before the law a
fait accompli.
Unlike our Founding Fathers, domestic
terrorists like Bill Ayers employ violence based
on illusory provocations and as a matter of
course. The Declaration of the Causes and
Necessity of Taking Up Arms states: "We, for
ten years, incessantly and ineffectually
besieged the Throne as supplicants; we
reasoned, we remonstrated with Parliament, in
the most mild and decent language."
Additionally, the violence perpetrated by the
Weather Underground was indiscriminate in
its application and, therefore; engineered to
impel political change through fear and
intimidation. Criminals like Ayers employ the
use of propaganda to lend a veneer of
legitimacy to their cause such as claims of
atrocities in Vietnam or American imperialist
intentions in that region. Any criminal
behavior by military personnel in Vietnam
were prosecuted by Military Court Martial.
What justice did Ayer's brand of indiscriminate
violence bring to anyone allegedly victimized
in Vietnam? Furthermore, the charge of
imperialism is absurd on its face, since
American forces were demonstrably in South
Vietnam to secure the same natural rights for
the Vietnamese people that we in America
enjoy. What has been the result of our
withdrawal, the stated aim of terrorists like
Ayers? Slavery to a totalitarian state and
poverty.
But, the American Revolution was based on
claims well known to be true at the time and
set forth with reason and logic. The
Declaration of Independence details the
complaints against the Crown and the rights
infringed upon:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed,—That whenever
any Form of Government becomes destructive
of these ends, it is the Right of the People to
alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government”
The founders made no spurious claims to
patently false claims. Men like General
Washington were impelled to force of arms by
the direct infringement of their own natural
right to life and liberty. The founders' appeal
was to the law of nature and to nature's God.
Resorting to arms was an act of personal and
national self-defense clearly based on natural
law principles elucidated by men like Samuel
Rutherford.
Rutherford and the Bible teach that the power
of government is devolved from God for a
specific purpose. Governments are legitimate
so long as they serve the Divine function of
rewarding the good and punishing evil. If a
government ceases to reward the moral good
as defined by Divine revelation then its grant
of power and authority ceases; it has perverted
its proper ministry and becomes itself evil. If a
government denies its people their natural
liberty they are morally obligated to avail
themselves of political means to alter that form
of government. If liberty is denied at the point
of the sword, then citizens become morally
obligated to take up arms in defense of their
inalienable rights.
Was George Washington a domestic terrorist?
The question should, at this point seem absurd.
Washington and the rest of the founders were
reacting to a threat to their liberty that was
immediate and deadly. They were
characterized by self-sacrifice and humility,
not the hubris of a creature like Bill Ayers who
agitated for and materially contributed to
bombings resulting in the deaths of innocents.
Radicals like Ayers are murderers whose
innocent victims are slain with malice-afore-
thought, with violence often an end in itself.
After all, Bernardine Dohrn , wife of Bill Ayers,
coldly commented about the Tate-LaBianca
murders,"First they killed those pigs, then
they ate dinner in the same room with them,
then they even shoved a fork into the pig
Tate's stomach! Wild! Dohrn, Ayers’ soul mate,
also stated, “The Weathermen dig Charlie
Manson.” The words of a patriot? Hardly. By
their fruits you shall know them. The radical
left has delivered murder, mayhem, poverty,
and human misery. Our founders created a
bastion of liberty and prosperity which is the
envy of the world.
“…the American revolution was violent and it
was illegal.” Bill Ayers, Co-Founder of Weather
Underground.
Radicals compare themselves to America’s
Founding Fathers. However, it’s hard to
envision George Washington cowering behind
a bush while pressing a detonator. In battle,
Washington rode on horseback, completely
exposed, leading his army of citizen soldiers
into leaden clouds of heavy musket balls fired
from sneering, massed English troops bent on
dealing death and mayhem. But, Washington
was no stranger to valor. Prior to the War for
Independence, Washington displayed the
heroism which was to become his hallmark
when, during the Battle of Monongahela , he
was so exposed to enemy fire that two horses
were shot from underneath him and his coat
was pierced by four musket balls. A petty
criminal like Bill Ayers is reduced to the
stature of a tapeworm in the shadow of
General Washington. It is breathtakingly ironic
that radicals compare themselves to the
founders of a society that they are desperate to
destroy.
Radicals like Ayers lurk in the shadows, hurl
bombs at innocents, and then flee the scene of
the crime. Conversely, America’s founders
stood before God and king and made their
cause known and their intended actions plain.
The American Revolution began with
America’s intellectual and social elite. It was
not a mob action, but an orderly defense of
human rights by men and women of dignity
and means. They were not a desperate mob of
lemmings but leaders in political theory,
thoughtful, temperate, highly educated, with
their lives and fortunes at risk. The American
Revolution was not a “bottom up” enterprise.
Though the continental army was composed of
citizen soldiers from every walk of life, the
founders were characterized by greatness and
produced the most noble and unique political
document in human history. In a world
characterized by violence and slavery, they
made the promise of equality before the law a
fait accompli.
Unlike our Founding Fathers, domestic
terrorists like Bill Ayers employ violence based
on illusory provocations and as a matter of
course. The Declaration of the Causes and
Necessity of Taking Up Arms states: "We, for
ten years, incessantly and ineffectually
besieged the Throne as supplicants; we
reasoned, we remonstrated with Parliament, in
the most mild and decent language."
Additionally, the violence perpetrated by the
Weather Underground was indiscriminate in
its application and, therefore; engineered to
impel political change through fear and
intimidation. Criminals like Ayers employ the
use of propaganda to lend a veneer of
legitimacy to their cause such as claims of
atrocities in Vietnam or American imperialist
intentions in that region. Any criminal
behavior by military personnel in Vietnam
were prosecuted by Military Court Martial.
What justice did Ayer's brand of indiscriminate
violence bring to anyone allegedly victimized
in Vietnam? Furthermore, the charge of
imperialism is absurd on its face, since
American forces were demonstrably in South
Vietnam to secure the same natural rights for
the Vietnamese people that we in America
enjoy. What has been the result of our
withdrawal, the stated aim of terrorists like
Ayers? Slavery to a totalitarian state and
poverty.
But, the American Revolution was based on
claims well known to be true at the time and
set forth with reason and logic. The
Declaration of Independence details the
complaints against the Crown and the rights
infringed upon:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed,—That whenever
any Form of Government becomes destructive
of these ends, it is the Right of the People to
alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government”
The founders made no spurious claims to
patently false claims. Men like General
Washington were impelled to force of arms by
the direct infringement of their own natural
right to life and liberty. The founders' appeal
was to the law of nature and to nature's God.
Resorting to arms was an act of personal and
national self-defense clearly based on natural
law principles elucidated by men like Samuel
Rutherford.
Rutherford and the Bible teach that the power
of government is devolved from God for a
specific purpose. Governments are legitimate
so long as they serve the Divine function of
rewarding the good and punishing evil. If a
government ceases to reward the moral good
as defined by Divine revelation then its grant
of power and authority ceases; it has perverted
its proper ministry and becomes itself evil. If a
government denies its people their natural
liberty they are morally obligated to avail
themselves of political means to alter that form
of government. If liberty is denied at the point
of the sword, then citizens become morally
obligated to take up arms in defense of their
inalienable rights.
Was George Washington a domestic terrorist?
The question should, at this point seem absurd.
Washington and the rest of the founders were
reacting to a threat to their liberty that was
immediate and deadly. They were
characterized by self-sacrifice and humility,
not the hubris of a creature like Bill Ayers who
agitated for and materially contributed to
bombings resulting in the deaths of innocents.
Radicals like Ayers are murderers whose
innocent victims are slain with malice-afore-
thought, with violence often an end in itself.
After all, Bernardine Dohrn , wife of Bill Ayers,
coldly commented about the Tate-LaBianca
murders,"First they killed those pigs, then
they ate dinner in the same room with them,
then they even shoved a fork into the pig
Tate's stomach! Wild! Dohrn, Ayers’ soul mate,
also stated, “The Weathermen dig Charlie
Manson.” The words of a patriot? Hardly. By
their fruits you shall know them. The radical
left has delivered murder, mayhem, poverty,
and human misery. Our founders created a
bastion of liberty and prosperity which is the
envy of the world.
HOW TO FIGHT SEXUAL ASSAULT
Mona Charen
Two University of Miami football players have
been arrested and dismissed from the
university after being criminally charged with
sexual battery on a 17-year-old girl. According
to ESPN , the two admitted to buying drinks for
the girl and then bringing her back to a dorm
room where they engaged in nonconsensual
sex acts with her.
Six Vanderbilt students have filed a suit
claiming that their allegations of sexual assault
were not taken seriously. Students at Amherst,
Dartmouth, Swarthmore, Yale and dozens of
other colleges have filed similar complaints.
Some of the statistics circulating about campus
sexual assaults -- such as the much-touted 20
percent figure -- are clearly exaggerated and
are based on an overly broad interpretation of
the word rape. As Cathy Young of Minding the
Campus explained, "Three quarters of the
female students who were classified as victims
of sexual assault by incapacitation did not
believe they had been raped."
It's always wise to take statistics, particularly
those offered by advocacy groups, with a large
grain of salt, but that doesn't mean the
problem is illusory.
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, has just
released the results of a study she
commissioned about how universities are
handling sexual assault allegations. Among her
more headline-grabbing findings was that 22
percent of a national sample of universities
permit their athletic departments to oversee
cases involving alleged misconduct by athletes.
One in five provide no sexual assault response
training to faculty and staff.
The feminist interpretation of these facts is
well-known: This is part of the "rape culture"
that devalues women. The American
Association of University Women seems to
endorse this interpretation and offers "10 Ways
to Fight Against Sexual Assault on Campus." It
begins by suggesting contacting "campus
resources like counseling centers, advocacy
offices, or the police," but among the other
suggestions are "Write an op-ed"; "Use social
media ... to spread awareness"; "Start a
conversation on victim blaming"; and "Get
involved in national campaigns ... like the
Clothesline Project."
I'm all for writing op-eds, but not as a
response to a violent crime. Doubtless I will be
accused of "victim blaming," but it must be
said that the reason the AAUW, university
administrators, the Department of Education
and most importantly, young men and women
themselves are so confused about how to
handle the wave of campus rape (and
unwanted sex) is that they've created a social
environment -- the boozing hookup culture --
that invites bad behavior. Women are right the
culture is harder on them than it is on men.
They're wrong if they blame the "patriarchy."
This is the spawn of the sexual revolution, not
traditional morality.
Rape is rape, the advocates chant. Well, not
quite.
If a man sneaked into a college woman's dorm
room and raped her, she would have no
hesitation in calling the police, right? But if
she and a guy she had a crush on stumble
drunkenly into her dorm room, and she
decides following their first act of sexual
intercourse that she doesn't want to have sex
again, and he presses himself upon her, she
may be angry and feel violated, but she doesn't
want him to spend 20 years in jail, either. He
did commit a crime, and yet, her hesitation in
reporting him would be perfectly
understandable.
The sexual free-for-all culture denies that
women are more vulnerable to sexual
exploitation than men. Both sexes are
presumed to want "safe," relatively
anonymous sex on a moment's notice with no
strings attached. Yet the overwhelming
majority of those who lodge sexual assault
complaints are women. Most men are not
sexual predators, cads or rapists, but there's
little doubt that the binge drinking, casual sex
climate is tailor-made for those who are.
Women's' alcohol consumption has
dramatically increased in recent years.
"Between 1999 and 2008," reports The Wall
Street Journal, "the number of young women
who showed up in emergency rooms for being
dangerously intoxicated rose by 52 percent.
The rate for young men, though higher, rose
just 9 percent." More women are arrested for
drunk driving, and more report that they binge
drink than in the past. Again, irresponsible
men couldn't be happier with this turn of
events.
Women are being victimized on campuses and
off. But writing op-eds is not where their
power lies. They can protect themselves better
by staying sober and out of the hookup world.
Women are more delicate and vulnerable than
men. Smart women don't attempt to live this
down; they oblige men to respect it.
Two University of Miami football players have
been arrested and dismissed from the
university after being criminally charged with
sexual battery on a 17-year-old girl. According
to ESPN , the two admitted to buying drinks for
the girl and then bringing her back to a dorm
room where they engaged in nonconsensual
sex acts with her.
Six Vanderbilt students have filed a suit
claiming that their allegations of sexual assault
were not taken seriously. Students at Amherst,
Dartmouth, Swarthmore, Yale and dozens of
other colleges have filed similar complaints.
Some of the statistics circulating about campus
sexual assaults -- such as the much-touted 20
percent figure -- are clearly exaggerated and
are based on an overly broad interpretation of
the word rape. As Cathy Young of Minding the
Campus explained, "Three quarters of the
female students who were classified as victims
of sexual assault by incapacitation did not
believe they had been raped."
It's always wise to take statistics, particularly
those offered by advocacy groups, with a large
grain of salt, but that doesn't mean the
problem is illusory.
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, has just
released the results of a study she
commissioned about how universities are
handling sexual assault allegations. Among her
more headline-grabbing findings was that 22
percent of a national sample of universities
permit their athletic departments to oversee
cases involving alleged misconduct by athletes.
One in five provide no sexual assault response
training to faculty and staff.
The feminist interpretation of these facts is
well-known: This is part of the "rape culture"
that devalues women. The American
Association of University Women seems to
endorse this interpretation and offers "10 Ways
to Fight Against Sexual Assault on Campus." It
begins by suggesting contacting "campus
resources like counseling centers, advocacy
offices, or the police," but among the other
suggestions are "Write an op-ed"; "Use social
media ... to spread awareness"; "Start a
conversation on victim blaming"; and "Get
involved in national campaigns ... like the
Clothesline Project."
I'm all for writing op-eds, but not as a
response to a violent crime. Doubtless I will be
accused of "victim blaming," but it must be
said that the reason the AAUW, university
administrators, the Department of Education
and most importantly, young men and women
themselves are so confused about how to
handle the wave of campus rape (and
unwanted sex) is that they've created a social
environment -- the boozing hookup culture --
that invites bad behavior. Women are right the
culture is harder on them than it is on men.
They're wrong if they blame the "patriarchy."
This is the spawn of the sexual revolution, not
traditional morality.
Rape is rape, the advocates chant. Well, not
quite.
If a man sneaked into a college woman's dorm
room and raped her, she would have no
hesitation in calling the police, right? But if
she and a guy she had a crush on stumble
drunkenly into her dorm room, and she
decides following their first act of sexual
intercourse that she doesn't want to have sex
again, and he presses himself upon her, she
may be angry and feel violated, but she doesn't
want him to spend 20 years in jail, either. He
did commit a crime, and yet, her hesitation in
reporting him would be perfectly
understandable.
The sexual free-for-all culture denies that
women are more vulnerable to sexual
exploitation than men. Both sexes are
presumed to want "safe," relatively
anonymous sex on a moment's notice with no
strings attached. Yet the overwhelming
majority of those who lodge sexual assault
complaints are women. Most men are not
sexual predators, cads or rapists, but there's
little doubt that the binge drinking, casual sex
climate is tailor-made for those who are.
Women's' alcohol consumption has
dramatically increased in recent years.
"Between 1999 and 2008," reports The Wall
Street Journal, "the number of young women
who showed up in emergency rooms for being
dangerously intoxicated rose by 52 percent.
The rate for young men, though higher, rose
just 9 percent." More women are arrested for
drunk driving, and more report that they binge
drink than in the past. Again, irresponsible
men couldn't be happier with this turn of
events.
Women are being victimized on campuses and
off. But writing op-eds is not where their
power lies. They can protect themselves better
by staying sober and out of the hookup world.
Women are more delicate and vulnerable than
men. Smart women don't attempt to live this
down; they oblige men to respect it.
INDIA - CHINA 1962 WAR: AN OPEN SECRET
Wasbir Hussain
Fifty two years after India suffered an ignominious
defeat at the hands of the Chinese along the
Himalayan heights in the present Arunachal
Pradesh sector, one is amazed at the attempts by
successive Governments in New Delhi to keep the
war report authored by Lieutenant-General
Henderson Brooks and Brigadier PS Bhagat a state
secret. And this, after large parts of the so-called
classified document, locked up in the vaults of the
Defence Ministry and Army Headquarters, has been
made public by Australian journalist Neville
Maxwell in his blog in recent months and earlier in
his well known book India’s China War.
India’s new Defence Minister Arun Jaitley, who less
than four months ago authored an article making a
forceful plea for making the Henderson Brooks
report public to prevent “public opinion (from
being) influenced by unauthentic sources,” made a
U-turn to say the report cannot be declassified
because it would go against the “national interest.”
Now, this supposedly elusive report talks about the
biggest faux pas made by Nehru’s Congress
government and the military establishment of the
time. Militarily flawed plans, faulty assessment by
the Intelligence Bureau, a disruption in the chain of
command between Delhi and forward Army
formations coupled with a strange belief that there
would be no armed response from Beijing to
Nehru’s ‘Forward Policy’ forced India to face a war
it was not prepared for.
What is there in the report that New Delhi is so
wary about? Apparently, it was Nehru’s ‘Forward
Policy’ and orders to establish posts far into the
disputed border that acted as a catalyst for the war
although the conflict was described in India as
Chinese aggression across the Himalayas. This
unresolved question, as to the trigger for the war, is
largely believed to be at the root of the protracted
hostility and trust deficit among the two Asian
giants, and could well be the major source of the
conflict over border incursions and the developing
distrust over sharing the waters of the Yarlung
Tsangpo or the Brahmaputra.
Take a look at how the Chinese made their foray
into India, starting on 20 October 1962. The
People’s Liberation Army (PLA) came in on two
separate flanks – in the west in Ladakh, and in the
east across the McMahon Line in the then North-
East Frontier Agency (Arunachal Pradesh). China
had successfully occupied Aksai Chin - a strategic
corridor linking Tibet to western China - the NEFA
area, and had almost reached the plains of Assam.
In the war in these treacherous terrains, 722 PLA
soldiers were killed and around 1,400 wounded,
while the Indian death toll stood at 1,383, and
1,047 were wounded. Besides, 1,696 Indians went
missing and over 400 taken as prisoners of war.
Although Beijing caught most by surprise by calling
a unilateral ceasefire and retreating from India's
Northeast while retaining Aksai Chin, the defeat at
the hands of the Chinese is something Indians will
find hard to accept. In fact, this episode is seen as
a key reason affecting bilateral relations between
the two neighbours.
Surprisingly, India’s Defence Ministry seems to
think the report should remain a top secret “given
the extremely sensitive nature of the contents
which are of current operational value.” Well, the
argument of a 52-year-old report that is still
supposed to have”current operational value” is
unacceptable. Now, New Delhi is readying itself to
deploy the brand new Mountain Strike Force in the
Himalayan heights by 2017, a fighting-fit Army
facing the Chinese. Is New Delhi planning to model
this force on the 1962 formations or model its
strategy on the one used in 1962? If not, how is it
that the 1962 war report could have observations
of “current operational value”? These are silly
arguments, to say the least.
The Chinese on their part have made available a
considerable collection of documents related to the
war with India to the Cold War International History
Project of the Woodrow Wilson Center in the US.
For India, this means that researchers, journalists
and foreign policy watchers will be able to see the
war better from a Chinese viewpoint rather than
the Indian point of view.
Year 2014 is not 1962, and, therefore, India must
gather the courage to declassify the report, put it
out in the public domain, let people analyse for
themselves the causes of the defeat. After all, if
there are lessons to be learnt from the 1962 defeat,
it is in India’s interest to let countrymen chip in
with their thoughts. As Arun Jaitley wrote as
recently as on 19 March 2014 on the BJP Website:
“...to keep these documents ‘top secret’ indefinitely
may not be in larger public interest. Any Nation is
entitled to learn from the mistakes of the past. The
security relevance of a document loses its
relevance in the long term future. Any society is
entitled to learn from the past mistakes and take
remedial action. With the wisdom of hind sight, I
am of the opinion that the report’s contents could
have been made public some decades ago.” Jaitley
obviously had no idea then that he was going to be
sitting in the hot seat of India’s Defence Minister!
Fifty two years after India suffered an ignominious
defeat at the hands of the Chinese along the
Himalayan heights in the present Arunachal
Pradesh sector, one is amazed at the attempts by
successive Governments in New Delhi to keep the
war report authored by Lieutenant-General
Henderson Brooks and Brigadier PS Bhagat a state
secret. And this, after large parts of the so-called
classified document, locked up in the vaults of the
Defence Ministry and Army Headquarters, has been
made public by Australian journalist Neville
Maxwell in his blog in recent months and earlier in
his well known book India’s China War.
India’s new Defence Minister Arun Jaitley, who less
than four months ago authored an article making a
forceful plea for making the Henderson Brooks
report public to prevent “public opinion (from
being) influenced by unauthentic sources,” made a
U-turn to say the report cannot be declassified
because it would go against the “national interest.”
Now, this supposedly elusive report talks about the
biggest faux pas made by Nehru’s Congress
government and the military establishment of the
time. Militarily flawed plans, faulty assessment by
the Intelligence Bureau, a disruption in the chain of
command between Delhi and forward Army
formations coupled with a strange belief that there
would be no armed response from Beijing to
Nehru’s ‘Forward Policy’ forced India to face a war
it was not prepared for.
What is there in the report that New Delhi is so
wary about? Apparently, it was Nehru’s ‘Forward
Policy’ and orders to establish posts far into the
disputed border that acted as a catalyst for the war
although the conflict was described in India as
Chinese aggression across the Himalayas. This
unresolved question, as to the trigger for the war, is
largely believed to be at the root of the protracted
hostility and trust deficit among the two Asian
giants, and could well be the major source of the
conflict over border incursions and the developing
distrust over sharing the waters of the Yarlung
Tsangpo or the Brahmaputra.
Take a look at how the Chinese made their foray
into India, starting on 20 October 1962. The
People’s Liberation Army (PLA) came in on two
separate flanks – in the west in Ladakh, and in the
east across the McMahon Line in the then North-
East Frontier Agency (Arunachal Pradesh). China
had successfully occupied Aksai Chin - a strategic
corridor linking Tibet to western China - the NEFA
area, and had almost reached the plains of Assam.
In the war in these treacherous terrains, 722 PLA
soldiers were killed and around 1,400 wounded,
while the Indian death toll stood at 1,383, and
1,047 were wounded. Besides, 1,696 Indians went
missing and over 400 taken as prisoners of war.
Although Beijing caught most by surprise by calling
a unilateral ceasefire and retreating from India's
Northeast while retaining Aksai Chin, the defeat at
the hands of the Chinese is something Indians will
find hard to accept. In fact, this episode is seen as
a key reason affecting bilateral relations between
the two neighbours.
Surprisingly, India’s Defence Ministry seems to
think the report should remain a top secret “given
the extremely sensitive nature of the contents
which are of current operational value.” Well, the
argument of a 52-year-old report that is still
supposed to have”current operational value” is
unacceptable. Now, New Delhi is readying itself to
deploy the brand new Mountain Strike Force in the
Himalayan heights by 2017, a fighting-fit Army
facing the Chinese. Is New Delhi planning to model
this force on the 1962 formations or model its
strategy on the one used in 1962? If not, how is it
that the 1962 war report could have observations
of “current operational value”? These are silly
arguments, to say the least.
The Chinese on their part have made available a
considerable collection of documents related to the
war with India to the Cold War International History
Project of the Woodrow Wilson Center in the US.
For India, this means that researchers, journalists
and foreign policy watchers will be able to see the
war better from a Chinese viewpoint rather than
the Indian point of view.
Year 2014 is not 1962, and, therefore, India must
gather the courage to declassify the report, put it
out in the public domain, let people analyse for
themselves the causes of the defeat. After all, if
there are lessons to be learnt from the 1962 defeat,
it is in India’s interest to let countrymen chip in
with their thoughts. As Arun Jaitley wrote as
recently as on 19 March 2014 on the BJP Website:
“...to keep these documents ‘top secret’ indefinitely
may not be in larger public interest. Any Nation is
entitled to learn from the mistakes of the past. The
security relevance of a document loses its
relevance in the long term future. Any society is
entitled to learn from the past mistakes and take
remedial action. With the wisdom of hind sight, I
am of the opinion that the report’s contents could
have been made public some decades ago.” Jaitley
obviously had no idea then that he was going to be
sitting in the hot seat of India’s Defence Minister!
IGNORING POLITICAL REALITIES OF KASHMIR
Shujaat Bukhari
Prime Minister Narendra Modi began his day-long
visit to Jammu and Kashmir on July 4 by referring
to the auspiciousness of the holy month of
Ramzan and Amarnath Yatra saying that there
could not have been a better atmosphere for his
maiden visit to the state.
But little did he realize that due to his visit people
of Kashmir in general and Srinagar in particular
were not allowed to offer Friday prayers at the
historic Jamia Masjid. Most part of the city was
under curfew and no one including Mirwaiz Umar
Farooq, the head priest, was allowed to enter the
Mosque on the first Friday of the month of
Ramadan.
The strike call given by the separatists is routinely
used to register their protest against a prime
minister’s visit. This time too it was on expected
lines. And surely Modi must have known about
how the police had barricaded the people in the
name of security. This cannot really be reconciled
with the rhetoric describing the month of fasting as
auspicious.
It is a fact that it was Modi’s first visit to the state
as Prime Minister. Much was not expected from
him. He has to be given time to understand
Kashmir and the complexities that entail it
politically. Many analysts would suggest that his
visit was premature in this sense, but he needed to
inaugurate the rail link to Katra and commission
the second phase of the Uri power projects both of
which were overdue. The previous UPA government
started and completed these mega projects but did
not inaugurate them and take credit.
While Modi continued to invoke former PM A B
Vajpayee’s line on Kashmir issue, he ignored it at
the same time. His government has shown
enthusiasm in the return and rehabilitation of the
Kashmiri Pandits, and took up the matter within a
month of coming into power. So far this seems to
be the only priority for BJP government vis-a-vis
Kashmir. Earlier ‘The Hindu’ reported that Omar
Abdullah government had submitted Rs 5,800-
crore project under Prime Minister’s
Reconstruction Programme aimed at incentivising
return of Kashmiri Pandits to the Valley. This also
included the suggestion of repurchasing the
properties that the KPs sold after their migration in
early 90s.
While another plan of settling them in three
separate zones within the Valley evoked strong
reaction from various quarters in Valley, Omar
Abdullah gave it a new twist. In an interview to
Suhasini Haider on Saturday last, he said: “We are
encouraging Kashmiri Pandits to return. We are
saying you are welcome to consider group housing.
4-5-6 of you get together and get a plot of land.
Why should we have a problem with a group
housing project that blends in with the community
in the place you choose to live in? I see no problem
with that”. Return of KP’s to their home and
hearth is also close to the hearts of majority
community but the way it is hurried up as a “war
package” will have adverse impact and cannot help
in real reintegration of the community in Valley.
The BJP has not begun on a positive note in
Kashmir. On Monday its Rajya Sabha member
Tarun Vijay demanded that two flag system in the
state should be abolished thus furthering the
apprehensions that there was surely something
“sinister” in its bag for Kashmir. Earlier on the first
day in office, Minister of State in Prime Minister’s
Office Dr Jitendar Singh touched the raw nerve
called Article 370, saying that the discussion with
stake holders had begun to abolish it. It created a
storm in political circles with opposition from most
of the political parties, but the fact that was
ignored was that BJP did make it a public issue
while being in power, irrespective of the
clarification issued by Dr Singh later.
The party has bagged two Lok Sabha seats in the
Jammu region, but now that it is in power it needs
to expand its area of attention and focus to include
Kashmir Valley as well. It is presently being
perceived as a Jammu-centric government as it
only addresses the “concerns” which are
essentially seen as anti- Kashmir.
Whatever the agenda BJP has, it cannot, rather
should not ignore the ground realities in Kashmir.
The PM could have struck a chord by speaking of
the issues concerning the people, and his silence
has been noticed and commented upon by the
people in Kashmir. The PM’s visit to the
headquarters of the Srinagar based 15 Corps was
also symbolic. It appeared to underscore the
popular Delhi view that Kashmir can be managed
by the Army. Except for Vajpayee, former Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh and now Modi have still
to express their views about the political measures
that need to be taken to restore peace and
equilibrium in the state.
It is naive to believe that while traveling from the
Srinagar airport to Badamibagh and then to Uri,
the Prime Minister would have not seen the
deserted streets below him. He still has to spell out
his choice for ‘managing’ Kashmir, whether it will
be through dialogue or through the Army.
PM Modi has not yet publicly outlined his Kashmir
policy except that he talked about winning the
hearts of people through development.
Development surely is an ingredient to undo the
sense of despair that has been witnessed in past
two decades but it has to be supplemented and
complimented with the political initiatives. Two
tracks of dialogue process between New Delhi and
Islamabad and between New Delhi and Srinagar
are must for addressing the issue through real
pragmatic means. The processes from 2003 to
2008 had shown spectacular change in the
atmosphere and the credit goes to Vajpayee and
then Manmohan Singh.
If at all Modi believes in following Vajpayee he
must start picking the threads from that derailed
process. Development will go on but the sense of
security, confidence and political achievement for
the people can only come through the institution of
dialogue process that is untagged of
conditionalities on all sides. Putting more military
might into action is not the answer to today’s
Kashmir. It needs humane approach that is
embedded with strong political will to see that
there is a dignified and practicable solution to the
problem.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi began his day-long
visit to Jammu and Kashmir on July 4 by referring
to the auspiciousness of the holy month of
Ramzan and Amarnath Yatra saying that there
could not have been a better atmosphere for his
maiden visit to the state.
But little did he realize that due to his visit people
of Kashmir in general and Srinagar in particular
were not allowed to offer Friday prayers at the
historic Jamia Masjid. Most part of the city was
under curfew and no one including Mirwaiz Umar
Farooq, the head priest, was allowed to enter the
Mosque on the first Friday of the month of
Ramadan.
The strike call given by the separatists is routinely
used to register their protest against a prime
minister’s visit. This time too it was on expected
lines. And surely Modi must have known about
how the police had barricaded the people in the
name of security. This cannot really be reconciled
with the rhetoric describing the month of fasting as
auspicious.
It is a fact that it was Modi’s first visit to the state
as Prime Minister. Much was not expected from
him. He has to be given time to understand
Kashmir and the complexities that entail it
politically. Many analysts would suggest that his
visit was premature in this sense, but he needed to
inaugurate the rail link to Katra and commission
the second phase of the Uri power projects both of
which were overdue. The previous UPA government
started and completed these mega projects but did
not inaugurate them and take credit.
While Modi continued to invoke former PM A B
Vajpayee’s line on Kashmir issue, he ignored it at
the same time. His government has shown
enthusiasm in the return and rehabilitation of the
Kashmiri Pandits, and took up the matter within a
month of coming into power. So far this seems to
be the only priority for BJP government vis-a-vis
Kashmir. Earlier ‘The Hindu’ reported that Omar
Abdullah government had submitted Rs 5,800-
crore project under Prime Minister’s
Reconstruction Programme aimed at incentivising
return of Kashmiri Pandits to the Valley. This also
included the suggestion of repurchasing the
properties that the KPs sold after their migration in
early 90s.
While another plan of settling them in three
separate zones within the Valley evoked strong
reaction from various quarters in Valley, Omar
Abdullah gave it a new twist. In an interview to
Suhasini Haider on Saturday last, he said: “We are
encouraging Kashmiri Pandits to return. We are
saying you are welcome to consider group housing.
4-5-6 of you get together and get a plot of land.
Why should we have a problem with a group
housing project that blends in with the community
in the place you choose to live in? I see no problem
with that”. Return of KP’s to their home and
hearth is also close to the hearts of majority
community but the way it is hurried up as a “war
package” will have adverse impact and cannot help
in real reintegration of the community in Valley.
The BJP has not begun on a positive note in
Kashmir. On Monday its Rajya Sabha member
Tarun Vijay demanded that two flag system in the
state should be abolished thus furthering the
apprehensions that there was surely something
“sinister” in its bag for Kashmir. Earlier on the first
day in office, Minister of State in Prime Minister’s
Office Dr Jitendar Singh touched the raw nerve
called Article 370, saying that the discussion with
stake holders had begun to abolish it. It created a
storm in political circles with opposition from most
of the political parties, but the fact that was
ignored was that BJP did make it a public issue
while being in power, irrespective of the
clarification issued by Dr Singh later.
The party has bagged two Lok Sabha seats in the
Jammu region, but now that it is in power it needs
to expand its area of attention and focus to include
Kashmir Valley as well. It is presently being
perceived as a Jammu-centric government as it
only addresses the “concerns” which are
essentially seen as anti- Kashmir.
Whatever the agenda BJP has, it cannot, rather
should not ignore the ground realities in Kashmir.
The PM could have struck a chord by speaking of
the issues concerning the people, and his silence
has been noticed and commented upon by the
people in Kashmir. The PM’s visit to the
headquarters of the Srinagar based 15 Corps was
also symbolic. It appeared to underscore the
popular Delhi view that Kashmir can be managed
by the Army. Except for Vajpayee, former Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh and now Modi have still
to express their views about the political measures
that need to be taken to restore peace and
equilibrium in the state.
It is naive to believe that while traveling from the
Srinagar airport to Badamibagh and then to Uri,
the Prime Minister would have not seen the
deserted streets below him. He still has to spell out
his choice for ‘managing’ Kashmir, whether it will
be through dialogue or through the Army.
PM Modi has not yet publicly outlined his Kashmir
policy except that he talked about winning the
hearts of people through development.
Development surely is an ingredient to undo the
sense of despair that has been witnessed in past
two decades but it has to be supplemented and
complimented with the political initiatives. Two
tracks of dialogue process between New Delhi and
Islamabad and between New Delhi and Srinagar
are must for addressing the issue through real
pragmatic means. The processes from 2003 to
2008 had shown spectacular change in the
atmosphere and the credit goes to Vajpayee and
then Manmohan Singh.
If at all Modi believes in following Vajpayee he
must start picking the threads from that derailed
process. Development will go on but the sense of
security, confidence and political achievement for
the people can only come through the institution of
dialogue process that is untagged of
conditionalities on all sides. Putting more military
might into action is not the answer to today’s
Kashmir. It needs humane approach that is
embedded with strong political will to see that
there is a dignified and practicable solution to the
problem.
10 Jul 2014
SAVE THE POLAR BEARS WITH COMMUNISM?
Michael Schaus
Well… On the bright side: The UN Climate Chief has finally decided to adopt a certain modicum of honesty in her crusade to rid the world of pollution. As suspected by capitalists, free market advocates, and anyone who read into the redistributive agenda of the UN Climate Scientists, Christiana Figueres has suggested that only communism is capable of successfully fighting global warming and “climate change”.
Of course it’s a strange statement, given the Soviet Union’s abysmal record on environmental issues, and red China’s horrific display of environmental abuse. Figueres even went so far as to suggest that communist China is leading the world, and should be viewed as a role-model, in the fight against environmental damage. According to the Daily Caller:
“[China] actually wants to breathe air that they don’t have to look at,” she said. “They’re not doing this because they want to save the planet. They’re doing it because it’s in their national interest.”
She went on to suggest that China is a better steward of environmental concerns than the United States, Socialist Europe, or any capitalistic entity on the face of the planet. And, to an extent, she’s right… China would like to breathe air they didn’t have to look at… Of course, their solution so far has revolved around handing out face masks, and erecting giant LCD screens to broadcast the sunrise and sunset.
China has struggled with environmental disaster since central planning bureaucrats first crept into the field of industrial planning. And while China has suffered through smog storms that make 1910 Philadelphia look like a clean-air-utopia, the civilized world (led primarily by free markets and capitalism) has cleaned up their act environmentally and morally. While the Soviet Union was busy draining lakes, and pumping sulfur into the German atmosphere, the West was busy inventing catalytic converters and low-emission power-plants.
And while America’s carbon footprint has largely stood still, that of China’s has grown to a burdensome (and worrisome) level… So, objectively, Christiana Figueres is more than wrong… She’s an outright ideological shill with little concern for historical context, or objective evaluation of environmental stewardship. Of course, to be fair, environmentalism has never really been about caring for the environment.
Capitalism has proven to be the greatest anti-poverty scheme in history, and has also thrust most of the developed world into a space-age era of technological, and socioeconomic, progress. And while capitalism has pushed the human condition into realms of universal luxury not previously imagined, the statists, socialists, communists, and elitists have bemoaned the individual power guaranteed by economic freedom. With this freedom, ironically, has come a greater philanthropic spirit and a broader understanding of community issues.
After all… It’s a whole lot easier to spend extra money on environmental, or societal, concerns when a nation produces more wealth. It is, much to the dismay of socialist hacks like Figueres, the wealth built by capitalism that has financed Europe’s socialist agendas. traditionally "dirty" oil companies continue to lead the world in environmentally conscious research, while government funded “green energy” projects have continued to bankrupt themselves. Communism might be effective at reigning in the excess of prosperity, but it is wholly ineffective at delivering prosperity, efficiency, or technological progress. (I mean, let’s face it: Aside from suicidal novelists, firearms, and vodka, what did the Soviet Union really do well?)
Economic freedom is accompanied by an unpredictable trajectory of entrepreneurial philanthropy… And leftists hate the individualistic nature of self-interest. So, despite capitalism’s provably superior track record on environmental issues, communism has proven to be more admired by the big-government statists of the leftist environmental movement. After all, Communism promises a whole lot more power and cronyism to the friends of Figueres than an objectively market-driven laissez faire society.
Figueres’ assertion that the smog-plagued, carbon-hungry, toxin spilling nation of China is better at environmental stewardship than the increasingly earth-conscious western democracies is another illustration of the UN’s agenda over fact. Just like UN scientists omitted inconvenient data to sell the notion of global warming, Figueres is willing to spew ludicrous assertions in an advocacy for centralized government, and redistributive policies.
After all, what good is a UN Chief if they don’t push for ideology that was once adopted by the “evil empire”? Clearly, an ideology that led to millions of political prisoners and widespread environmental damage is best equipped to spur market based solutions to environmental pollution… Right?
But, hey… At least she is more transparent than the American champions of redistributive-environmentalism.
Well… On the bright side: The UN Climate Chief has finally decided to adopt a certain modicum of honesty in her crusade to rid the world of pollution. As suspected by capitalists, free market advocates, and anyone who read into the redistributive agenda of the UN Climate Scientists, Christiana Figueres has suggested that only communism is capable of successfully fighting global warming and “climate change”.
Of course it’s a strange statement, given the Soviet Union’s abysmal record on environmental issues, and red China’s horrific display of environmental abuse. Figueres even went so far as to suggest that communist China is leading the world, and should be viewed as a role-model, in the fight against environmental damage. According to the Daily Caller:
“[China] actually wants to breathe air that they don’t have to look at,” she said. “They’re not doing this because they want to save the planet. They’re doing it because it’s in their national interest.”
She went on to suggest that China is a better steward of environmental concerns than the United States, Socialist Europe, or any capitalistic entity on the face of the planet. And, to an extent, she’s right… China would like to breathe air they didn’t have to look at… Of course, their solution so far has revolved around handing out face masks, and erecting giant LCD screens to broadcast the sunrise and sunset.
China has struggled with environmental disaster since central planning bureaucrats first crept into the field of industrial planning. And while China has suffered through smog storms that make 1910 Philadelphia look like a clean-air-utopia, the civilized world (led primarily by free markets and capitalism) has cleaned up their act environmentally and morally. While the Soviet Union was busy draining lakes, and pumping sulfur into the German atmosphere, the West was busy inventing catalytic converters and low-emission power-plants.
And while America’s carbon footprint has largely stood still, that of China’s has grown to a burdensome (and worrisome) level… So, objectively, Christiana Figueres is more than wrong… She’s an outright ideological shill with little concern for historical context, or objective evaluation of environmental stewardship. Of course, to be fair, environmentalism has never really been about caring for the environment.
Capitalism has proven to be the greatest anti-poverty scheme in history, and has also thrust most of the developed world into a space-age era of technological, and socioeconomic, progress. And while capitalism has pushed the human condition into realms of universal luxury not previously imagined, the statists, socialists, communists, and elitists have bemoaned the individual power guaranteed by economic freedom. With this freedom, ironically, has come a greater philanthropic spirit and a broader understanding of community issues.
After all… It’s a whole lot easier to spend extra money on environmental, or societal, concerns when a nation produces more wealth. It is, much to the dismay of socialist hacks like Figueres, the wealth built by capitalism that has financed Europe’s socialist agendas. traditionally "dirty" oil companies continue to lead the world in environmentally conscious research, while government funded “green energy” projects have continued to bankrupt themselves. Communism might be effective at reigning in the excess of prosperity, but it is wholly ineffective at delivering prosperity, efficiency, or technological progress. (I mean, let’s face it: Aside from suicidal novelists, firearms, and vodka, what did the Soviet Union really do well?)
Economic freedom is accompanied by an unpredictable trajectory of entrepreneurial philanthropy… And leftists hate the individualistic nature of self-interest. So, despite capitalism’s provably superior track record on environmental issues, communism has proven to be more admired by the big-government statists of the leftist environmental movement. After all, Communism promises a whole lot more power and cronyism to the friends of Figueres than an objectively market-driven laissez faire society.
Figueres’ assertion that the smog-plagued, carbon-hungry, toxin spilling nation of China is better at environmental stewardship than the increasingly earth-conscious western democracies is another illustration of the UN’s agenda over fact. Just like UN scientists omitted inconvenient data to sell the notion of global warming, Figueres is willing to spew ludicrous assertions in an advocacy for centralized government, and redistributive policies.
After all, what good is a UN Chief if they don’t push for ideology that was once adopted by the “evil empire”? Clearly, an ideology that led to millions of political prisoners and widespread environmental damage is best equipped to spur market based solutions to environmental pollution… Right?
But, hey… At least she is more transparent than the American champions of redistributive-environmentalism.
AN INDEPENDENT KURDISTAN: WORLD I CONTINUES
Austin Bay
As the militant Islamic State (formerly the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIL) threatens to shatter Iraq's central government, the leaders of Iraq's Kurdish Regional Government have called for the creation of Independent Kurdistan. In June, KRG President Massoud Barzani said, "the time is here for the Kurdistan people to determine their future."
I doubt Barzani intentionally echoed Woodrow Wilson's post-World War I call for political self-determination. Kurdish nationalists believe, with good cause, they were grievously wronged after World War I.
Kurd demands for independence have been repeatedly disappointed; despite Iraqi chaos, they may be disappointed once again.
The Kurds' landlocked wedge of planet earth is a geographic "tweener." Using the old names illustrates the Kurds' historic difficulty. To the south, Kurdistan meshes with Mesopotamia; to the east with Persia, to the west with the Levant and to the north with Greco-Roman-Byzantine-Turk Anatolia.
For three millennia Kurds have fought various imperialists -- Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs and Turks.
However, they thought their time had come in August 1920 when the victorious World War I allies ratified the Treaty of Sevres.
Sevres addressed the defeated Ottoman Turkish Empire's territories. It divided Ottomans' Arab provinces between France and Britain, gave Greece a slice of Thrace and handed Italy a chain of Aegean Islands. France and Britain took de facto control of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles (Turkish Straits).
With an irresolute nod to Wilsonian self-determination, Sevres promised the Kurdish people a state or perhaps several autonomous states conveniently advised by allied political officials.
Though Sevres did not specify Kurdistan's precise location, Kurdish nationalists were ecstatic. Today, Kurds are the largest ethnic group in Southeastern Turkey, Northeastern Syria and a small triangle of Iran (Turkey-Iraq border area). Kurds are definitely the majority in the KRG. Kurdistan 1921 would have formed somewhere in this area, probably Southeastern Turkey ... maybe.
But Britain and France were not committed to seeing through an afterthought Kurdistan. The secular Turkish nationalist movement, led by Kemal Ataturk, insisted on Turkish nationalist self-determination. Turkish nationalists opposed the war-weary French and British occupiers and the rump Ottoman dynasty (dictatorship) the occupiers supported.
The Greco-Turkish War took Sevres' Kurdistan off the diplomatic table. Greek leaders sought to seize control of the eastern Aegean coast. Turkish nationalists defeated the Greeks. The Treaty of Lausanne (1923) settled the Greco-Turk fiasco, after a fashion, and made no mention of Kurdistan. Turkish nationalists would not cede another square-centimeter of territory.
Republican Turkey bitterly opposed an independent Kurdistan. Since 1923, Turkey has battled intermittent Kurdish insurgencies. The latest, which began in 1984, has Cold War connections. The Kurdistan Workers Party was a Marxist gang the USSR used to destabilize NATO's Turkey. The PKK, however, leveraged legitimate Kurd grievances and aspirations. Saddam Hussein's Iraq fought Kurd insurgents (hence the use of chemical weapons on the Kurds at Halabja). The Iranian and Syrian dictatorships confront Kurdish rebels.
Over the last decade, Turkish policy has evolved as the Turkish government sought a political solution to the Kurd insurgency in Southeastern Turkey. Turkey began investing in the KRG. KRG leaders encouraged the PKK to negotiate. Tit for tat? Probably. The KRG has tried to convince Turkey that it is a stable, moderate and reliable partner, politically and economically -- more so than Assad's Syria, ayatollah Iran or the chronically dysfunctional Shia-dominated Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki.
Iraqi Kurdistan has substantial crude oil reserves. This year, the KRG began selling crude without Baghdad's permission. The KRG ships its oil through Turkey.
If Iraq collapses, the KRG argues that, as Independent Kurdistan, it can provide Turkey with a stable buffer state also capable of stabilizing Kurdish Syria. Independent Kurdistan's peshmerga military forces, especially with Turkish support, can defeat the Islamic State militants.
In the wake of the ISIL invasion, the Turkish government said it supports Iraqi Kurdish self-determination -- self-determination, not independence. Turkish support for independence would have a high price: hands off Turkey's Kurdish region. The KRG, however, may not be able to make that guarantee. It has not been able to rein in PKK diehards. Iraqi Kurds may have to settle for a self-determined Kurdish autonomous zone notionally attached to Iraq, but supported by completely independent oil sales.
As the militant Islamic State (formerly the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIL) threatens to shatter Iraq's central government, the leaders of Iraq's Kurdish Regional Government have called for the creation of Independent Kurdistan. In June, KRG President Massoud Barzani said, "the time is here for the Kurdistan people to determine their future."
I doubt Barzani intentionally echoed Woodrow Wilson's post-World War I call for political self-determination. Kurdish nationalists believe, with good cause, they were grievously wronged after World War I.
Kurd demands for independence have been repeatedly disappointed; despite Iraqi chaos, they may be disappointed once again.
The Kurds' landlocked wedge of planet earth is a geographic "tweener." Using the old names illustrates the Kurds' historic difficulty. To the south, Kurdistan meshes with Mesopotamia; to the east with Persia, to the west with the Levant and to the north with Greco-Roman-Byzantine-Turk Anatolia.
For three millennia Kurds have fought various imperialists -- Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs and Turks.
However, they thought their time had come in August 1920 when the victorious World War I allies ratified the Treaty of Sevres.
Sevres addressed the defeated Ottoman Turkish Empire's territories. It divided Ottomans' Arab provinces between France and Britain, gave Greece a slice of Thrace and handed Italy a chain of Aegean Islands. France and Britain took de facto control of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles (Turkish Straits).
With an irresolute nod to Wilsonian self-determination, Sevres promised the Kurdish people a state or perhaps several autonomous states conveniently advised by allied political officials.
Though Sevres did not specify Kurdistan's precise location, Kurdish nationalists were ecstatic. Today, Kurds are the largest ethnic group in Southeastern Turkey, Northeastern Syria and a small triangle of Iran (Turkey-Iraq border area). Kurds are definitely the majority in the KRG. Kurdistan 1921 would have formed somewhere in this area, probably Southeastern Turkey ... maybe.
But Britain and France were not committed to seeing through an afterthought Kurdistan. The secular Turkish nationalist movement, led by Kemal Ataturk, insisted on Turkish nationalist self-determination. Turkish nationalists opposed the war-weary French and British occupiers and the rump Ottoman dynasty (dictatorship) the occupiers supported.
The Greco-Turkish War took Sevres' Kurdistan off the diplomatic table. Greek leaders sought to seize control of the eastern Aegean coast. Turkish nationalists defeated the Greeks. The Treaty of Lausanne (1923) settled the Greco-Turk fiasco, after a fashion, and made no mention of Kurdistan. Turkish nationalists would not cede another square-centimeter of territory.
Republican Turkey bitterly opposed an independent Kurdistan. Since 1923, Turkey has battled intermittent Kurdish insurgencies. The latest, which began in 1984, has Cold War connections. The Kurdistan Workers Party was a Marxist gang the USSR used to destabilize NATO's Turkey. The PKK, however, leveraged legitimate Kurd grievances and aspirations. Saddam Hussein's Iraq fought Kurd insurgents (hence the use of chemical weapons on the Kurds at Halabja). The Iranian and Syrian dictatorships confront Kurdish rebels.
Over the last decade, Turkish policy has evolved as the Turkish government sought a political solution to the Kurd insurgency in Southeastern Turkey. Turkey began investing in the KRG. KRG leaders encouraged the PKK to negotiate. Tit for tat? Probably. The KRG has tried to convince Turkey that it is a stable, moderate and reliable partner, politically and economically -- more so than Assad's Syria, ayatollah Iran or the chronically dysfunctional Shia-dominated Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki.
Iraqi Kurdistan has substantial crude oil reserves. This year, the KRG began selling crude without Baghdad's permission. The KRG ships its oil through Turkey.
If Iraq collapses, the KRG argues that, as Independent Kurdistan, it can provide Turkey with a stable buffer state also capable of stabilizing Kurdish Syria. Independent Kurdistan's peshmerga military forces, especially with Turkish support, can defeat the Islamic State militants.
In the wake of the ISIL invasion, the Turkish government said it supports Iraqi Kurdish self-determination -- self-determination, not independence. Turkish support for independence would have a high price: hands off Turkey's Kurdish region. The KRG, however, may not be able to make that guarantee. It has not been able to rein in PKK diehards. Iraqi Kurds may have to settle for a self-determined Kurdish autonomous zone notionally attached to Iraq, but supported by completely independent oil sales.
SPYING ON INNOCENTS
Judge Andrew
In what appears to be one of Edward Snowden's final revelations, the former CIA and NSA agent has demonstrated conclusively that the National Security Agency has collected and analyzed the contents of emails, text messages, and mobile and landline telephone calls from nine non-targeted U.S. residents for every one U.S. resident it has targeted.
This puts the lie to the government's claims that it has only collected metadata -- identifying markers such as phone numbers and email addresses -- and not content from unsuspecting and unsuspected Americans. It puts the lie to the government's claims that it has studiously avoided prying into the private lives of Americans, in whom it has no intelligence-related or lawful interest. And this puts the lie to the government's contentions and the opinions of judges of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that the NSA's spying is somehow lawful, constitutional and helpful.
We now know that the government has failed effectively to refute the Snowden claims that it has collected and maintained for future access massive amounts of personal materials about nearly all people in America since 2009. This includes the metadata and content of nearly every telephone call, email and text message made, sent or received in the U.S., as well as nearly every credit card bill, utility bill and monthly bank statement of nearly every person in the U.S.
This was accomplished through the issuance of general warrants by FISA court judges. General warrants do not particularly describe the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized as the Constitution requires. General warrants authorize the bearer to use the power of government to search wherever he wishes. The use by British troops of general warrants was a principal motivation for the American Revolution, and the very purpose and literal wording of the Fourth Amendment was to outlaw and prohibit them.
Nevertheless, in their lust to appear muscular in our constitutionally sad post-9/11 era, politicians from both major political parties have defied the plain meaning and universally accepted history of the right to privacy and reverted to these odious instruments so condemned by the nation's founders and the Constitution's framers.
The recent Snowden revelations showed that about 900,000 innocent U.S. residents -- including President Barack Obama himself -- were subjected to heavy NSA scrutiny. This was done by NSA agents who knew that the subjects of their scrutiny were not the targets of their investigation.
How could that happen? It happened because the FISA court meets in secret, where the NSA has no opposition and the court has no transparency. This volatile mix has resulted in that court's granting well over 99 percent of NSA applications, including the "hop" rule implicated in the scrutiny of innocent Americans. In NSA-speak, a hop is a jump from one telephone conversation to another using a common phone.
In the sterile, isolated and secret environment of the FISA court -- where even the judges cannot keep records of their own decisions -- NSA agents and lawyers have persuaded judges to permit spying on people who are six hops from a target. Thus, by way of illustration, if A is a target and speaks with B, the NSA can listen to all of B's conversations, even those not with A. The leap from A to B is one hop, and the NSA gets six, so it can listen to any C who has spoken to B, any D who has spoken to any C, any E who has spoken to any D, any F who has spoken to any E and any G who has spoken to any F.
The 900,000 innocent U.S. residents whose private and personal lives have been subjected to NSA scrutiny -- including the examination of their photographs, intimate personal behavior, medical and financial needs -- consist of those who are within six hops from a target; in the illustration above, that would be every B, C, D, E, F and G whom the NSA can find. According to Snowden, there is no effort made by the NSA to minimize the scrutiny of those who are in the B-G category -- even though the chances that any of them are in cahoots with A are extremely remote, particularly once the NSA gets beyond B.
But remoteness does not trouble the NSA, and neither does the Constitution. Remoteness is a serious constitutional and practical problem. It violates the rights of known innocents, as the NSA has no constitutional or lawful authority to spy on any non-targets and FISA court judges have no power to authorize that spying. It also consumes the time and resources of NSA agents, whose job it is to find terror plots.
Is it any wonder that the Boston Marathon bombers discussed their plans with friends using their cellphones and the NSA missed it? Is it any wonder that when Gen. Keith Alexander, who ran the NSA for five years, was asked under oath how many plots his agents had uncovered with their spying on all Americans, he replied 57 and then the next day changed that reply to three and then was unable or unwilling to identify the supposed three? Is it any wonder that the two non-FISA court federal judges who scrutinized all this both found that it has uncovered no plots?
When the government sees or hears all, it knows all. And when the people tolerate a government that knows all, they will be afraid to be themselves. And the joy of being and expressing oneself is the very reason we have a Constitution designed to restrain government.
James Madison warned that the loss of liberty rarely happens in one great event but rather happens gradually, over time, resulting from the actions of government officials who claim to be fortifying security. He practically predicted today's events. The violations of our rights are obvious, undenied and undeniable. Yet what Madison probably feared most, he did not articulate: Once lost, liberty is lost forever.
In what appears to be one of Edward Snowden's final revelations, the former CIA and NSA agent has demonstrated conclusively that the National Security Agency has collected and analyzed the contents of emails, text messages, and mobile and landline telephone calls from nine non-targeted U.S. residents for every one U.S. resident it has targeted.
This puts the lie to the government's claims that it has only collected metadata -- identifying markers such as phone numbers and email addresses -- and not content from unsuspecting and unsuspected Americans. It puts the lie to the government's claims that it has studiously avoided prying into the private lives of Americans, in whom it has no intelligence-related or lawful interest. And this puts the lie to the government's contentions and the opinions of judges of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that the NSA's spying is somehow lawful, constitutional and helpful.
We now know that the government has failed effectively to refute the Snowden claims that it has collected and maintained for future access massive amounts of personal materials about nearly all people in America since 2009. This includes the metadata and content of nearly every telephone call, email and text message made, sent or received in the U.S., as well as nearly every credit card bill, utility bill and monthly bank statement of nearly every person in the U.S.
This was accomplished through the issuance of general warrants by FISA court judges. General warrants do not particularly describe the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized as the Constitution requires. General warrants authorize the bearer to use the power of government to search wherever he wishes. The use by British troops of general warrants was a principal motivation for the American Revolution, and the very purpose and literal wording of the Fourth Amendment was to outlaw and prohibit them.
Nevertheless, in their lust to appear muscular in our constitutionally sad post-9/11 era, politicians from both major political parties have defied the plain meaning and universally accepted history of the right to privacy and reverted to these odious instruments so condemned by the nation's founders and the Constitution's framers.
The recent Snowden revelations showed that about 900,000 innocent U.S. residents -- including President Barack Obama himself -- were subjected to heavy NSA scrutiny. This was done by NSA agents who knew that the subjects of their scrutiny were not the targets of their investigation.
How could that happen? It happened because the FISA court meets in secret, where the NSA has no opposition and the court has no transparency. This volatile mix has resulted in that court's granting well over 99 percent of NSA applications, including the "hop" rule implicated in the scrutiny of innocent Americans. In NSA-speak, a hop is a jump from one telephone conversation to another using a common phone.
In the sterile, isolated and secret environment of the FISA court -- where even the judges cannot keep records of their own decisions -- NSA agents and lawyers have persuaded judges to permit spying on people who are six hops from a target. Thus, by way of illustration, if A is a target and speaks with B, the NSA can listen to all of B's conversations, even those not with A. The leap from A to B is one hop, and the NSA gets six, so it can listen to any C who has spoken to B, any D who has spoken to any C, any E who has spoken to any D, any F who has spoken to any E and any G who has spoken to any F.
The 900,000 innocent U.S. residents whose private and personal lives have been subjected to NSA scrutiny -- including the examination of their photographs, intimate personal behavior, medical and financial needs -- consist of those who are within six hops from a target; in the illustration above, that would be every B, C, D, E, F and G whom the NSA can find. According to Snowden, there is no effort made by the NSA to minimize the scrutiny of those who are in the B-G category -- even though the chances that any of them are in cahoots with A are extremely remote, particularly once the NSA gets beyond B.
But remoteness does not trouble the NSA, and neither does the Constitution. Remoteness is a serious constitutional and practical problem. It violates the rights of known innocents, as the NSA has no constitutional or lawful authority to spy on any non-targets and FISA court judges have no power to authorize that spying. It also consumes the time and resources of NSA agents, whose job it is to find terror plots.
Is it any wonder that the Boston Marathon bombers discussed their plans with friends using their cellphones and the NSA missed it? Is it any wonder that when Gen. Keith Alexander, who ran the NSA for five years, was asked under oath how many plots his agents had uncovered with their spying on all Americans, he replied 57 and then the next day changed that reply to three and then was unable or unwilling to identify the supposed three? Is it any wonder that the two non-FISA court federal judges who scrutinized all this both found that it has uncovered no plots?
When the government sees or hears all, it knows all. And when the people tolerate a government that knows all, they will be afraid to be themselves. And the joy of being and expressing oneself is the very reason we have a Constitution designed to restrain government.
James Madison warned that the loss of liberty rarely happens in one great event but rather happens gradually, over time, resulting from the actions of government officials who claim to be fortifying security. He practically predicted today's events. The violations of our rights are obvious, undenied and undeniable. Yet what Madison probably feared most, he did not articulate: Once lost, liberty is lost forever.
9 Jul 2014
WHY AMERICA IS IN JEOPARDY
Dennis Prager
On page 563 of his latest biography — John Quincy Adams: American Visionary — author Fred Kaplan (biographer of Abraham Lincoln, Charles Dickens, Mark Twain, and Gore Vidal among others) cites this insight of the sixth president:
Christianity had, all in all, he believed, been a civilizing force, “checking and controlling the anti-social passions of man.”
That insight is pretty much all an American needs to know in order to understand why the American Founders considered religion — specifically ethical monotheism rooted in the Hebrew Bible — indispensable to the American experiment; and why the America we have known since 1776 is in jeopardy.
It is easy to respect secular Americans who hold fast to the Constitution and to American values generally. And any one of us who believes in God can understand why some people, given all the unjust suffering in the world, just cannot believe that there is a Providential Being.
But one cannot respect the view that America can survive without the religious beliefs and values that shaped it. The argument that there are moral secularists and moral atheists is a non sequitur. Of course there are moral Americans devoid of religion. So what? There were moral people who believed in Jove. But an America governed by Roman religion would not be the America that has been the beacon of freedom and the greatest force for good in the world.
In order to understand why, one only need understand John Quincy Adams’s insight: How will we go about “checking and controlling the anti-social passions of man” without traditional American religious beliefs?
There are two possible responses:
One is that most Americans (or people generally, but we are talking about America here) do not have anti-social passions.
The other is that most Americans (again, like all other human beings) do have anti-social passions, but the vast majority of us can do a fine job checking and controlling them without religion as it has been practiced throughout American history.
These are views with which virtually every American who attends secular high school or university is explicitly and implicitly indoctrinated.
Both are wrong. And not just wrong, but foolish — and lethal to the American experiment.
To deny that human beings are filled with anti-social passions defies reality and betrays a lack of self-awareness. One has to be taught nonsense for a great many formative years to believe it.
If we weren’t born with anti-social passions — narcissism, envy, lust, meanness, greed, hunger for power, just to name the more obvious — why the need for so many laws, whether religious or secular, that govern behavior?
The second objection is that, even if we do have anti-social passions, we don’t need a God or religion in order to control them. Only moral primitives, the argument goes, need either a judging God or a religious set of rules. The Enlightened can do fine without them and need only to consult their faculty of reason and conscience to know how to behave.
Our prisons are filled with people whose consciences are quite at peace with their criminal behavior. As for reason, they used it well — to figure out how to get away with everything from murder to white-collar crime.
But our prisons are not filled with religious Jewish and Christian murderers. On the contrary, if all Americans attended church weekly, we would need far fewer prisons; and the ones we needed would have very few murderers in them.
Meanwhile the record of the godless and non-Christianity crowd is awful. I am not simply referring to the godless and secular Communist regimes of the 20th century that committed virtually every genocide of those hundred years. I am referring to those Americans (and Europeans) who use reason to argue, among other foolish things: that good and evil are subjective societal or individual opinions; that gender is purely a social construct and therefore the male and female distinction is of no importance; that marriage isn’t important and is just a piece of paper invented by the religious to keep women down; that a human fetus, even when it has a beating heart, a formed human body, and a conscious brain, has less of a right to life than a cat; and that men, let alone fathers, aren’t necessary. (Think no one really believes the latter? See, for example, The Atlantic’s “Are Fathers Necessary?” and the New York Times’s “Men, Who Needs Them?”) And that is a short list.
For proof of the moral and intellectual consequences of the secularization of America, look at what has happened to the least religious institution in America, the university. Is that the future we want for the whole country?
On page 563 of his latest biography — John Quincy Adams: American Visionary — author Fred Kaplan (biographer of Abraham Lincoln, Charles Dickens, Mark Twain, and Gore Vidal among others) cites this insight of the sixth president:
Christianity had, all in all, he believed, been a civilizing force, “checking and controlling the anti-social passions of man.”
That insight is pretty much all an American needs to know in order to understand why the American Founders considered religion — specifically ethical monotheism rooted in the Hebrew Bible — indispensable to the American experiment; and why the America we have known since 1776 is in jeopardy.
It is easy to respect secular Americans who hold fast to the Constitution and to American values generally. And any one of us who believes in God can understand why some people, given all the unjust suffering in the world, just cannot believe that there is a Providential Being.
But one cannot respect the view that America can survive without the religious beliefs and values that shaped it. The argument that there are moral secularists and moral atheists is a non sequitur. Of course there are moral Americans devoid of religion. So what? There were moral people who believed in Jove. But an America governed by Roman religion would not be the America that has been the beacon of freedom and the greatest force for good in the world.
In order to understand why, one only need understand John Quincy Adams’s insight: How will we go about “checking and controlling the anti-social passions of man” without traditional American religious beliefs?
There are two possible responses:
One is that most Americans (or people generally, but we are talking about America here) do not have anti-social passions.
The other is that most Americans (again, like all other human beings) do have anti-social passions, but the vast majority of us can do a fine job checking and controlling them without religion as it has been practiced throughout American history.
These are views with which virtually every American who attends secular high school or university is explicitly and implicitly indoctrinated.
Both are wrong. And not just wrong, but foolish — and lethal to the American experiment.
To deny that human beings are filled with anti-social passions defies reality and betrays a lack of self-awareness. One has to be taught nonsense for a great many formative years to believe it.
If we weren’t born with anti-social passions — narcissism, envy, lust, meanness, greed, hunger for power, just to name the more obvious — why the need for so many laws, whether religious or secular, that govern behavior?
The second objection is that, even if we do have anti-social passions, we don’t need a God or religion in order to control them. Only moral primitives, the argument goes, need either a judging God or a religious set of rules. The Enlightened can do fine without them and need only to consult their faculty of reason and conscience to know how to behave.
Our prisons are filled with people whose consciences are quite at peace with their criminal behavior. As for reason, they used it well — to figure out how to get away with everything from murder to white-collar crime.
But our prisons are not filled with religious Jewish and Christian murderers. On the contrary, if all Americans attended church weekly, we would need far fewer prisons; and the ones we needed would have very few murderers in them.
Meanwhile the record of the godless and non-Christianity crowd is awful. I am not simply referring to the godless and secular Communist regimes of the 20th century that committed virtually every genocide of those hundred years. I am referring to those Americans (and Europeans) who use reason to argue, among other foolish things: that good and evil are subjective societal or individual opinions; that gender is purely a social construct and therefore the male and female distinction is of no importance; that marriage isn’t important and is just a piece of paper invented by the religious to keep women down; that a human fetus, even when it has a beating heart, a formed human body, and a conscious brain, has less of a right to life than a cat; and that men, let alone fathers, aren’t necessary. (Think no one really believes the latter? See, for example, The Atlantic’s “Are Fathers Necessary?” and the New York Times’s “Men, Who Needs Them?”) And that is a short list.
For proof of the moral and intellectual consequences of the secularization of America, look at what has happened to the least religious institution in America, the university. Is that the future we want for the whole country?
OBAMA REINVENTS 1979
Michael Schaus
It must be nice being an economist for a living. Much like meteorologists, university professors, and the Clintons, getting almost everything wrong doesn’t seem to impact job security. Remember when economists were forecasting 3 percent GDP growth for 2014? Well, that is pretty much already debunked, after the first quarter contracted; but the rest of the year might have its own distinct setbacks. The biggest “headwind” we can expect in the second half of 2014 can be summed up in two words: Oil prices.
David Williams, with Williams Edge, expects the price of crude to increase by “biblical” proportions in the near term. And while his technical analysis is sound, it is further buoyed by the events unfolding throughout the Middle East. Some experts have even predicted oil climbing above $125 a barrel. Let’s face it, $125 oil isn’t exactly going to help an economy that is clawing and scratching for the most modest of gains.
Hooray! Higher gas prices! And this hike in prices, of course, will conveniently coincide with increased inflation, stagnating wages, record joblessness, and anemic economic growth. (Haven’t we seen this movie before?)
As prices start to climb, those evil speculators and oil companies will quickly earn the wrath of liberal pundits and clueless CNBC analysts. And, really, the message is bound to stick. I mean, it’s pretty easy for people to hold a little grudge against big businesses when they’re watching those numbers roll over at their local gas station. But, the truth is much simpler than some convoluted conspiracy between “speculators” and oil giants… After all, contrary to the rants of anti-business liberals, oil companies actually prefer slightly lower prices. Unreasonably high prices tend to curb consumption; and let’s face it: You can charge anything you want for a gallon of gasoline, but if people aren’t buying it you won’t make much of a profit.
The bigger news (yes… there are more important things than the profit statement for Exxon Mobile) is what such prices will do to our already fragile economy. And the blame can be put squarely on the shoulders of our almighty central planners in DC.
Our Campaigner in Chief has done his best to avoid creating an environment that encourages job creation and economic growth. And, while the hike in oil prices might not have been completely avoidable, a more robust economy would certainly temper the impact of climbing crude prices. Instead of allowing businesses the opportunity to expand, hire, and increase wages, our all-knowing DC politicos have drowned the economy in regulation and crony-capitalist pet projects.
The Chevy Volt, new CAFE Standards, and treadmill powered public transit (that might not actually be a thing) aren’t the answer. For starters, some semblance of coherent foreign policy would be a more effective hedge against outrageous oil prices. More domestic production would also go a long way. But, most importantly, increases in pump-prices could be weathered a whole lot easier if Americans had seen their wealth growing over the last few years. Ya know, if incomes were climbing, jobs were being created, and consumers weren’t quite so strapped for cash, we might be able to shell out a few more bucks to fill our gas tanks without it taking a sizeable bite out of an already anemic “recovery”.
It wasn’t too long ago that CNBC pundits, NYT editors, and CNN anchors were willing to blame the White House for any (and every) increase in oil prices… But I guess things changed once “W” returned to his ranch in Texas. Apparently Obamanomics’ profoundly negative impact on household income, and our Nobel Laureate’s childish foreign policy, have no impact on the coming spike in oil prices… Right?
So, let’s recap: Millions of Americans out of work, potentially outrageous oil prices, mass chaos in the Middle East, increased inflation (assuming the Fed has their way), and stagnating wages… Hope and Change apparently looks an awful lot like 1979.
It must be nice being an economist for a living. Much like meteorologists, university professors, and the Clintons, getting almost everything wrong doesn’t seem to impact job security. Remember when economists were forecasting 3 percent GDP growth for 2014? Well, that is pretty much already debunked, after the first quarter contracted; but the rest of the year might have its own distinct setbacks. The biggest “headwind” we can expect in the second half of 2014 can be summed up in two words: Oil prices.
David Williams, with Williams Edge, expects the price of crude to increase by “biblical” proportions in the near term. And while his technical analysis is sound, it is further buoyed by the events unfolding throughout the Middle East. Some experts have even predicted oil climbing above $125 a barrel. Let’s face it, $125 oil isn’t exactly going to help an economy that is clawing and scratching for the most modest of gains.
Hooray! Higher gas prices! And this hike in prices, of course, will conveniently coincide with increased inflation, stagnating wages, record joblessness, and anemic economic growth. (Haven’t we seen this movie before?)
As prices start to climb, those evil speculators and oil companies will quickly earn the wrath of liberal pundits and clueless CNBC analysts. And, really, the message is bound to stick. I mean, it’s pretty easy for people to hold a little grudge against big businesses when they’re watching those numbers roll over at their local gas station. But, the truth is much simpler than some convoluted conspiracy between “speculators” and oil giants… After all, contrary to the rants of anti-business liberals, oil companies actually prefer slightly lower prices. Unreasonably high prices tend to curb consumption; and let’s face it: You can charge anything you want for a gallon of gasoline, but if people aren’t buying it you won’t make much of a profit.
The bigger news (yes… there are more important things than the profit statement for Exxon Mobile) is what such prices will do to our already fragile economy. And the blame can be put squarely on the shoulders of our almighty central planners in DC.
Our Campaigner in Chief has done his best to avoid creating an environment that encourages job creation and economic growth. And, while the hike in oil prices might not have been completely avoidable, a more robust economy would certainly temper the impact of climbing crude prices. Instead of allowing businesses the opportunity to expand, hire, and increase wages, our all-knowing DC politicos have drowned the economy in regulation and crony-capitalist pet projects.
The Chevy Volt, new CAFE Standards, and treadmill powered public transit (that might not actually be a thing) aren’t the answer. For starters, some semblance of coherent foreign policy would be a more effective hedge against outrageous oil prices. More domestic production would also go a long way. But, most importantly, increases in pump-prices could be weathered a whole lot easier if Americans had seen their wealth growing over the last few years. Ya know, if incomes were climbing, jobs were being created, and consumers weren’t quite so strapped for cash, we might be able to shell out a few more bucks to fill our gas tanks without it taking a sizeable bite out of an already anemic “recovery”.
It wasn’t too long ago that CNBC pundits, NYT editors, and CNN anchors were willing to blame the White House for any (and every) increase in oil prices… But I guess things changed once “W” returned to his ranch in Texas. Apparently Obamanomics’ profoundly negative impact on household income, and our Nobel Laureate’s childish foreign policy, have no impact on the coming spike in oil prices… Right?
So, let’s recap: Millions of Americans out of work, potentially outrageous oil prices, mass chaos in the Middle East, increased inflation (assuming the Fed has their way), and stagnating wages… Hope and Change apparently looks an awful lot like 1979.
CONVERSATIONS WITH REAGAN
Donald Lambro
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama was named the worst president since World War II, according to a survey of the American people who were asked to rate the nation's chief executives over the past 69 years.
The Quinnipiac University Poll released last week found that one third of its respondents picked Obama as the all-time worst, ahead of George W. Bush in its disapproval.
Obama's unpopularity will come as no surprise to those who've been closely following his big spending presidency. But the really big news was the man who topped the best presidency list: Ronald Reagan.
Reagan championed entrepreneurial capitalism, cut taxes, expanded free trade agreements and U.S. exports, promoted energy development, fought wasteful federal spending, beefed up our defense, began development of the anti-missile shield, ended a recession in two years, accelerated economic growth, fueled job creation and new business formation.
And he restored America's can-do spirit of optimism about the future.
Obama has devoted his presidency to raising taxes, beating up big business, playing class warfare, growing the government, stalling trade deals, cutting defense, and prolonging a recession that remains stuck in a slow growth recovery and a declining labor force.
Over all of the presidencies I have covered in the past 40 years, I got to know Ronald Reagan best on a personal and professional level, from the campaign trail to the Oval Office.
We first met several times in Washington at his room in the Madison Hotel where we talked about politics, budgets and a wide assortment of other issues for an hour or so.
Reagan had completed two successful terms as the governor of the largest state in the union and had his eyes on the White House. Vice President Gerald Ford had just become president, after Richard Nixon resigned, and had began plotting his 1976 campaign for election in his own right.
Reagan, who started campaigning across the country, was planning to challenge Ford for the nomination. And in that first interview, he began calling for a more aggressive approach to dealing with the nation's problems.
This was no time for "pale pastels," Reagan said. This was a time for bold policies that called for cutting spending and going after wasteful or needless programs. Now was the time to unleash the power of the American economy that was being held back by job killing taxation and costly government regulations.
At this time, Reagan was being all but ignored by the national news media. I was Washington correspondent for United Press International, looking for a story and beating my competitors, and I always asked if he had any other interviews on his schedule while he was in town. No, he'd reply. "Just you."
The Washington Post, by the way, was across the street from the Madison. But their reporters dismissed the former governor as just kooky, right wing politician who had little chance of defeating Ford for the nomination or becoming president.
One of the political rules Reagan had long embraced was to "never speak ill of a fellow Republican." And during his campaign for the nomination, he refused to criticize Ford.
But that vow ended in an interview I had with him as we were flying into Los Angeles after a week of campaigning. Ford was running blistering TV attack ads against Reagan, charging he would get the country into a war.
At first, Reagan was very reluctant to get into a tit-for-tat with Ford, until I read the full ad copy to him. And that's when his Irish temper exploded.
Calling Ford "a crybaby," Reagan accused him of using "divisive" and "arm-twisting tactics." His "spirit of unity" was strained, he said, and he warned Ford that he was "playing with fire" that threatened to destroy their party.
"And those phony war ads.This angered me," he said, adding, "Sometimes I think he'd rather win a convention than win the election."
Reagan came within an eyelash of the nomination. But on the long flight back to California, he shrugged off his loss and told his dispirited top aides to prepare for the next campaign.
Reagan decisively defeated Jimmy Carter in 1980, with the support of "Reagan Democrats", and then went on to stun the Washington establishment and the national news media with one policy-making success after another.
He got his tax cuts through Congress with Democratic support, and much of the rest of his agenda, too. In foreign policy, he didn't mince words about the dire Soviet threat, making it clear that the Kremlin's Communist bosses faced a determined foe. "They cheat and they lie," he bluntly told a White House news conference.
By 1983, the battered economy soared out of its deep recession and Reagan was at the peak of his popularity. In 1984, he carried 49 states.
I had two lengthy Oval Office interviews with him during his presidency, the first shortly after his recovery from a nearly-fatal assassination attempt that lifted his presidency to heroic proportions.
When I asked how he was doing, he replied "Not bad, considering the alternative." He told me how he had been doing weight exercises to rebuild his chest measurement.
A low point came when budget director David Stockman, in a series of interviews with a Washington reporter, raised doubts about Reagan's budget policies.
But Reagan stuck with his budget chief, telling me that "the real cynicism and the doubts in the plan were written by the author and [were] his interpretation."
Still, getting his proposed budget cuts always remained a tough challenge over the course of his presidency. But it wasn't for lack of trying.
Stockman sought budget cuts across the landscape of the government, but, in a moment of deep frustration, told me he was persistently blocked on Capitol Hill, not only by the Democrats "but by Republicans when it comes down to parochial interests." And he named names.
When one of our interviews was over, Reagan drew me to the side of the Oval Office and confided, "You know, just between us, one of the hardest things in a government this size.... no matter what our people way on top are trying to do... is to know that down there underneath is that permanent structure that is resisting everything you're doing."
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama was named the worst president since World War II, according to a survey of the American people who were asked to rate the nation's chief executives over the past 69 years.
The Quinnipiac University Poll released last week found that one third of its respondents picked Obama as the all-time worst, ahead of George W. Bush in its disapproval.
Obama's unpopularity will come as no surprise to those who've been closely following his big spending presidency. But the really big news was the man who topped the best presidency list: Ronald Reagan.
Reagan championed entrepreneurial capitalism, cut taxes, expanded free trade agreements and U.S. exports, promoted energy development, fought wasteful federal spending, beefed up our defense, began development of the anti-missile shield, ended a recession in two years, accelerated economic growth, fueled job creation and new business formation.
And he restored America's can-do spirit of optimism about the future.
Obama has devoted his presidency to raising taxes, beating up big business, playing class warfare, growing the government, stalling trade deals, cutting defense, and prolonging a recession that remains stuck in a slow growth recovery and a declining labor force.
Over all of the presidencies I have covered in the past 40 years, I got to know Ronald Reagan best on a personal and professional level, from the campaign trail to the Oval Office.
We first met several times in Washington at his room in the Madison Hotel where we talked about politics, budgets and a wide assortment of other issues for an hour or so.
Reagan had completed two successful terms as the governor of the largest state in the union and had his eyes on the White House. Vice President Gerald Ford had just become president, after Richard Nixon resigned, and had began plotting his 1976 campaign for election in his own right.
Reagan, who started campaigning across the country, was planning to challenge Ford for the nomination. And in that first interview, he began calling for a more aggressive approach to dealing with the nation's problems.
This was no time for "pale pastels," Reagan said. This was a time for bold policies that called for cutting spending and going after wasteful or needless programs. Now was the time to unleash the power of the American economy that was being held back by job killing taxation and costly government regulations.
At this time, Reagan was being all but ignored by the national news media. I was Washington correspondent for United Press International, looking for a story and beating my competitors, and I always asked if he had any other interviews on his schedule while he was in town. No, he'd reply. "Just you."
The Washington Post, by the way, was across the street from the Madison. But their reporters dismissed the former governor as just kooky, right wing politician who had little chance of defeating Ford for the nomination or becoming president.
One of the political rules Reagan had long embraced was to "never speak ill of a fellow Republican." And during his campaign for the nomination, he refused to criticize Ford.
But that vow ended in an interview I had with him as we were flying into Los Angeles after a week of campaigning. Ford was running blistering TV attack ads against Reagan, charging he would get the country into a war.
At first, Reagan was very reluctant to get into a tit-for-tat with Ford, until I read the full ad copy to him. And that's when his Irish temper exploded.
Calling Ford "a crybaby," Reagan accused him of using "divisive" and "arm-twisting tactics." His "spirit of unity" was strained, he said, and he warned Ford that he was "playing with fire" that threatened to destroy their party.
"And those phony war ads.This angered me," he said, adding, "Sometimes I think he'd rather win a convention than win the election."
Reagan came within an eyelash of the nomination. But on the long flight back to California, he shrugged off his loss and told his dispirited top aides to prepare for the next campaign.
Reagan decisively defeated Jimmy Carter in 1980, with the support of "Reagan Democrats", and then went on to stun the Washington establishment and the national news media with one policy-making success after another.
He got his tax cuts through Congress with Democratic support, and much of the rest of his agenda, too. In foreign policy, he didn't mince words about the dire Soviet threat, making it clear that the Kremlin's Communist bosses faced a determined foe. "They cheat and they lie," he bluntly told a White House news conference.
By 1983, the battered economy soared out of its deep recession and Reagan was at the peak of his popularity. In 1984, he carried 49 states.
I had two lengthy Oval Office interviews with him during his presidency, the first shortly after his recovery from a nearly-fatal assassination attempt that lifted his presidency to heroic proportions.
When I asked how he was doing, he replied "Not bad, considering the alternative." He told me how he had been doing weight exercises to rebuild his chest measurement.
A low point came when budget director David Stockman, in a series of interviews with a Washington reporter, raised doubts about Reagan's budget policies.
But Reagan stuck with his budget chief, telling me that "the real cynicism and the doubts in the plan were written by the author and [were] his interpretation."
Still, getting his proposed budget cuts always remained a tough challenge over the course of his presidency. But it wasn't for lack of trying.
Stockman sought budget cuts across the landscape of the government, but, in a moment of deep frustration, told me he was persistently blocked on Capitol Hill, not only by the Democrats "but by Republicans when it comes down to parochial interests." And he named names.
When one of our interviews was over, Reagan drew me to the side of the Oval Office and confided, "You know, just between us, one of the hardest things in a government this size.... no matter what our people way on top are trying to do... is to know that down there underneath is that permanent structure that is resisting everything you're doing."
THE TRIUMPH OF LAW OVER IDEOLOGY
Ken Connor
It's been almost a week since the Supreme Court issued their ruling on the Hobby Lobby case, and there appears to be no end in sight to the Left's outrage over the outcome. As expected, given the controversial nature of the issue at hand, most of the ire is reflexive and purely visceral. It's unlikely that many are taking the time to actually educate themselves on the Court's reasoning behind the decision. In their eyes, misogyny and religious fanaticism won out over women's rights, period. On the Right, there is a temptation to fall into essentially the same error: ascribing moral significance to what is in reality a legal decision. While its understandable that conscientious Christians are heartened by the outcome of this case, we must understand that the Court's ruling in the Hobby Lobby case had virtually nothing to do with the Justices' personal beliefs about the morality of abortifacient drugs, and everything to do – as should be the case – with the law.
In the face of the hysterical fallout over this decision, legal scholar Eugene Volokh penned a piece for the Washington Post aiming to explain the reasoning behind the Court's ruling in layman's terms. He distilled the decision into five simple points, which I've paraphrased here:
1. Congress has decided that religious objectors may go to court to demand religious exemptions from federal laws, when the law makes them do things that they view as religiously forbidden.
2) [W]hen a law requires . . . a corporation to do something that its owners believe to be religiously forbidden, it burdens the religious freedom of those real owners, and not just of the fictional corporation itself.
3) It is not the Court's job to judge the rectitude or substantiality of a business owner's sincerely held religious beliefs.
4) If the government can — even by changing the way its programs operate, and at some cost to taxpayers — both adequately serve its compelling interests and provide an exemption to religious objectors, then it must do so.
5. When both the government’s compelling interests and religious objectors’ religious beliefs can be adequately accommodated, Congress said that they should be accommodated.
The references to what Congress has "said" in this case refer to a law passed in 1993 called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, something which also must be understood in its context in order to appreciate why and how the Court ruled the way it did in this case. Ryan T. Anderson, writing for Public Discourse, recently explained the provisions of "RFRA" and how they informed the reasoning of the Court:
"But what is RFRA? Signed into law by President Clinton in 1993, RFRA had broad bipartisan support: it passed with a unanimous voice vote in the House and by a 97-3 vote in the Senate. As Kim Colby explained yesterday here at Public Discourse, 'RFRA implements a sensible balancing test by which a religious claimant first must demonstrate that the government has substantially burdened a sincerely held religious belief. The government then must demonstrate a compelling interest that cannot be achieved by a less restrictive means.'
Yesterday, the Court made it clear that the HHS mandate substantially burdened a sincere religious belief in an unnecessarily restrictive manner. To determine this, the Court first looked to the beliefs of the Hahns and Greens. The Hahns are devout Mennonite Christians, and the Greens are devout Evangelical Christians. Both families believe that they are obligated to run their businesses in accordance with God’s law as they conscientiously understand it. Neither family objects to contraception per se, but both believe that life begins at conception and that it is wrong to kill – or facilitate the killing of – that life. Thus, both families objected to four of the twenty FDA-approved HHS-mandated contraceptives because they have the potential to act post-fertilization and thus can kill a human embryo.
The Court did not second-guess any of these beliefs, nor did the Court judge whether these beliefs are right or wrong, true or false. The Court merely determined that the beliefs were sincere."
This seems straightforward and simple enough. The Court is not saying they agree with the Greens and Hahn's, they are simply saying that the requirement of the HHS mandate to provide coverage for abortifacient drugs constitutes a legitimate burden under the provisions of the RFRA. So what's really at the heart of the outrage over this decision? Quite simply this: Secular Progressives sincerely believe that their worldview is the only permissible one. They believe this so strongly, are so certain of the superiority of their values and convictions, that they think these beliefs should be backed at all times an in all situations by the force of law. In their eyes, there is no longer a place in civilized society for religion, and certainly no situation in which a person's religious conscience deserves protection under the law. According to the worldview of President Obama and his ilk, the position of Hobby Lobby on this issue is simply illegitimate.
This conviction is evident in a piece by The Center for Inquiry's Ronald A. Lindsay, who writing for the Huffington Post poses the "uncomfortable question" of whether or not we should have six Catholics on the Supreme Court. The way he reads the Hobby Lobby decision, it's not a fair reading of the law that led the Justices to side with the plaintiffs in the case, but the influence of insidious Catholic orthodoxy that is responsible for the Court's ruling. He cannot imagine how the HHS mandate could possibly burden anyone's religious conscience:
"As indicated, it's not just that five Catholic justices ruled that the government has to defer to the employers' religious objections. It's the reasoning on which the Court relied that causes concern. In explaining its decision, the majority made two very revealing points, one directly justifying its decision, the other distinguishing other, possible cases that might now cite Hobby Lobby as precedent. Both these points show how closely the majority adheres to Catholic teaching.
One question that many have had about the employers' objections to contraceptive coverage is why are they claiming they are burdened? No one is forcing anyone to take contraception if they do not want to. It's up to the individual employee to decide whether to take advantage of contraceptive coverage. So where is the burden on religious belief?
In Justice Alito's majority opinion, he relies squarely on Catholic teaching about 'complicity' to explain the supposed burden. In doing so, he reiterates the argument that the Catholic Church has made in the dozens of lawsuits it has brought challenging the contraceptive mandate. According to the Church, it violates the moral obligations of a Catholic to do anything - anything - that would 'facilitate' the provision of contraception to an individual. So even if one is not using contraception oneself, if one facilitates access to contraception by others, a grave moral wrong has been committed."
Surely Lindsay's credulity over the complicity argument wouldn't be as strong if, say, the issue at hand was an employer's refusal to provide loaded handguns to all their employees. In that case, the burden imposed by complicity would be clear cut. Guns, according to reigning Progressive orthodoxy, are evil incarnate. Anyone who supports gun ownership or sells guns or promotes the 2nd Amendment is complicit in any and all criminal acts involving guns. If the government were to pass a law requiring corporations to provide handguns and ammunition to all their employees, you can be sure that there would be lawsuits and that the arguments would be very similar to the ones employees by the Hahn's and Greens. People like Ronald Lindsay would write articles bemoaning the barbarism of making employers complicit in gun violence.
But this is because secular progressives like Lindsay and our President see guns as self-evidently evil and abortion as not, thus their insistence that it's illegitimate to claim that financing the termination of nascent human life is a burden to one's conscience. After all, says Lindsay, the business-owner isn't the one taking the pill, so how could it possibly be their problem or any of their business at all? The irony is simply staggering, but then again, ideology is a potent force that can cause otherwise sensible people to do, say, and believe almost anything. The ideology of unrestrained human sexuality has led us to the point where any imposition upon consequence-free sex is viewed as violation of basic human rights.
Thankfully, five members of the Court were able to remove the lenses of ideology from their eyes, as is their job. They were able to evaluate the weight of the claims placed before them in the eyes of the law. Our Congress upheld the promises of the First Amendment with the passage of the RFRA, and the Court honored this by upholding the religious conscience of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties. Thus, for the time being people who love God and the Constitution can take comfort in the fact that fidelity to the latter does not trump obedience to the former.
But again, Christians should not take the Hobby Lobby decision as an indication that the Court will always rule on the side of religious conscience. There are times when the Court will determine that the State has a compelling interest which overrides a person's claim to religious conscience. Again from Eugene Volokh:
"But Congress also said that these decisions must turn on the facts of each exemption request . . . In future cases – for instance, ones involving race discrimination in employment, or insurance coverage for vaccination or blood transfusions – the result might be different. It might not be possible in those cases (as it is in this case) to adequately accommodate both the government interests and the religious objections. If that’s so, then those religious exemptions would not have to be granted. Wisely or not, Congress has required courts to sort through religious exemption requests, granting some and denying others. This is what the Supreme Court has done here."
And this, after all, is why we have courts. It is the job of a judge to make sounds judgments in accordance with reason, the law, and the common good. For the time being, the weight on the bench seems to lean in favor of these virtues. Lord knows, it won't always be this way.
It's been almost a week since the Supreme Court issued their ruling on the Hobby Lobby case, and there appears to be no end in sight to the Left's outrage over the outcome. As expected, given the controversial nature of the issue at hand, most of the ire is reflexive and purely visceral. It's unlikely that many are taking the time to actually educate themselves on the Court's reasoning behind the decision. In their eyes, misogyny and religious fanaticism won out over women's rights, period. On the Right, there is a temptation to fall into essentially the same error: ascribing moral significance to what is in reality a legal decision. While its understandable that conscientious Christians are heartened by the outcome of this case, we must understand that the Court's ruling in the Hobby Lobby case had virtually nothing to do with the Justices' personal beliefs about the morality of abortifacient drugs, and everything to do – as should be the case – with the law.
In the face of the hysterical fallout over this decision, legal scholar Eugene Volokh penned a piece for the Washington Post aiming to explain the reasoning behind the Court's ruling in layman's terms. He distilled the decision into five simple points, which I've paraphrased here:
1. Congress has decided that religious objectors may go to court to demand religious exemptions from federal laws, when the law makes them do things that they view as religiously forbidden.
2) [W]hen a law requires . . . a corporation to do something that its owners believe to be religiously forbidden, it burdens the religious freedom of those real owners, and not just of the fictional corporation itself.
3) It is not the Court's job to judge the rectitude or substantiality of a business owner's sincerely held religious beliefs.
4) If the government can — even by changing the way its programs operate, and at some cost to taxpayers — both adequately serve its compelling interests and provide an exemption to religious objectors, then it must do so.
5. When both the government’s compelling interests and religious objectors’ religious beliefs can be adequately accommodated, Congress said that they should be accommodated.
The references to what Congress has "said" in this case refer to a law passed in 1993 called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, something which also must be understood in its context in order to appreciate why and how the Court ruled the way it did in this case. Ryan T. Anderson, writing for Public Discourse, recently explained the provisions of "RFRA" and how they informed the reasoning of the Court:
"But what is RFRA? Signed into law by President Clinton in 1993, RFRA had broad bipartisan support: it passed with a unanimous voice vote in the House and by a 97-3 vote in the Senate. As Kim Colby explained yesterday here at Public Discourse, 'RFRA implements a sensible balancing test by which a religious claimant first must demonstrate that the government has substantially burdened a sincerely held religious belief. The government then must demonstrate a compelling interest that cannot be achieved by a less restrictive means.'
Yesterday, the Court made it clear that the HHS mandate substantially burdened a sincere religious belief in an unnecessarily restrictive manner. To determine this, the Court first looked to the beliefs of the Hahns and Greens. The Hahns are devout Mennonite Christians, and the Greens are devout Evangelical Christians. Both families believe that they are obligated to run their businesses in accordance with God’s law as they conscientiously understand it. Neither family objects to contraception per se, but both believe that life begins at conception and that it is wrong to kill – or facilitate the killing of – that life. Thus, both families objected to four of the twenty FDA-approved HHS-mandated contraceptives because they have the potential to act post-fertilization and thus can kill a human embryo.
The Court did not second-guess any of these beliefs, nor did the Court judge whether these beliefs are right or wrong, true or false. The Court merely determined that the beliefs were sincere."
This seems straightforward and simple enough. The Court is not saying they agree with the Greens and Hahn's, they are simply saying that the requirement of the HHS mandate to provide coverage for abortifacient drugs constitutes a legitimate burden under the provisions of the RFRA. So what's really at the heart of the outrage over this decision? Quite simply this: Secular Progressives sincerely believe that their worldview is the only permissible one. They believe this so strongly, are so certain of the superiority of their values and convictions, that they think these beliefs should be backed at all times an in all situations by the force of law. In their eyes, there is no longer a place in civilized society for religion, and certainly no situation in which a person's religious conscience deserves protection under the law. According to the worldview of President Obama and his ilk, the position of Hobby Lobby on this issue is simply illegitimate.
This conviction is evident in a piece by The Center for Inquiry's Ronald A. Lindsay, who writing for the Huffington Post poses the "uncomfortable question" of whether or not we should have six Catholics on the Supreme Court. The way he reads the Hobby Lobby decision, it's not a fair reading of the law that led the Justices to side with the plaintiffs in the case, but the influence of insidious Catholic orthodoxy that is responsible for the Court's ruling. He cannot imagine how the HHS mandate could possibly burden anyone's religious conscience:
"As indicated, it's not just that five Catholic justices ruled that the government has to defer to the employers' religious objections. It's the reasoning on which the Court relied that causes concern. In explaining its decision, the majority made two very revealing points, one directly justifying its decision, the other distinguishing other, possible cases that might now cite Hobby Lobby as precedent. Both these points show how closely the majority adheres to Catholic teaching.
One question that many have had about the employers' objections to contraceptive coverage is why are they claiming they are burdened? No one is forcing anyone to take contraception if they do not want to. It's up to the individual employee to decide whether to take advantage of contraceptive coverage. So where is the burden on religious belief?
In Justice Alito's majority opinion, he relies squarely on Catholic teaching about 'complicity' to explain the supposed burden. In doing so, he reiterates the argument that the Catholic Church has made in the dozens of lawsuits it has brought challenging the contraceptive mandate. According to the Church, it violates the moral obligations of a Catholic to do anything - anything - that would 'facilitate' the provision of contraception to an individual. So even if one is not using contraception oneself, if one facilitates access to contraception by others, a grave moral wrong has been committed."
Surely Lindsay's credulity over the complicity argument wouldn't be as strong if, say, the issue at hand was an employer's refusal to provide loaded handguns to all their employees. In that case, the burden imposed by complicity would be clear cut. Guns, according to reigning Progressive orthodoxy, are evil incarnate. Anyone who supports gun ownership or sells guns or promotes the 2nd Amendment is complicit in any and all criminal acts involving guns. If the government were to pass a law requiring corporations to provide handguns and ammunition to all their employees, you can be sure that there would be lawsuits and that the arguments would be very similar to the ones employees by the Hahn's and Greens. People like Ronald Lindsay would write articles bemoaning the barbarism of making employers complicit in gun violence.
But this is because secular progressives like Lindsay and our President see guns as self-evidently evil and abortion as not, thus their insistence that it's illegitimate to claim that financing the termination of nascent human life is a burden to one's conscience. After all, says Lindsay, the business-owner isn't the one taking the pill, so how could it possibly be their problem or any of their business at all? The irony is simply staggering, but then again, ideology is a potent force that can cause otherwise sensible people to do, say, and believe almost anything. The ideology of unrestrained human sexuality has led us to the point where any imposition upon consequence-free sex is viewed as violation of basic human rights.
Thankfully, five members of the Court were able to remove the lenses of ideology from their eyes, as is their job. They were able to evaluate the weight of the claims placed before them in the eyes of the law. Our Congress upheld the promises of the First Amendment with the passage of the RFRA, and the Court honored this by upholding the religious conscience of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties. Thus, for the time being people who love God and the Constitution can take comfort in the fact that fidelity to the latter does not trump obedience to the former.
But again, Christians should not take the Hobby Lobby decision as an indication that the Court will always rule on the side of religious conscience. There are times when the Court will determine that the State has a compelling interest which overrides a person's claim to religious conscience. Again from Eugene Volokh:
"But Congress also said that these decisions must turn on the facts of each exemption request . . . In future cases – for instance, ones involving race discrimination in employment, or insurance coverage for vaccination or blood transfusions – the result might be different. It might not be possible in those cases (as it is in this case) to adequately accommodate both the government interests and the religious objections. If that’s so, then those religious exemptions would not have to be granted. Wisely or not, Congress has required courts to sort through religious exemption requests, granting some and denying others. This is what the Supreme Court has done here."
And this, after all, is why we have courts. It is the job of a judge to make sounds judgments in accordance with reason, the law, and the common good. For the time being, the weight on the bench seems to lean in favor of these virtues. Lord knows, it won't always be this way.
HAMAS, PALESTINIAN GOVERNMENT AND ISRAEL
Afghanistan: Today the election commission announced the preliminary results from the run-off election on 14 June. The officials said 8 million people voted, from a pool of 13.5 million registered voters.
Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai obtained 4,485,888 votes, which represents 56.4% of the votes.
Dr. Abdullah Abdullah obtained 3,461,639 votes which represents 43.6% of the ballots cast.
The head of the election commission, Nuristani, cautioned that the results are preliminary and do not signify that a party is the winner. He advised against celebrations and warned that the result could change.
He also confirmed that vote rigging occurred. He said, "We cannot ignore the technical problems and fraud during the election process. Some governors and government officials were involved in fraud."
He promised a more extensive investigation before the final results are announced. Final results are scheduled to be announced on 22 July.
Abdullah's reaction. A spokesman for Dr. Abdullah's National Coalition said the Coalition rejected the preliminary results because they include ballots that the commission knows are fraudulent. Abdullah has filed complaints about fraud occurring at 7,000 of the 23,000 polling places. His spokesman called the results a coup against the voters of Afghanistan.
Comment: The results do not look credible for multiple reasons. The election commission admitted it was surprised by the number of ballots cast in the run-off because the turnout was higher than the commission estimated. In fact, 2 million more votes were cast in the run-off than in the first round. That is a counter-intuitive result that signifies voter fraud.
Ashraf Ghani is the candidate of the Pashtuns and Uzbeks. His vice presidential candidate is the famous Uzbek warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum. In the first election he obtained just over 2 million votes which represented 31.5 % of the ballots. He carried 9 of the 34 provinces, based on Pashtun and Uzbek participation. In some of those nine provinces in the south, fewer than 11,000 people voted. Pashtun voter turnout was low, which is normal for Pashtuns.
Abdullah is the candidate of the north, including Tajiks, Hazaras, Panjshiris and smaller tribes. He polled 2.9 million votes, or 45% of the total ballots. He carried 15 provinces, most by a wide margin over Ghani.
For the preliminary results to be accurate, a sea change had to occur, not just in voter attitudes, but in the tribal composition of Afghanistan and in its political culture between April and June. Ghani more than doubled his vote in the run-off, but Abdullah increased by only 17%.
The percentage of votes for Abdullah actually declined. That implies that large numbers of non-Pashtuns switched to vote for a Pashtun or that Pashtuns in unprecedented numbers voted in the run-off but not in the primary election.
Tribal politics do not work that way in Afghanistan for two reasons. Non-Pashtuns disdain Pashtuns for having supported the Taliban, most of whose leaders are Pashtuns. Non-Pashtuns form the majority of the population and they don't vote for Pashtuns. President Karzai has beenan exception because he was the US' man.
Secondly, Pashtuns don't vote. In the primary election, about 750,000 votes were cast in the 13 predominately Pashtun provinces. That is a little over ten percent of the votes cast, but Pashtuns constitute between 40% and 45% of the total population.
To achieve the results announced today, a half million more people voted for Abdullah, but nearly 2.5 million more voted for Ghani. The numbers for Ghani make no sense without ballot box stuffing.
Abdullah apparently knew the election was being stolen, which is why he started decrying voter fraud almost immediately in mid-June. The danger is that this could lead eventually to a renewal of civil war.
One of the Taliban victory scenarios is to take control of Afghanistan through democratic elections. Pashtuns have almost always governed in Kabul and they intend to do so again. Violence seems unavoidable.
Iraq: Iraqi Deputies again have delayed tomorrow's session in which they were supposed to elect a new leadership. That session has been postponed for a month.
Comment: The Deputies have ignored appeals by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani for unity in quickly forming the government. One interpretation is that they judge the Sunni threat not so urgent as to require hasty decisions that the deputies might regret later.
On the other hand, the foot dragging in parliament means that they have agreed that al-Maliki and his team should continue to handle and be responsible for the security situation. That does not mean he will get his coveted third term as prime minister, necessarily. It means he gets more time to fix the mess he helped create.
Israel: Yesterday the armed wing of Hamas claimed responsibility for firing a barrage of at least 100 rockets at 12 towns in southern and west-central Israel. They threatened to fire longer range rockets into Israel unless the Israeli air attacks stop.
Israeli newspapers online carry maps showing the towns that were hit. Rocket sirens sounded in the Jerusalem areas of Mevasseret, Beit Shemesh and Abu Ghosh, and in the central Israeli cities of Rehovot, Nes Tziona and Yavne for the first time since the rocket attacks resumed. Sirens also went off Ashdod, Ashkelon, Kiryat Gat, Kiryat Malakhi, Netivot and Ofakim. All received rocket fire, but only one person was injured, according to official sources.
Israel issued orders to call up 1,500 reserve soldiers to be sent to the Gaza Strip border. Israeli air strikes continued against targets in the Gaza Strip. Violent demonstrations continued for the sixth day.
Comment: The government and the Palestinian leaders are under pressure to escalate the crisis. Hamas has challenged the Palestinian Authority to join the fight.
Late on 7 July, the Israeli security cabinet approved escalation of "Operation Protective Edge." The government also declared a state of emergency in towns in southenr Israel.
Kenya: Update. The Somali terrorist group al-Shaba'ab claimed responsibility for the attacks in Kenya on Saturday night. Nevertheless, the government of President Kenyatta continues to blame tribal politics for the murders, as he did for those last month.
Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai obtained 4,485,888 votes, which represents 56.4% of the votes.
Dr. Abdullah Abdullah obtained 3,461,639 votes which represents 43.6% of the ballots cast.
The head of the election commission, Nuristani, cautioned that the results are preliminary and do not signify that a party is the winner. He advised against celebrations and warned that the result could change.
He also confirmed that vote rigging occurred. He said, "We cannot ignore the technical problems and fraud during the election process. Some governors and government officials were involved in fraud."
He promised a more extensive investigation before the final results are announced. Final results are scheduled to be announced on 22 July.
Abdullah's reaction. A spokesman for Dr. Abdullah's National Coalition said the Coalition rejected the preliminary results because they include ballots that the commission knows are fraudulent. Abdullah has filed complaints about fraud occurring at 7,000 of the 23,000 polling places. His spokesman called the results a coup against the voters of Afghanistan.
Comment: The results do not look credible for multiple reasons. The election commission admitted it was surprised by the number of ballots cast in the run-off because the turnout was higher than the commission estimated. In fact, 2 million more votes were cast in the run-off than in the first round. That is a counter-intuitive result that signifies voter fraud.
Ashraf Ghani is the candidate of the Pashtuns and Uzbeks. His vice presidential candidate is the famous Uzbek warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum. In the first election he obtained just over 2 million votes which represented 31.5 % of the ballots. He carried 9 of the 34 provinces, based on Pashtun and Uzbek participation. In some of those nine provinces in the south, fewer than 11,000 people voted. Pashtun voter turnout was low, which is normal for Pashtuns.
Abdullah is the candidate of the north, including Tajiks, Hazaras, Panjshiris and smaller tribes. He polled 2.9 million votes, or 45% of the total ballots. He carried 15 provinces, most by a wide margin over Ghani.
For the preliminary results to be accurate, a sea change had to occur, not just in voter attitudes, but in the tribal composition of Afghanistan and in its political culture between April and June. Ghani more than doubled his vote in the run-off, but Abdullah increased by only 17%.
The percentage of votes for Abdullah actually declined. That implies that large numbers of non-Pashtuns switched to vote for a Pashtun or that Pashtuns in unprecedented numbers voted in the run-off but not in the primary election.
Tribal politics do not work that way in Afghanistan for two reasons. Non-Pashtuns disdain Pashtuns for having supported the Taliban, most of whose leaders are Pashtuns. Non-Pashtuns form the majority of the population and they don't vote for Pashtuns. President Karzai has beenan exception because he was the US' man.
Secondly, Pashtuns don't vote. In the primary election, about 750,000 votes were cast in the 13 predominately Pashtun provinces. That is a little over ten percent of the votes cast, but Pashtuns constitute between 40% and 45% of the total population.
To achieve the results announced today, a half million more people voted for Abdullah, but nearly 2.5 million more voted for Ghani. The numbers for Ghani make no sense without ballot box stuffing.
Abdullah apparently knew the election was being stolen, which is why he started decrying voter fraud almost immediately in mid-June. The danger is that this could lead eventually to a renewal of civil war.
One of the Taliban victory scenarios is to take control of Afghanistan through democratic elections. Pashtuns have almost always governed in Kabul and they intend to do so again. Violence seems unavoidable.
Iraq: Iraqi Deputies again have delayed tomorrow's session in which they were supposed to elect a new leadership. That session has been postponed for a month.
Comment: The Deputies have ignored appeals by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani for unity in quickly forming the government. One interpretation is that they judge the Sunni threat not so urgent as to require hasty decisions that the deputies might regret later.
On the other hand, the foot dragging in parliament means that they have agreed that al-Maliki and his team should continue to handle and be responsible for the security situation. That does not mean he will get his coveted third term as prime minister, necessarily. It means he gets more time to fix the mess he helped create.
Israel: Yesterday the armed wing of Hamas claimed responsibility for firing a barrage of at least 100 rockets at 12 towns in southern and west-central Israel. They threatened to fire longer range rockets into Israel unless the Israeli air attacks stop.
Israeli newspapers online carry maps showing the towns that were hit. Rocket sirens sounded in the Jerusalem areas of Mevasseret, Beit Shemesh and Abu Ghosh, and in the central Israeli cities of Rehovot, Nes Tziona and Yavne for the first time since the rocket attacks resumed. Sirens also went off Ashdod, Ashkelon, Kiryat Gat, Kiryat Malakhi, Netivot and Ofakim. All received rocket fire, but only one person was injured, according to official sources.
Israel issued orders to call up 1,500 reserve soldiers to be sent to the Gaza Strip border. Israeli air strikes continued against targets in the Gaza Strip. Violent demonstrations continued for the sixth day.
Comment: The government and the Palestinian leaders are under pressure to escalate the crisis. Hamas has challenged the Palestinian Authority to join the fight.
Late on 7 July, the Israeli security cabinet approved escalation of "Operation Protective Edge." The government also declared a state of emergency in towns in southenr Israel.
Kenya: Update. The Somali terrorist group al-Shaba'ab claimed responsibility for the attacks in Kenya on Saturday night. Nevertheless, the government of President Kenyatta continues to blame tribal politics for the murders, as he did for those last month.
8 Jul 2014
SPENDING AND MORALITY
Walter E. Williams
During last year's budget negotiation meetings, President Barack Obama told House Speaker John Boehner, "We don't have a spending problem." When Boehner responded with "But, Mr. President, we have a very serious spending problem," Obama replied, "I'm getting tired of hearing you say that." In one sense, the president is right. What's being called a spending problem is really a symptom of an unappreciated deep-seated national moral rot. Let's examine it with a few questions.
Is it moral for Congress to forcibly use one person to serve the purposes of another? I believe that most Americans would pretend that to do so is offensive. Think about it this way. Suppose I saw a homeless, hungry elderly woman huddled on a heating grate in the dead of winter. To help the woman, I ask somebody for a $200 donation to help her out. If the person refuses, I then use intimidation, threats and coercion to take the person's money. I then purchase food and shelter for the needy woman. My question to you: Have I committed a crime? I hope that most people would answer yes. It's theft to take the property of one person to give to another.
Now comes the hard part. Would it be theft if I managed to get three people to agree that I should take the person's money to help the woman? What if I got 100, 1 million or 300 million people to agree to take the person's $200? Would it be theft then? What if instead of personally taking the person's $200, I got together with other Americans and asked Congress to use Internal Revenue Service agents to take the person's $200? The bottom-line question is: Does an act that's clearly immoral when done privately become moral when it is done collectively and under the color of law? Put another way, does legality establish morality?
For most of our history, Congress did a far better job of limiting its activities to what was both moral and constitutional. As a result, federal spending was only 3 to 5 percent of the gross domestic product from our founding until the 1920s, in contrast with today's 25 percent. Close to three-quarters of today's federal spending can be described as Congress taking the earnings of one American to give to another through thousands of handout programs, such as farm subsidies, business bailouts and welfare.
During earlier times, such spending was deemed unconstitutional and immoral. James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, said, "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist some French refugees, Madison stood on the floor of the House of Representatives to object, saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Today's Americans would crucify a politician expressing similar statements.
There may be nitwits out there who'd assert, "That James Madison guy forgot about the Constitution's general welfare clause." Madison had that covered, explaining in a letter, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one." Thomas Jefferson agreed, writing: Members of Congress "are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare. ... It would reduce the (Constitution) to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please."
The bottom line is that spending is not our basic problem. We've become an immoral people demanding that Congress forcibly use one American to serve the purposes of another. Deficits and runaway national debt are merely symptoms of that larger problem.
During last year's budget negotiation meetings, President Barack Obama told House Speaker John Boehner, "We don't have a spending problem." When Boehner responded with "But, Mr. President, we have a very serious spending problem," Obama replied, "I'm getting tired of hearing you say that." In one sense, the president is right. What's being called a spending problem is really a symptom of an unappreciated deep-seated national moral rot. Let's examine it with a few questions.
Is it moral for Congress to forcibly use one person to serve the purposes of another? I believe that most Americans would pretend that to do so is offensive. Think about it this way. Suppose I saw a homeless, hungry elderly woman huddled on a heating grate in the dead of winter. To help the woman, I ask somebody for a $200 donation to help her out. If the person refuses, I then use intimidation, threats and coercion to take the person's money. I then purchase food and shelter for the needy woman. My question to you: Have I committed a crime? I hope that most people would answer yes. It's theft to take the property of one person to give to another.
Now comes the hard part. Would it be theft if I managed to get three people to agree that I should take the person's money to help the woman? What if I got 100, 1 million or 300 million people to agree to take the person's $200? Would it be theft then? What if instead of personally taking the person's $200, I got together with other Americans and asked Congress to use Internal Revenue Service agents to take the person's $200? The bottom-line question is: Does an act that's clearly immoral when done privately become moral when it is done collectively and under the color of law? Put another way, does legality establish morality?
For most of our history, Congress did a far better job of limiting its activities to what was both moral and constitutional. As a result, federal spending was only 3 to 5 percent of the gross domestic product from our founding until the 1920s, in contrast with today's 25 percent. Close to three-quarters of today's federal spending can be described as Congress taking the earnings of one American to give to another through thousands of handout programs, such as farm subsidies, business bailouts and welfare.
During earlier times, such spending was deemed unconstitutional and immoral. James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, said, "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist some French refugees, Madison stood on the floor of the House of Representatives to object, saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Today's Americans would crucify a politician expressing similar statements.
There may be nitwits out there who'd assert, "That James Madison guy forgot about the Constitution's general welfare clause." Madison had that covered, explaining in a letter, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one." Thomas Jefferson agreed, writing: Members of Congress "are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare. ... It would reduce the (Constitution) to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please."
The bottom line is that spending is not our basic problem. We've become an immoral people demanding that Congress forcibly use one American to serve the purposes of another. Deficits and runaway national debt are merely symptoms of that larger problem.
FAKE PATRIOTISM
Armstrong Williams
This past weekend, Americans located all over the country step out onto their patios, decks, and backyards, to partake in a delicious barbeque with family, friends, and loved ones. A drink or two was sure certainly spilled and chances are, kids fought over who gets to eat the biggest burger.
By the time the evening rolled around, families set up their chairs and picnic blankets as anticipation of the night’s display of fireworks continued to grow. Once the first cracks were heard, all eyes were fixed into the night sky until the anchor was complete.
Throughout the day you would have overheard talk of patriotism and what a sacrifice our veterans have made, but chances are you were too stuffed with food to listen or you were already taking an afternoon nap.
For most Americans, Independence Day is a lot like the beginning of a baseball game. A famous artist sings the National Anthem and everyone in the stadium stands and places their hand upon their heart. Some people sing along or at least mouth the words, but most put on a fake look of sincerity thinking, “I can’t wait till the song ends so the game can begin.”
Americans are very good at looking and sounding patriotic, but it’s fake. We put on face paint and wear ridiculous costumes for the world cup, but we fail to ponder the sacrifice made by past and present American military heroes.
We get more excited at the beginning of a sports game than when a soldier safely returns home to his wife and kids or when soldiers on a helicopter crash narrowly escape the jaws of death. We are more proud when the American soccer team scores a goal in overtime than when American soldiers successfully bring freedom to millions of people across the Atlantic.
Disagree with the last few years of American foreign policy all you want, but at the end of the day the individuals who put their lives on the line for our freedom deserve the upmost respect. We are quick to politicize American military operations, but slow to pray for our troops and support their dedication no matter what the circumstance.
The ongoing scandal at the Veterans Affairs office is disgraceful. The fact that thousands of American veterans are not receiving care or have waited over 90 days to receive care is shameful. Whatever political party you identify with doesn’t matter. All Americans should be outraged over the corruption and scandal and disrespect shown to those soldiers we owe our lives to.
Two years ago, Army Sgt. Brendan Marrocco successfully underwent double arm transplant surgery. He lost both of his arms back in 2009 from a bomb explosion in Iraq. Marrocco’sability to even squeeze and throw a tennis ball is a miracle. He deserves our thanks and praise.
In 2010, Lance Cpl. William "Kyle" Carpenter heroically saved a fellow soldier after the two of them came under heavy fire on a rooftop in Afghanistan. Kyle dove on a live grenade losing his eye and sustaining serious injuries, but saving the life of hisfriend. This is what true love and courage look like.
Our troops demonstrate their willingness to lay down their lives for a friend each and every day they’re on the battlefield.
Think about the courage of the American soldiers who knowingly crawled up a French beach filled with bullets on June 6, 1944 to save a continent from tyranny. Or those outnumbered American soldiers in South Vietnam who fended off attack after attack from the enemy for over three days in the valley of IaDrang.
One trip to the Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia will open your eyes to the costly sacrifices made to secure our freedom. Watching the tears fall from the eyes of one broken family is enough to break your heart.
In an interview after receiving the Medal of Honor, Kyle said, “I receive it with a heavy heart. It’s a huge honor and I’m very appreciative and I'm very humbled by it, but at the same time there is - not just from Iraq and Afghanistan, but previous wars since this country was founded - there have been those who didn’t make it back and those who did make it back and had worse injuries than mine. Courageous things happen on the battlefield every day and all of us raise our right hand in the exact same way to serve our country.”
The heroism of Marrocco and Kyle and so many others shouldfill us with a sense of deep gratitude. This weekend say a prayer for our troops. Care for those veterans who live in your community and care for those broken families who have given everything to secure your freedom.
If you see a veteran in the local grocery store don’t let him pass by. Stop for a moment and say thank you. It’s not enough to sing a song before a baseball game. True patriotism is lived out in daily life. It’s time all Americans start living it out.
This past weekend, Americans located all over the country step out onto their patios, decks, and backyards, to partake in a delicious barbeque with family, friends, and loved ones. A drink or two was sure certainly spilled and chances are, kids fought over who gets to eat the biggest burger.
By the time the evening rolled around, families set up their chairs and picnic blankets as anticipation of the night’s display of fireworks continued to grow. Once the first cracks were heard, all eyes were fixed into the night sky until the anchor was complete.
Throughout the day you would have overheard talk of patriotism and what a sacrifice our veterans have made, but chances are you were too stuffed with food to listen or you were already taking an afternoon nap.
For most Americans, Independence Day is a lot like the beginning of a baseball game. A famous artist sings the National Anthem and everyone in the stadium stands and places their hand upon their heart. Some people sing along or at least mouth the words, but most put on a fake look of sincerity thinking, “I can’t wait till the song ends so the game can begin.”
Americans are very good at looking and sounding patriotic, but it’s fake. We put on face paint and wear ridiculous costumes for the world cup, but we fail to ponder the sacrifice made by past and present American military heroes.
We get more excited at the beginning of a sports game than when a soldier safely returns home to his wife and kids or when soldiers on a helicopter crash narrowly escape the jaws of death. We are more proud when the American soccer team scores a goal in overtime than when American soldiers successfully bring freedom to millions of people across the Atlantic.
Disagree with the last few years of American foreign policy all you want, but at the end of the day the individuals who put their lives on the line for our freedom deserve the upmost respect. We are quick to politicize American military operations, but slow to pray for our troops and support their dedication no matter what the circumstance.
The ongoing scandal at the Veterans Affairs office is disgraceful. The fact that thousands of American veterans are not receiving care or have waited over 90 days to receive care is shameful. Whatever political party you identify with doesn’t matter. All Americans should be outraged over the corruption and scandal and disrespect shown to those soldiers we owe our lives to.
Two years ago, Army Sgt. Brendan Marrocco successfully underwent double arm transplant surgery. He lost both of his arms back in 2009 from a bomb explosion in Iraq. Marrocco’sability to even squeeze and throw a tennis ball is a miracle. He deserves our thanks and praise.
In 2010, Lance Cpl. William "Kyle" Carpenter heroically saved a fellow soldier after the two of them came under heavy fire on a rooftop in Afghanistan. Kyle dove on a live grenade losing his eye and sustaining serious injuries, but saving the life of hisfriend. This is what true love and courage look like.
Our troops demonstrate their willingness to lay down their lives for a friend each and every day they’re on the battlefield.
Think about the courage of the American soldiers who knowingly crawled up a French beach filled with bullets on June 6, 1944 to save a continent from tyranny. Or those outnumbered American soldiers in South Vietnam who fended off attack after attack from the enemy for over three days in the valley of IaDrang.
One trip to the Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia will open your eyes to the costly sacrifices made to secure our freedom. Watching the tears fall from the eyes of one broken family is enough to break your heart.
In an interview after receiving the Medal of Honor, Kyle said, “I receive it with a heavy heart. It’s a huge honor and I’m very appreciative and I'm very humbled by it, but at the same time there is - not just from Iraq and Afghanistan, but previous wars since this country was founded - there have been those who didn’t make it back and those who did make it back and had worse injuries than mine. Courageous things happen on the battlefield every day and all of us raise our right hand in the exact same way to serve our country.”
The heroism of Marrocco and Kyle and so many others shouldfill us with a sense of deep gratitude. This weekend say a prayer for our troops. Care for those veterans who live in your community and care for those broken families who have given everything to secure your freedom.
If you see a veteran in the local grocery store don’t let him pass by. Stop for a moment and say thank you. It’s not enough to sing a song before a baseball game. True patriotism is lived out in daily life. It’s time all Americans start living it out.
AMERICA - IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT HER
David Limbaugh
Do we conservatives really mean it when we say that we need to promote our ideas in the popular culture through books, movies and other media? If so, we need to support people like Dinesh D'Souza and his latest movie and book, "America: Imagine the World Without Her." I saw the movie, and I loved it.
Dinesh is a passionate patriot who "chose this country" and loves it with every fiber of his being. Like many of the rest of us, he recognizes that America is under assault, and he is doing all he can to save it.
In the movie, Dinesh describes how the political left has infiltrated our culture and educational institutions and presented a damning moral indictment of this nation and free market capitalism.
In the eyes of the left, America is intrinsically evil -- a predatory colonial power that acquired its wealth by conquest. Avowed leftist Howard Zinn advanced these noxious themes in "A People's History of the United States," which has been a staple American history book in our universities and high schools.
According to the leftist "shame narrative," which is driven more by ideology than a commitment to historical accuracy, America conquered, exploited, enslaved and stole its way to wealth and power. Our forefathers committed genocide against the Native Americans while stealing their land; we gobbled up the southwestern part of the country from Mexico as warmongering imperialists; we built our businesses and industries on the backs of African-American slaves; and through our system of free market capitalism and foreign policy imperialism, we have stolen the lion's share of the world's wealth. Also, under our system, the "haves" in the United States continue to extort resources from the "have-nots," robbing the common man of his fair share.
Dinesh answers this bill of particulars against the United States, admitting our transgressions, when warranted, and setting the record straight with the other side of history, which has been purposely hidden from us.
Don't assume that you are fully aware of the other side. Dinesh presents evidence that you probably haven't heard or read before -- but it's vitally important evidence that tells an entirely different story from what recent generations of Americans have been led (and brainwashed) to believe. The institution of slavery, for example, has been present in almost every culture in world history; America is the only nation that endured a bloody civil war to eradicate the inhuman practice.
As a political commentator and American patriot, I am troubled constantly by our cultural amnesia about what is so great about America. I find too many people, including on the conservative side, forever apologizing for their beliefs and defensive about traditional values, capitalism and even the American idea. It's as if the leftist "shame narrative" has done a number on us -- as if much of our side is now comfortable with a gargantuan welfare state and doesn't dare promote capitalism from a moral perspective.
What has always attracted me most to Dinesh's approach is his unapologetic championing of America -- its founding principles and its historical record. He takes a back seat to no one in proclaiming America's foundational and historical greatness. America has been a force for good like no other in the history of mankind.
In fact, America didn't steal its wealth; it created it, because its free market system, undergirded by Christian values, gave rise to an explosion of entrepreneurship, growth and unprecedented prosperity. Moreover, but for America, world history would remain a story of wealth by conquest.
Dinesh rightly points out, however, that the leftist narrative continues virtually unabated: America stole its resources, so it must pay for this monumental injustice. It is our duty to return these "stolen goods" to the rest of the world, those it exploited historically and the "have-nots" in our society.
The left has trained generations of Americans, in our schools and in our media, that we need to atone for our alleged sins. Barack Obama is a product of this training -- as is Hillary Clinton. Yesterday's radicals are today's leading government officials, and they are doing their very best to fundamentally change America from the inside. At this point, they're succeeding. "We are witnessing economic redistribution at a level never before imagined," Dinesh says.
Dinesh also points out that Obama did not create the radical left's comprehensive assault on America; it created him, but he has accelerated the pace of our decline to an alarming degree.
You would have to be blind or oblivious not to recognize that America is at a crossroads. A dire challenge confronts us. The clock is ticking, and those hellbent on permanently transforming this nation into a utopian paradise (read: atheist, socialist state) are working overtime and relentlessly.
We may not have a Washington, Lincoln or Reagan right now, cautions Dinesh, but we have ourselves.
Will we stand up to this challenge? Will we rise up to save America and preserve its unique greatness? Or will we abandon its future and that of our children to the designs of those who are presently transforming it into something unrecognizable, a place where robust political freedom is but a distant memory?
Do we conservatives really mean it when we say that we need to promote our ideas in the popular culture through books, movies and other media? If so, we need to support people like Dinesh D'Souza and his latest movie and book, "America: Imagine the World Without Her." I saw the movie, and I loved it.
Dinesh is a passionate patriot who "chose this country" and loves it with every fiber of his being. Like many of the rest of us, he recognizes that America is under assault, and he is doing all he can to save it.
In the movie, Dinesh describes how the political left has infiltrated our culture and educational institutions and presented a damning moral indictment of this nation and free market capitalism.
In the eyes of the left, America is intrinsically evil -- a predatory colonial power that acquired its wealth by conquest. Avowed leftist Howard Zinn advanced these noxious themes in "A People's History of the United States," which has been a staple American history book in our universities and high schools.
According to the leftist "shame narrative," which is driven more by ideology than a commitment to historical accuracy, America conquered, exploited, enslaved and stole its way to wealth and power. Our forefathers committed genocide against the Native Americans while stealing their land; we gobbled up the southwestern part of the country from Mexico as warmongering imperialists; we built our businesses and industries on the backs of African-American slaves; and through our system of free market capitalism and foreign policy imperialism, we have stolen the lion's share of the world's wealth. Also, under our system, the "haves" in the United States continue to extort resources from the "have-nots," robbing the common man of his fair share.
Dinesh answers this bill of particulars against the United States, admitting our transgressions, when warranted, and setting the record straight with the other side of history, which has been purposely hidden from us.
Don't assume that you are fully aware of the other side. Dinesh presents evidence that you probably haven't heard or read before -- but it's vitally important evidence that tells an entirely different story from what recent generations of Americans have been led (and brainwashed) to believe. The institution of slavery, for example, has been present in almost every culture in world history; America is the only nation that endured a bloody civil war to eradicate the inhuman practice.
As a political commentator and American patriot, I am troubled constantly by our cultural amnesia about what is so great about America. I find too many people, including on the conservative side, forever apologizing for their beliefs and defensive about traditional values, capitalism and even the American idea. It's as if the leftist "shame narrative" has done a number on us -- as if much of our side is now comfortable with a gargantuan welfare state and doesn't dare promote capitalism from a moral perspective.
What has always attracted me most to Dinesh's approach is his unapologetic championing of America -- its founding principles and its historical record. He takes a back seat to no one in proclaiming America's foundational and historical greatness. America has been a force for good like no other in the history of mankind.
In fact, America didn't steal its wealth; it created it, because its free market system, undergirded by Christian values, gave rise to an explosion of entrepreneurship, growth and unprecedented prosperity. Moreover, but for America, world history would remain a story of wealth by conquest.
Dinesh rightly points out, however, that the leftist narrative continues virtually unabated: America stole its resources, so it must pay for this monumental injustice. It is our duty to return these "stolen goods" to the rest of the world, those it exploited historically and the "have-nots" in our society.
The left has trained generations of Americans, in our schools and in our media, that we need to atone for our alleged sins. Barack Obama is a product of this training -- as is Hillary Clinton. Yesterday's radicals are today's leading government officials, and they are doing their very best to fundamentally change America from the inside. At this point, they're succeeding. "We are witnessing economic redistribution at a level never before imagined," Dinesh says.
Dinesh also points out that Obama did not create the radical left's comprehensive assault on America; it created him, but he has accelerated the pace of our decline to an alarming degree.
You would have to be blind or oblivious not to recognize that America is at a crossroads. A dire challenge confronts us. The clock is ticking, and those hellbent on permanently transforming this nation into a utopian paradise (read: atheist, socialist state) are working overtime and relentlessly.
We may not have a Washington, Lincoln or Reagan right now, cautions Dinesh, but we have ourselves.
Will we stand up to this challenge? Will we rise up to save America and preserve its unique greatness? Or will we abandon its future and that of our children to the designs of those who are presently transforming it into something unrecognizable, a place where robust political freedom is but a distant memory?
A PRIMER ON RACE
Thomas Sowell
Back in the heyday of the British Empire, a man from one of the colonies addressed a London audience.
"Please do not do any more good in my country," he said. "We have suffered too much already from all the good that you have done."
That is essentially the message of an outstanding new book by Jason Riley about blacks in America. Its title is "Please Stop Helping Us." Its theme is that many policies designed to help blacks are in fact harmful, sometimes devastatingly so. These counterproductive policies range from minimum wage laws to "affirmative action" quotas.
This book untangles the controversies, the confusions, and the irresponsible rhetoric in which issues involving minimum wage laws are usually discussed. As someone who has followed minimum wage controversies for decades, I must say that I have never seen the subject explained more clearly or more convincingly.
Black teenage unemployment rates ranging from 20 to 50 percent have been so common over the past 60 years that many people are unaware that this was not true before there were minimum wage laws, or even during years when inflation rendered minimum wage laws ineffective, as in the late 1940s.
Pricing young people out of work deprives them not only of income but also of work experience, which can be even more valuable. Pricing young people out of legal work, when illegal work is always available, is just asking for trouble. So is having large numbers of idle young males hanging out together on the streets.
When it comes to affirmative action, Jason Riley asks the key question: "Do racial preferences work? What is the track record?" Like many other well-meaning and nice-sounding policies, affirmative action cannot survive factual scrutiny.
Some individuals may get jobs they would not get otherwise but many black students who are quite capable of getting a good college education are admitted, under racial quotas, to institutions whose pace alone is enough to make it unlikely that they will graduate.
Studies that show how many artificial failures are created by affirmative action admissions policies are summarized in "Please Stop Helping Us," in language much easier to understand than in the original studies.
There are many ponderous academic studies of blacks, if you have a few months in which to read them, but there is nothing to match Jason Riley's book as a primer that will quickly bring you up to speed on the complicated subject of race in a week, or perhaps over a weekend.
As an experienced journalist, rather than an academic, Riley knows how to use plain English to get to the point. He also has the integrity to give it to you straight, instead of in the jargon and euphemisms too often found in discussions of race. The result is a book that provides more knowledge and insight in a couple of hundred pages than are usually found in books twice that length.
Unlike academics who just tell facts, Riley knows which facts are telling.
For example, in response to claims that blacks don't do well academically because the schools use an approach geared to white students, he points out that blacks from foreign, non-English-speaking countries do better in American schools than black, English-speaking American students.
Asian students do better than whites in schools supposedly geared to whites. In New York City's three academically elite public high schools -- Stuyvesant, Bronx Science and Brooklyn Tech -- there are more than twice as many Asian students as white students in all three institutions.
So much for the theory that non-whites can't do well in schools supposedly geared to whites.
On issue after issue, "Please Stop Helping Us" cites facts to destroy propaganda and puncture inflated rhetoric. It is impossible to do justice to the wide range of racial issues -- from crime to family disintegration -- explored in this book. Pick up a copy and open pages at random to see how the author annihilates nonsense.
His brief comments pack a lot of punch. For example, "having a black man in the Oval Office is less important than having one in the home."
Back in the heyday of the British Empire, a man from one of the colonies addressed a London audience.
"Please do not do any more good in my country," he said. "We have suffered too much already from all the good that you have done."
That is essentially the message of an outstanding new book by Jason Riley about blacks in America. Its title is "Please Stop Helping Us." Its theme is that many policies designed to help blacks are in fact harmful, sometimes devastatingly so. These counterproductive policies range from minimum wage laws to "affirmative action" quotas.
This book untangles the controversies, the confusions, and the irresponsible rhetoric in which issues involving minimum wage laws are usually discussed. As someone who has followed minimum wage controversies for decades, I must say that I have never seen the subject explained more clearly or more convincingly.
Black teenage unemployment rates ranging from 20 to 50 percent have been so common over the past 60 years that many people are unaware that this was not true before there were minimum wage laws, or even during years when inflation rendered minimum wage laws ineffective, as in the late 1940s.
Pricing young people out of work deprives them not only of income but also of work experience, which can be even more valuable. Pricing young people out of legal work, when illegal work is always available, is just asking for trouble. So is having large numbers of idle young males hanging out together on the streets.
When it comes to affirmative action, Jason Riley asks the key question: "Do racial preferences work? What is the track record?" Like many other well-meaning and nice-sounding policies, affirmative action cannot survive factual scrutiny.
Some individuals may get jobs they would not get otherwise but many black students who are quite capable of getting a good college education are admitted, under racial quotas, to institutions whose pace alone is enough to make it unlikely that they will graduate.
Studies that show how many artificial failures are created by affirmative action admissions policies are summarized in "Please Stop Helping Us," in language much easier to understand than in the original studies.
There are many ponderous academic studies of blacks, if you have a few months in which to read them, but there is nothing to match Jason Riley's book as a primer that will quickly bring you up to speed on the complicated subject of race in a week, or perhaps over a weekend.
As an experienced journalist, rather than an academic, Riley knows how to use plain English to get to the point. He also has the integrity to give it to you straight, instead of in the jargon and euphemisms too often found in discussions of race. The result is a book that provides more knowledge and insight in a couple of hundred pages than are usually found in books twice that length.
Unlike academics who just tell facts, Riley knows which facts are telling.
For example, in response to claims that blacks don't do well academically because the schools use an approach geared to white students, he points out that blacks from foreign, non-English-speaking countries do better in American schools than black, English-speaking American students.
Asian students do better than whites in schools supposedly geared to whites. In New York City's three academically elite public high schools -- Stuyvesant, Bronx Science and Brooklyn Tech -- there are more than twice as many Asian students as white students in all three institutions.
So much for the theory that non-whites can't do well in schools supposedly geared to whites.
On issue after issue, "Please Stop Helping Us" cites facts to destroy propaganda and puncture inflated rhetoric. It is impossible to do justice to the wide range of racial issues -- from crime to family disintegration -- explored in this book. Pick up a copy and open pages at random to see how the author annihilates nonsense.
His brief comments pack a lot of punch. For example, "having a black man in the Oval Office is less important than having one in the home."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)