Thursday, December 22, 2005

WW II (Warrantless Wiretaps II)

What follows is an exchange I had with a coworker over a series of emails related to the President’s authorization for warrantless wiretaps of international calls involving persons with connections to terrorism. My coworker and I had had a heated discussion several days before in which he asserted that the President had violated the law. I told him that I was pretty sure his actions were legal (and politically popular to boot). He stormed off before I could explain why. I think he was mostly stung because he did not like someone threatening to puncture the bubble of hopefulness he was nurturing that the President would be impeached. I just had to hear the bubble pop. I think you can hear it towards the end of the email string. Also, note the startling ignorance revealed in his responses (this from a person with a subscription to the Economist and the New Yorker). Enjoy...

Me: Attached is a Justice Department brief to the highest ranking members of the Senate and House intelligence committees explaining the President’s authority to perform warrant-less wiretaps for National Security.

Also, here is a link to an analysis of the law in question by an attorney.

What is most remarkable about all of this is that of all of the cases out there on this subject, none (use of that word very rarely occurs in interpretation of the law) even come close to establishing that the President was acting unconstitutionally or illegally. More still, those that are most recent (including a very recent Federal Appellate Court case by the FISA court itself) clearly provide that the President has exactly the rights he said he did.

It is remarkable that there prominent attorneys publicly opining otherwise. It think a large part of the explanation of this is that very few people (and very few attorneys) have ever dealt with law involving national security and they instead analyze the law according to their understanding of domestic criminal law. I would agree with them wholeheartedly that if the President did what he did in order to investigate domestic criminal activity he would be in deep trouble. That is not what this is all about, though.

The President has (at least) two hats he wears: the Chief Executive hat, and the Commander-in-Chief hat. When he is wearing his Chief Executive hat he shares many of his powers with Congress (and is often subservient to that branch of government). He has to execute and follow the laws that they pass. However, when he is wearing the Commander-in-Chief hat he is not subservient. Indeed, as his actions come closer and closer to how to prosecute a war he has superior powers to the Congress. In that context, they cannot pass laws that dictate his actions.

Congress cannot dictate how the President obtains intelligence on the enemy’s plans in a war. And if you doubt that there is a war – look no further than Congresses act authorizing the President to use “all available means” to combat AQ and its terrorist affiliates. Intelligence gathering is more central to this war than any other war in our history.

As an interesting side note – some claim that his actions violate the fourth amendment (the JD argument and the linked argument destroy that position). Even if that was the case (which it is not), the futility of the argument is made clear by the remedy. The only remedy for a violation of a person’s fourth amendment rights is that the information obtained cannot be used in to prosecute that person. It is extremely doubtful that the government would ever use the information that is being obtained in these wiretaps in Court – so the remedy is meaningless anyway.

One reason some of the high profile attorneys feel more comfortable claiming the President is acting illegally or unconstitutionally is that the Supreme Court has never addressed this issue head on. I think that those attorneys are expressing how they think (or hope) the Supreme Court would rule. The problem with that position is that the Supreme Court tends to follow the lower courts when there is not a dispute between the lower courts (one of the ways they do this is by refusing to take the case) and they tend to be deferential to past practice. There is not a dispute here between lower court opinions. Past practice also supports the legality and constitutionality of the President’s actions (Carter, Reagan, Clinton - all authorized warrant-less searches for National security purposes).

Him: So are they arguing that this is a war? Was that made official?


Me: Congress passed a law after 9/11 authorizing the President to wage war on A-Q and its affiliates. Yes, we are at war.

Him: I thought they only approved all necessary means. That a declaration of war was never made. I must be mistaken.


Me: Here is the authorization

The authorization

President signs the authorization


Me: An authorization for use of Force has the same effect as declaration of war – the Congress is telling him to put on his Commander-in-Chief hat.

For whatever reason – since World War II Congress has issued “Authorizations to use Force” rather than “Declarations of War”. I think they think it sounds less scary. Also, since WWII is has not been PC to declare war because it implies you are going after a country - rather than just a government – which is what were usually after in a war.

Him: So he can do as he pleases so long as this pseudo war is open ended? Come on….

Me: No.

First, it is not a Pseudo-war, unless you are repudiating all of the votes of all of the members of the Congress (including the overwhelming numbers of Democrats who voted for it).

Second, Congress can remove funding for the agency performing the eavesdropping.

They could revoke their authorization (although the President has inherent national defense powers even without the authorization - remember Clinton, Carter and Reagan’s authorizations for wiretaps were not shut down even though there was no war on – so he could still probably do it). The authorization just makes all that much more likely that the courts will not second guess his actions.

Congress can impeach the President in the event he does go too far

Finally, you can elect someone else into the government when the President’s term ends.

You should really be more concerned in this case that a number of Congressmen have so little regard for and knowledge about the separation of powers – the idea that no branch of government can usurp the powers of another (in this case Congress [attempting to] usurp Presidential powers).

Him: I’m more concerned with abuses. The funding argument is bunk. Nobody would defund the NSA (too many cool movies predicated on their power). It’s all about controls. There’s a means by which the wire taps can be had and they’re bypassing that. Why?

Bottom line, I don’t care if it’s Carter’s grandmother trying to do good, it’s abuse, in my mind. Where does it end? Torture? Rape? Murder? You need controls, especially when you’re living in a flat world and trying to win over the minds of young, potentially radical Islamic boys and girls. After the prison fiascos, we need to be more transparent, or, at the very least, presenting a the appearance of a government run with the necessary checks and balances to prevent abuse.

I’m a realist. I know shit will happen and in many cases needs to. They can always petition the special court up to 3 days after it happens. That ain’t going to be denied unless it was a bogus tap.

Have a lovely and safe Christmas.

Me: Have a lovely and safe Christmas as well.

Thanks to the President it is more likely to be lovely and safe (Sorry, I couldn’t help it).

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Warrantless Wiretaps

There are a lot of people analyzing the legality of the President's actions in authorizing eavesdropping without a search warrant on international calls (calls between the U.S. and other countries) where a party to the conversation has some connection to terrorism. One analysis was linked to at several popular sites: Jonathan Adler in the Corner, Belmont Club and Powerline Blog. The conclusion of the analysis is that the President's actions were constitutional but illegal.

The point (I think) was that the President acted within his constitutional power as the Commander-in-Chief but likely violated one or more laws passed by Congress that would appear to require a search warrant. I agree with the conclusion that the President's actions were constitutional. I disagree with the conclusion that his actions were illegal for the very reason that they were constitutional.

Essentially, I think the analysis linked to is much more complex than it needs to be. The basic flaw is that the analysis appears to assume that Congress, by enacting a law, could extinguish some of the powers of the President as Commander in Chief. It cannot, and any law that would purport to is unconstitutional to that extent.

Therefore, once it is determined that the President is acting within his constitutional powers as Commander-in-Chief, there is no need to analyze any further. No law passed by Congress can impede him in that capacity. To find otherwise would allow congress to take away the President's constitutional powers and duties, a clear threat to the separation of powers.

In other words, in this case, if his actions were constitutional they were also legal.

On the constitutionality issue

In the end, it is up to the Supreme Court whether the President’s actions were constitutional (although the President is also vested with power to interpret the Constitution). However, Congress has passed a law essentially authorizing the President to wage war on Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups. As the Commander-in-Chief, the President has broad power to prosecute the war. The Fourth Amendment (no unreasonable searches and seizures and requirement for warrant) still binds the President acting as Commander-in-Chief. However the Constitution is not a suicide pact. The President has the power to do what is necessary to defend it and the courts are deferential to his judgment about what is necessary. So, in the end, the scope of what is considered a reasonable search and seizure is broadened in the national security context and the requirement for a warrant seems not to exist. Examples of the deference the courts have given a President in a time of war include: (1) Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus for citizens (the right to be brought before a court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody) during the civil war; and (2) the detention of Americans of Japanese descent during WWII. I do not see how the U.S. Supreme Court could go from allowing those activities to denying the current President the very limited power to intercept conversations to and from telephone numbers that are found in laptop computers of captured suspects of an organization that has expressly vowed to kill as many Americans as it can.

I think that once again we are seeing the Democrats (and weak-kneed Republicans) attempt to frame the issue in terms of law enforcement. There is a good reason (from their perspective) to do this. It appears to give them control over his actions. In the law enforcement context, the President is simply acting as the chief executive where he is more subservient to the Congress. They enact the laws and he must execute them. Generally, he can only do what their laws allow him to do - which is exactly what the Democrats want. On the other hand, when he is acting as Commander-in-Chief and we are at war he is not subservient to Congress.

The tactic of treating this like a criminal search matter is compelling to the Public. The public is used to the President acting in his more subservient role as chief executive. They are also familiar with television and movies which show the police obtaining warrants before they conduct a criminal search. They think that they are always required. It will be somewhat difficult to explain to the public that a warrant may not be required to conduct a search in the national security context. The Democrats are counting on the public having a hard time adjusting.

Thursday, December 01, 2005

Tom Fox

I met one of the latest Iraq hostages, Tom Fox, on a plane flight from Dulles to O'Hare on about January 20, 2005. He was very reserved. It was very unlike me, but I initiated a conversation with him because he was looking at a publication that had pictures of Iraq. He had a buzz cut and a bearing that was slightly military. So, I asked him if he had been to Iraq. He said "yes" and he said he had recently been there with a Christian organization doing charitable work.

We talked for a long time. He told me that he had been a professional musician. He had only recently begun working for the charity. He said his children probably thought he was nuts for doing the work that he was doing. He knew it was dangerous. We talked about Margaret Hassan and he explained that most of the kidnappings were about money and that the vast majority of those kidnapped were Iraqis. He was guarded about his political views (perhaps because he was against the American intervention and he could sense that I supported it). He was not preachy. He appeared somewhat pessimistic about how things were going in Iraq - but, I could also sense that he thought we might succeed. He had that assured calm that comes only from deep religious faith or from contentment with a life well-lived, or both.

I pray for Tom Fox's safe return and for his family. However, having met him I think there are very few who could face his predicament better than he could.

Update: The more I read about Tom Fox's "charity", CPT, the less sympathetic I am about his plight. The organization appears to have gone to Iraq only to criticize U.S. actions. One of their goals was to push for the release of any prisoners in U.S. custody. Ironically (or coincidentally?) their kidnappers are threatening to behead them if all of the prisoners held by the U.S. and Iraq are not released. That will not happen. Accordingly, it may turn out that Tom Fox is beheaded by people who share his goals. Such a result would be yet another example of the remarkable naiveté of the Left regarding the nature of our enemies. They will slaughter any infidel that they can get their hands on, even the useful idiots of the Left. Unfortunately, the Left will learn nothing just as they learned nothing from Margaret Hassan's death.

If he and the other members are released unharmed, I will have to believe that some ransom was paid or that this was all a stunt designed to garner attention for CPT and their perverted motives.

Saturday, October 29, 2005

Miers' Withdrawal/ Reconnecting With Conservatives

I am very pleased that Miers withdrew. I thought she was a mistake from the beginning. I did not post on it because I thought all of the problems with her nomination had been raised by others. She is a competent attorney but she was not of the quality that is required on the Supreme Court. As a result, I feared that she would be easily swayed by the dark side -- I mean the liberals -- on the Court. This risk was compounded by the fact that her positions were all over the map in the past and the fact that she tended to say whatever would please those around her. You cannot be a principled conservative and seek to be admired by everyone. Look at how Scalia, Thomas and Bork are reviled by liberals.

Now that Miers has withdrawn, I pray that Bush reconnects with his base by nominating a clearly conservative and articulate jurist.

If he does not, his presidency is effectively over and the benefits of his presidency to the country will be squandered.

If he does attempt to reconnect (and I think he is -- as I explain below) conservatives must rally to his side as never before. If his presidency founders the war will founder and conservative ideals will founder. The next president will, even if he is a Republican, flee from the President's policies (including the war) on the grounds that they are a proven political failure. But, they are not and should not be remembered that way. The next president will avoid doing any big things. The war on terror will devolve into a matter for the police, with the country responding with arrests only after each inevitable blow.

I think that the President is trying to reconnect with his base. Debkafile posted this week that Palestinian President Abbas left his meeting with the Bush with no assurances of help from the U.S. and with an admonishment from the President that he will not enable a Palestinian state during his the Bush administration because the Palestinians have done nothing to crack down on terrorism (this despite a seeming warm post meeting press conference by the leaders). While Debka credibility is very questionable - their accuracy tends to be much greater on matters related to Palestinians and Israel. If what they said is correct, the President has clearly abandoned the “peace process”, at least in private. That is a position that any conservative should support. The Palestinian’s are clearly one of our opponents in this war against militant Islamists. Israel (and the U.S.) should not seek peace until the Palestinians are forced to abandon militant Islam.

President Bush has also begun to take steps to woo back fiscal conservatives. This administration’s spending has been out of control and on all the wrong stuff (I suspect some increased spending would be acceptable to fiscal conservatives. For instance, I think they would happily support any expenditures required to enlarge the Army and Marines). This week he has made several public statements about getting spending under control. If he follows up on these with some real action by the administration his actions should be strongly supported by conservatives.

Friday, October 21, 2005

Immigration

Just the other day I read an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “California Race Highlights Split On Immigration”, WSJ, Tuesday Oct. 18, 2005 Section B, Page 9. In that article I read the most astonishing survey results. The Republican polling firm Tarrance Group polled 800 Republican voters nationwide and found that only 16% want to stop the flow of illegal immigrants entirely. This is a truly remarkable statistic that highlights something disturbing that I have noticed over the years. We have become so accustomed to illegal immigration that when the words “illegal immigration” are spoken or printed, the vast majority of people only hear or see “immigration”. That is the only way this polling of Republicans came to this result. Are we really to believe that only 16% Republicans believe that the immigration laws of the United States should be enforced? No, the better bet is that only 16% of Republicans believe that immigration should be stopped entirely.

Some of the public confusion on this issue has been deliberately nurtured. There are strong forces supporting illegal immigration from businesses that need cheap labor to bleeding-heart liberals (who can’t think any further than that allowing people in seems nice) to Americans of Mexican decent who desire to see others from Mexico have an opportunity to live in the U.S. For years those groups have demonized anyone who was against illegal immigration as being anti immigrant or racist. Add to that the overwhelming fear of most people not to be deemed to be discriminating in any way and a lack of general understanding of when discrimination is prohibited and you have a public that does not feel free to think clearly on the subject. That suits those supporting illegal immigration just fine.

Well, its time for a bit of clarity on the subject.

Legal Immigration is generally good :-). Legal immigrants are people who are in this country with our permission. We get to choose which legal immigrants get to come here (fn. 1). We have an opportunity to know who they are and what they want to do. They provide a fresh supply of labor (for some of the jobs that generally more affluent Americans do not want to do). They add their vitality and character to the melting pot and pay taxes. In return, we grant them many of the rights we grant citizens.

Illegal immigration is bad :-(. There is no argument you can make in support of it if you are interested in the well-being of the United States. Illegal immigrants are people who have entered this country without our permission. We have no idea who they are, what they are doing or what they want to do. It only took 19 people, many of whom were illegals, to kill 3,000 Americans and topple the World Trade Center. It is estimated that there 11 million people in this country illegally. If even a tiny tiny fraction of the illegal immigrants have Al Qaeda-like ill intent that is the potential for a hell of a lot of dead Americans and leveled buildings.

Illegal Immigrants provide nothing that the U.S. could not obtain from legal immigrants.

Illegal immigrants can also be expensive. Illegal immigrants don’t pay income taxes but are entitled to many public services by the constitution (fn. 2).

Illegal immigration is bad for legal immigration. Rampant illegal immigration creates a stigma against legal immigration. Further, illegal immigrants take some of the jobs that legal immigrants would take – reducing the demand for legal immigration. In the end we lose the opportunity chose which immigrants enter this country.

What can we take away from this? Stop all illegal immigration entirely. Seal the borders the best we can. We obtain no benefit from open borders and expose ourselves to a great deal of risk. Then, lets engage in a public debate about legal immigration. Lets discuss who we want in and how many. In order to make the elimination of illegal immigration more palatable to those currently in favor of illegal immigration we should consider a very sizable increase in legal immigration (which is very limited compared to the number of people involved in illegal immigration).

This can be a win-win solution. Anyone in support of this approach is being pro immigration, pro security and pro business.

(fn. 1) Yes, we can choose who gets to immigrate to this country. We can discriminate based on race, religion, country of origin, sex… all we want. Why? We can discriminate against prospective immigrants because the protections of the constitution (including the prohibition on improper discrimination) do not apply to non-citizens who are not on U.S. soil. For instance, we could pass a federal immigration law that says that no more Muslims will be allowed to immigrate to (or even visit) this country (not something I am advocating - just an example of how targeted the law could be). Indeed, we do currently have quotas based on country of origin.

(fn. 2) Who gets the benefits of constitution protection? It protects the citizens of the United States and persons present in the United States. This explains why Camp Delta is located at Gitmo. If any of the battlefield detainees in the war were brought to the U.S. they would likely be entitled to constitutional protections. This also explains why Zacarias Moussaoui, who was arrested in the U.S., is getting the benefit of a federal trial (with all of the due process that entails) even though he is not a citizen. It also explains why John Walker Lindh was not kept at Gitmo. He is a citizen and is entitled to constitutional protections regardless of where he was captured.

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

The Cure for Martyrdom

There is truth in the concern that if you kill an ideological opponent you risk creating a martyr: a symbol that could strengthen and unify your opponent. In this war against militant Islam the United States and Israel are often cautioned not to kill certain opponents lest we create a martyr. I don't think this concern makes sense in war. In war, the best way to negate the martyrdom phenomenon is to water it down. In a nutshell, you create so many martyrs that your enemy cannot keep track of them, much less revere them.

Monday, September 26, 2005

Upper Hand

Israel got the upper hand in its battle with the Palestinians in early 2004. The reduction in effective attacks against Israel was very abrupt, much more abrupt than I expected. I think that there were two reasons for the success, one that has been widely identified and another that has not. The one that has been widely identified is the wall. Israel began to wall-off itself from the Palestinians in the West Bank. The West Bank was the place from which almost all of the effective Palestinian terror attacks emanated (the other territory, Gaza was already walled-off). As the wall progressed, the Israelis had fewer and fewer infiltration points to monitor, resulting in closer monitoring of the remaining locations.

The monitoring worked. The Israelis were able to intercept more of the bombers and the Palestinians are trying less because of the increasing futility. There is no sneaking, negotiating, whining or cajoling your way around a wall.

This reminds me of an incident I had in raising my eldest son. He was about three or four years old and was just being moved to a bed from a crib. One of the first nights he realized that he could get out of the bed (unlike the crib) and leave his room, which he did, over and over again. My wife and I tried to keep him in the room and he kept coming out. He was bull-headed. We fought a running battle with him for most of that night. Parents grew more and more angry and more and more desperate. Yelling and threats of punishment were no use. We spent much of the night up, as did our other children. The next night the same thing happened.

The following day I installed a latch on his door (I still feel guilty about this) that would allow the door to open a bit but not enough for him to get out. The result was remarkable. That night he pulled at the door and shouted for ten minutes (the door would open a bit and he could see the latch). Then, he retreated to his bed and slept soundly the rest of the night. We never had another problem. I realized that before the latch he believed he could get a concession from is parents and the possibility of that made him continue his hopeless quest. When he was confronted with the latch he very quickly realized that it would grant no concessions and he abandoned his quest.

I think the wall is the latch for the Palestinians. I pray the Palestinian people exhibit the wisdom of a 3-year old by abandoning their counterproductive quest.

The other reason Israel has gained the upper hand is that they stopped respecting a Palestinian fiction. The Palestinian terror groups (especially Hamas) had long maintained that they had a military wing and a political wing. Since the first Intifada, Israel had respected that distinction, despite the fact that the political wings clearly supported the military wings. That all ended on March 22, 2004. On that day, Israel killed the leader of the Hamas political wing, Ahmed Yassin, with a missile strike. Several weeks later his overconfident replacement was also killed. After each killing, many Palestinians shrieked black vows of revenge and the media amplified them with apocalyptic predictions about the security of Israel. Yet, the threatened response never materialized. I think I can guess why. The political wing leaders do not want to be martyrs and they can control the military wings. You don’t spend years and years clawing your way to the top of an organization (can you imagine what kind of horrific struggle that would entail in a violent organizations like Hamas?) just to trade all of that effort for martyrdom. Political leaders crave power and power is only fun if you are alive to wield it. Start killing them and the remaining ambitious ones will seek accommodation even as they jockey to fill the vacant post.

Killing the military functionaries does not create a deterrent. These positions are filled with wanna-be martyrs. The sick Palestinian culture will always supply more brainwashed youths for these positions.

Saturday, September 24, 2005

When Giving is Taking (or The Danger of Privacy)

It seems counter intuitive, but Supreme Court cases dealing with abortion are not about whether abortion is right or wrong. Indeed, the case of Roe v. Wade was not decided on that basis. The main issue the court was wrestling with was whether the “Right of Privacy” that emanated from a prior Supreme Court decision would make any law limiting abortion unconstitutional.

The majority of the court concluded that a woman had a privacy right to make medical decisions about her body and that this meant that the government could not pass laws that would unreasonably interfere with her medical decisions related to abortion. The remainder of the decision related to what constituted an unreasonable interference with that right. That portion of the opinion consisted of a fascinating and ingenious balancing of the rights of the unborn child and the mother’s right to make decisions about her body. In the end, the Court concluded that the state’s rights to interfere with the mother’s decision increased over the length of the pregnancy as the viability of the unborn child increased.

As you can see, there is no place in this analysis for a discussion regarding the rightness or wrongness of abortion. That is why it is nearly irrelevant for any Senators to ask a Supreme Court nominee about whether he or she believes abortion is wrong. That issue will never be central to any Supreme Court case on abortion.

From all of this you may get the impression that I agree with Roe v. Wade. I do not. While the opinion of the court is an ingenious bit of analysis it is based on a false premise. It is like a beautiful building built on deep mud. What’s more, I think that it is dangerous.

The false premise is the “Right of Privacy”. Search the Constitution and you will not find a right of privacy anywhere. So, how did the Supreme Court find it? It inferred it from other express rights in the bill of rights. Excerpts from the following amendments are cited as the basis of the Right of Privacy:

4th. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

5th. nor [shall the people] be deprived [by the U.S. govt] of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

9th. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

14th. nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

The argument of the court regarding the right of privacy is seductive. It is true that there is a very strong indication of a concern for privacy in the 4th amendment. However, if the framers had wanted to create a broader privacy right why didn’t they. Why did they limit it to searches and seizures?

It is also seductive that the liberty rights secured in the 5th and 14th amendments would seem to allow a woman the liberty to have an abortion. However, this argument is deeply flawed. The liberty right referenced has almost always been interpreted to be limited to the freedom of movement (literally a ban on “imprisonment”) and only has relevance to a criminal or civil case against an individual (the reference to “due process” means the right to a fair hearing). It certainly cannot be deemed to have any bearing on a state’s legislative process in passing a law prohibiting abortion. To find otherwise would be an absurdity. If a state could be barred by the 14th amendment liberty right from passing a law banning abortion, how could so many states have managed to pass seatbelt laws or motorcycle helmet laws (limiting individual liberties where the state has no compelling interest)?

The last and most seductive argument for the privacy right found by the court (and, I think, the real reason that it was invented and has not been overturned) is: what is the downside? Certainly it seems great at first blush to secure an additional right for the people, doesn’t it? After all, what is the harm?

The harm is hidden but very real. Which gets me to the heart of this long meandering post. The framers wisely chose not to create any more rights in the constitution than they thought were necessary. They recognized that each right to which they granted constitutional protection effectively limited the peoples’ ability to order their society though the democratic process. By inventing a right of privacy, the Supreme Court, the least democratic branch of the government, has taken power from the legislative branch of government, the most democratic branch of the government.

Now, thanks to Roe v. Wade, the legislatures of the States and Congress cannot perform their democratic function of determining whether abortion is wrong (and should be banned), absent an amendment to the Constitution. Note: the legislatures are free under Roe v. Wade to conclude that abortion is ok and allowed.

Thanks to other cases interpreting the “Right of Privacy” legislatures are not able to define marriage in any way that does not include the marriage by people of the same sex. They are also not able to pass laws banning sodomy (or rather, laws prohibiting sodomy that have existed for ages are suddenly not binding anymore). There is no indication that the Court’s "Right of Privacy" will stop there.

The irony is that the Supreme Court’s invention of a “right” from a reference to liberty (in the 5th and 14th amendments) has taken away a true constitutionally-guaranteed liberty right of the people to make laws governing their society utilizing the democratic process.

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Betrayal

The proposed Flight 93 Memorial has gone terribly awry. Flight 93 was the 9/11 flight where passengers tried to retake the plane from the hijackers. The plane eventally crashed in a field in Pennsylvania during the struggle. The passengers' efforts spared our country from another devastating blow on that awful day.

The design for the memorial calls for a red crescent that Wretchard at the Belmont Club has calculated would point towards Mecca. You can do something about it though. Let the U.S. Park Service know that the design is unacceptable here.

My comment to the Park Service was as follows:
Please reject the "crescent of embrace" design for the memorial. The use of a crescent would come too close to making it a memorial to the Islamic militants who hijacked the plane and would, thereby, betray those brave passengers of Flight 93. Why not something based on "Lets Roll" instead?

My comments are much more tame than my true feeling on this.

Mark Steyn has weighed in.

Monday, September 12, 2005

Presidential

When President Bush arrived in Louisiana the first time after the hurricane he was met at the airport by Mayor Nagin of New Orleans. Mayor Nagin (and many of the state and local government leaders in parts of Louisiana) had recently had a very public nervous breakdown about the situation in New Orleans. On several occasions in the space of a short interview the Mayor went from swearing to belligerence to exaggerating and to crying. He said a world of horrible things about the President and the federal government.

Given this background, I watched closely as the President got his bearings on the tarmac and worked his way over to the Mayor. I hoped somewhat (being the vindictive type that I am) that the President would give the mayor the cold shoulder or an icy stare and withhold his handshake. I was disappointed when he lightly patted the Mayor on the back, separated himself and the Mayor from the pack of other people on the tarmac and intimately and earnestly talked with the Mayor as they walked toward some waiting transport until the coverage stopped.

Today blogger Sensible Mom, brought to my attention an article by Mark Steyn in the Telegraph where Mark quoted two lines from a poem by Kipling as follows: “If you can keep your head when all about you/Are losing theirs and blaming it on you.” The poem entitled “If” goes on:
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools:…..
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run -
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man my son!

It takes a Man to be a great president. George Bush is a Man, he proves it time and time again. He is lied about and hated and he does not give way to hating. He is a Man and he is Presidential.

It is a quiet personal power he wields. He has shamed me (for my vindictive nature) for the better in the course of a photo op. With his silence and understanding in the face of others' rage he has shown these lesser persons for the children that they are.

Friday, September 02, 2005

Katrina's Lessons

Liberals criticizing the government response to the damage and flooding from Katrina in New Orleans are ultimately proving a principle of conservatism correct: Government does not do anything very well. One lesson liberals should learn from this is that government is not always the best solution. They won't though. Instead, they will avoid questioning one of their central beliefs and claim that government does do everything well, it is just that government by conservatives does not do anything well. In this way they are identical to the useful idiots (also liberals) of the cold war who unerringly defended Communism despite is consistent failures believing, with each instance of failure, that the only problem was that Communism had not been implemented correctly.

Stay behinds in New Orleans are learning the hard way a lesson that conservatives and self-reliant people already know: It may be wise to heed a government warning, but do not rely on on the government to take care of you. Those who heeded the mandatory evacuation order and took care of themselves did not suffer the misery of those who stayed and gambled that the government would take care of them if something when wrong. One has to wonder if the fact that New Orleans is a city with a very high percentage of welfare-reliant persons contributed to he catastrophe. Does welfare kill self reliance? I suspect so.

Friday, July 15, 2005

Nightline on Lodi

Here is a copy of an e-mail I sent to ABC's Nightline program on their awful Nighline program regarding the "alleged" Lodi California Muslim militants:

I watched you recent program on the “alleged” militants in Lodi Ca. and was appalled.

1. The program was remarkably ill-timed. Britain was just attacked by home-grown Islamic militants. Yet, the program’s theme was that the FBI was overreacting by closely watching associates of Muslims who had admitted training for Jihad in Pakistan (or knowingly paying for such training).

2. The program only gave the side of Muslims in Lodi. The only other opinion you obtained was from a former FBI agent who supported your conclusion that the FBI was overreacting. However, you failed to highlight the fact that two of the Muslims arrested admitted to the training or supporting the training (and don’t go believing that the confessions were involuntary, take it from an attorney - they are almost never thrown out by courts because they are almost never involuntary). Further, you spent a great deal of time and sympathetic coverage on a young man (ominously named “Osama”, if I remember correctly) who said that he was with the Muslim who admitted training for Jihad in Pakistan. Osama had the gall to flippantly state (despite the confession) that the other Muslim did not do any training. Yet, you seemed to show no suspicion about the motives of that Muslim youth. Didn’t it occur to you that the young man you interviewed might also have been training in Pakistan and that he was attempting to provide an alibi for a fellow trainee? Apparently that thought did occur to the FBI (good on them) and that is why that young man is being watched. By the way, recent reports on Fox news (since your show) indicate that the FBI believes up to 7 Muslims from Lodi trained for Jihad in Pakistan. I’ll wager that the young man is one of them.

3. The tone of the program makes me wonder how critical of the FBI your program would have been if it had been “overreacting” by watching Mohammed Atta prior to 9/11. Don’t you? I have to wonder about your motives. I wonder why you would not want the government to act aggressively to protect this country from militant Islamists.

Thursday, March 24, 2005

Terri

I think the medical community quietly extended the meaning of "removing life support" from pulling the plug on respirators and heart-lung machines to removing food and water. Now they are defensive because a huge percentage of the population is appalled at the practice. Their response: "its ok, we been doing this for a long time". Nice try.

They have been torturing people to death and now we know it and it needs to stop.

To those people who support what it being done to Mrs. Schiavo, do not delude yourselves. There is no difference between what is being done and smothering her with a pillow or sticking a knife in her heart, indeed the latter two acts would be a great deal more merciful.

If we are going to continue doing this then let those who would carry it out have the courage to end the life swiftly (an violently, if required). At least then the portion of the public that cannot be bothered to stop this practice would have to confront its true barbarity.