Unconstitutional Wars?

 “To The Shores of Tripoli” by Raymond Massey

One of the pieces of misinformation that seems to be prominent this election cycle is the idea that the American actions in the Middle East for the last twenty-five years were illegal and unconstitutional. This idea was first floated by liberal Democrats to discredit the two Bush Administrations, but it’s gained traction in the military community in general and the supporters of Ron Paul in particular. Unfortunately, this rhetoric demonstrates a plebian understanding of the Constitution, history and the actions of the US Congress. Except for the Clinton administration adventure in Kosovo and the most recent actions in Libya, it’s just not true.

Before we dive into the discussion, we need to see what the constitution says on the matter.

Article II, section 8 defines the powers of Congress, among these is the power To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

That’s it. There’s no rules concerning the form that such a declaration of war should take, the recipe for doing so, or any magic incantation that would differentiate an authorization for the use of force from a de facto Declaration of War.

The Constitution deliberately built in a tension between the Presidency and Congress, for while the Congress retains the sole power to declare war, Article II section 2 states that The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.

The implication of this is that the President can do whatever he wants with the military during peace time, except commit them to combat. Presumably this includes deploying the military to foreign lands with which we have military cooperation agreements, for joint exercises.

This was an acceptable state of affairs in the eighteenth century, when communications took days and you would be aware of an approaching army weeks or months in advance. But technology overwhelmed this concept to the point where Congress could go to bed in peacetime, and wake up to a shooting war with US troops engaged in combat. Worse, with the advent of intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine launched attack systems, the President’s reaction time to respond militarily to an imminent attack on the USA could conceivably be reduced to mere minutes.

In 1973, the US congress, in a fit of collective amnesia, passed the War Powers Act, codifying the precise conditions and limits under which the President can deploy the military in today’s fast moving world. Many people misunderstand this to be a constitutional amendment. It is not. It’s just federal law designed to define the constitutional roles of Congress and the President within the realities of the Twentieth Century and beyond.

Some History

The political and diplomatic turmoil around the world that resulted from the power redistribution and decolonization that occurred after World War II led to a number of circumstances that were unforeseen by the founding fathers. The end of WWII found US soldiers on every continent in the world except South America, cast in the role of liberator or conquering hero. In both cases, the local government was typically non-functional, and the US administration of these countries was considered appropriate by all until a functioning government could be established. In the case of our former enemies, such a government necessarily had to conform to certain requirements of the conquering allies to ensure that the conditions that gave rise to WWII could not be resurrected.

This would have been an orderly progression of recovery from the devastation of WWII, except for a couple of flies in the ointment. First, the Soviet Union was exercising a methodic campaign to foment a socialist movement nearly everywhere it could assert influence. Such movements weren’t above using violence – indeed the Leninist model demanded that at some point violence would be necessary to throw off the bourgeoisie. Second, the US State Department was primarily concerned with preserving friendly ties with our wartime allies – particularly to present a united front to the growing menace of Soviet hegemony. This meant that a number of indigent populations in colonial lands owned by our allies were thrown under the bus in the post-war realignments. Very often this happened over the protests of US administrators in these areas. The OSS in French Indochina vehemently disagreed with the idea of returning that colony back to France after the war, saying that the Vietnamese and Cambodian people would not tolerate it, but they were ignored by the European desk of the State Department, which was calling the shots.

Tensions between the Western Allies and the Soviets peaked in 1948 with the Berlin Airlift. It became plain to the President and Congress that our nation simply could not afford to keep our commitments to our allies and oversee an orderly postwar realignment and still draw down our nation’s military to pre-war levels. This was confirmed when Chinese-supported North Koreans crossed the demarcation line between the occupation zones in 1950, and attempted to reunite the country under a communist government. The ensuing war was a disaster for the Communist bloc, and ended in an uneasy stalemate that continues to this day.

Realizing that a direct invasion by proxy would result in a powerful response from the western powers, the Soviets and China began pouring resources into low-key communist insurgencies. This placed the Western powers and the US in particular in an awkward situation. In order to prevent a power vacuum that would make a communist take-over a fait accompli, the US found itself supporting some right bastards as virtual dictators in countries who had recently cast off their colonial shackles. This was a less than optimal situation, and while these guys were bastards, at least they were our bastards.

The attempt to stall the Communist insurgencies and infiltrations of these countries required new ways of thinking when it came to manipulating military and political force. Unfortunately, the American mindset was educated from our recent military experiences in WWII and Korea. Our overwhelming victory in WWII gave us the political power to literally dictate terms to both our enemies and our allies resulting in an excessive amount of diplomatic hubris. These factors resulted in heavy-handed and inappropriate responses from the US in what had become the client states that we had sponsored after they had been decolonized. In our position as the world’s preeminent economic and military super power, we were unwilling to learn from the success of the British in the communist insurgency in Malaysia, which used a small number of highly trained counter-insurgency operatives and a dedicated campaign to win the hearts and minds of the locals and deny the enemy the advantages that an insurgency typically enjoys. The result of this was a series of ongoing US commitments of conventional ground forces into brushfire wars, and a general attitude that America had become the policeman of the world. This attitude was what made the American reaction to the invasion of Kuwait almost automatic.

Some More History

The main point of contention among the contemporary critics is that American soldiers were sent into Afghanistan and Iraq without a declaration of war, and that these actions are therefore unconstitutional.

This point is without merit.

The precedent of sending American soldiers overseas into a combat situation began in 1801 when then-president Thomas Jefferson (remember him? He had a bit of a hand in the forming of our government) deployed a naval frigate squadron and the US Marines to the Mediterranean coast of Africa to put an end to the Muslim pirates of the Barbary Coast. In many ways this action was little different than the deployments and fighting that’s been done since 1990. Was it constitutional? Jefferson felt it was, because he had Congressional approval starting with the 3rd congress, session 1, chapter 12, An Act to provide Naval Armament, which cited the depredations of the Algerian Corsairs as the reason for the Naval Appropriation. Congress further provided its approval and authorization for the use of force in the 7th congress, Session 1 chapter 4, An Act for the protection of the Commerce and Seamen of the United States, against Tripolitan Cruisers. It very explicitly gave sanction to conduct military operations and to prosecute a war in the 8th congress, Session 1, chapter 46, An Act to further protect the commerce and seamen of the United States against the Barbary powers, which specifically authorizes, “warlike operations against the regency of Tripoli, or any other of the Barbary powers.”  There were in fact ten such congressional acts passed pertaining to the barbary wars, but you get the idea. Note that Congress did not specifically declare war on any other nation, nor was the term “Declaration of War” used.

For the folks who insist that America’s involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan and yes, Vietnam was unconstitutional, please compare the legislation that Jefferson used to prosecute his military expedition, and those of the more recent congresses:

Authorization to invade Afghanistan, Public Law 107-40

Authorization to invade Iraq, Public Law 107-243

Authorization to prosecute Desert Storm, Public Law 102-1
One could argue that Desert Shield didn't get congressional approval, but Desert Shield was a massive deployment to an allied nation, and not a combat deployment, so there's a question whether the war Powers Act applied, a question the courts chose to abstain on in Ange v. Bush.

Authorization to commit military forces to fight in Vietnam, Public Law 88-408

All of these actions were authorized by congress under the same theory of law that Thomas Jefferson used for his actions against the Barbary pirates. Any political office holder – particularly any Congressman who was sitting when these laws were passed – who claims that these wars are unconstitutional is just being disingenuous (that’s a fancy word for “lying through his teeth”).

In closing, the idea of a “Declaration of War” is quickly becoming an archaic term. In the historical context of the day, a declaration of war meant that the people and government of one nation-state was at war with the people and government of another nation-state. In today’s context, this is rarely the case with the use of the US military. The United States is a constitutional republic, dedicated to the concept that people should be free to be governed by their consent. Most American ventures since WWII have been against regimes in support of the oppressed people they govern. It’s not the position of the USA to declare war on the people of a nation, rather we draw a distinction between the people and the government that we assume is not acting in the best interests of those people. The term “Declaration of War” carries a connotation of war against the people as well as the government of a nation that isn’t appropriate with the interests and goals of the United States. This doesn’t mean that our military ventures are unconstitutional, unless you’re willing to take the absurd position that Thomas Jefferson’s action was unconstitutional.

Whether these wars were ill-advised or properly executed is a different argument altogether. But no one can rationally make the argument that the conflicts mentioned in this article were unconstitutional.

Presidential Nominee Romney? Not So Fast.

Even though he hasn’t quite yet got the 1144 delegates necessary to cinch the Republican nomination, since the rest of the candidates having either suspended their campaigns or just run out of money to actively do anything, Mitt Romney is now the presumptive nominee. Indeed, he’s already turned his focus to the campaign against the sitting president. The apparatchiks of the Republican party are looking forward to the national convention being a pro-forma coronation ball, with the message that we must all unite “for the good of the party” to beat Barack Hussein Obama.

That’s certainly the message that’s being communicated throughout the Republican party establishment. Ah, if only it was that easy. From where I sit, there are still a lot of really pissed off people at the lowest levels of the conservative side of America. The most charitable thing that can be said for their relationship with Romney is that they view him with deep suspicion. I doubt they will ever quite get over that, and Romney’s mandate as the Republican candidate is tenuous at best.

One could logically point out that it’s mathematically impossible for any other candidate to get the required delegates, so Mitt is the nominee, get over it. Not so fast. A lot of the delegates that are showing up in Romney’s column aren’t as firm as the party and the media would like you to believe. For example, my State of Washington will send 45 delegates to the national convention. 5 of those are automatic slots for state committee members, 10 of them are delegates at large, and the rest will be made up of delegates selected from the ten congressional districts. Since Romney won the non-binding straw poll, everyone assumes that they can chalk up 45 delegates in his column.

And here’s where politics come in to play. First of all, there are an awful lot of Ron Paul delegates going to the state convention, because the Ron Paul machine is very well oiled up here. Then you have to factor in the delegates who caucused for Santorum and Gingrich. These are basically free agents, capable of tilting the race in either direction if they vote as a bloc. And this is the critical thing. Romney has given them no reason to get behind his campaign, and there’s a lot of reasons - still – to vote against him. The Romney organization was unable to turn the tide at the county conventions, and as of this writing, it's highly likely that 2/3 of the Washington delegates going to the national convention will be other than Romney supporters.

This isn’t sour grapes or a conservative temper tantrum by people who didn’t get their way. Our representative government system is designed to ensure that the minorities aren’t steamrollered by the majority. For the non-Romney people, there’s a very big motive to deny Romney a clear victory going into the national convention in Tampa.

The worry among the rank and file conservatives is that this is going to be a replay of the G.W. Bush administration. Instead of reforming a new government, with fresh new ideas and a new perspective on how things work inside the beltway, Bush 43 loaded his administration from top to bottom with the republican old guard, resurrecting many of his Father’s people and placing them back in top positions to run the country. This wouldn’t have been that much of a problem if his dad had overseen an exemplary administration, but that wasn’t the case. Bush 41’s presidency was mediocre at best, characterized by moderation, and ultimately doomed by disillusioned conservatives who wanted to believe in something besides the status quo, no matter how outrageous it sounded. His son deliberately designed his administration to be more of the same.

Romney is perceived to be a Republican establishment creature, and is expected to load his administration with cronies and establishment insiders. The chatter over his Vice Presidential possibilities is indicative. The short list all revolves around established names in the party machine: Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Bob McDonnell, etc. The idea of Allen West is pooh-poohed by the talking heads as being “inexperienced,” “unseasoned,” etc. The fact is that he was put into office by the TEA party and does not toe the party line. Therefore he’s not in consideration.

This kind of attitude does not sit well with the not-Romney majority of the Republican party, and this contingent seems to be reaching critical mass. They’re talking to each other and planning. The Ron Paul and Rick Santorum enthusiasts are realizing they have more in common than they have differences, and that together they may be able to gather enough power in the national convention to squeeze some major concessions from Romney regarding cabinet positions and the makeup of his administration.

There’s a general sentiment from the not-Romney folks that they realize that the nomination is a done deal, but they want to register a protest vote to put the establishment on notice that we’re mad as hell and we’re not taking it any more. But if the power of the minority of delegates who have the ability to swing the vote is focused by thoughtful application and choosing their fights, they might be able to drag the Romney ticket kicking and screaming back to the right.

Some of the things that such a conservative alliance could push for might include appointing Ron Paul as the Secretary of the Treasury, John Bolton as Secretary of State, Newt Gingrich as Director of the Office of Management and Budget, David Petraeus as Secretary of Defense.

Among the faces we don’t want to ever see near 1600 Pennsylvania Ave are Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, John McCain, John Ashcroft, Ben Bernanke, John Beohner or Tom Ridge. This country has been driven into the ditch by the shortsightedness that such people brought to their service, and it need not be repeated. We no longer need Washington insiders who know how the system works and have a vested interest in perpetuating it. We need fresh blood at all levels of the new administration who are inclined to ask “Why the hell are we doing it this way, and where does it say you can do that in the constitution?”

We can have such an administration if conservatives force Mitt Romney to accede to their demands before they agree to nominate him. That will take a lot of coordination and trust among the not-Romney delegates. Deals will have to be made, and everyone will have to understand that they won’t get everything they want, but their piece of the pie can still be substantial.

Is Ron Paul Still a Viable Candidate?

I stepped into the political ring this year, and it’s been quite an education. I first went to the precinct caucus to provide a voice of reason against a very strong and very well organized Ron Paul contingent in my part of the state.  This ultimately led to my being selected to go first to the county and then to the state convention, where I would have a chance to run as a delegate for the National Republican convention if I wanted to go.  I don’t think I’ll do that, because I have other financial priorities at the moment.

But one of the effects of this activity is that I’ve learned that what the media is reporting is often very different from what’s actually happening.  The conventional wisdom right now is that Mitt Romney is the presumptive nominee for the Republican party.  He’s the anointed one by the mainstream media and the Republican party establishment.

But from my position in the trenches, I’m not seeing it.  For example, he won in the Washington state straw poll that was taken on the day of the caucus, and so Washington was declared for Mitt Romney.

Not so cotton-picking fast.  The Ron Paul and Santorum campaigns got organized before the county conventions, and with some cooperation from the grass roots that wasn’t authorized by the Gingrich campaign, these three campaigns unified to send proportional numbers of delegates to the state convention, almost completely shutting out the Romney delegates.  From what I hear, this wasn’t the only county where this happened.  Numerically Romney may still have more delegates at the state convention than the other campaigns, but hardly a plurality.  With the Santorum and Gingrich delegates now being basically free agents, the Not-Romney delegates far outnumber the Romney delegates.  I could easily see a scenario where Washington sends a delegation composed of Ron Paul and free agents to the national convention, completely shutting out Mittens.

The word to the media and to the Romney campaign is, therefore, don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched.  There’s a ground swell of resentment among the conservatives of this nation, fueled by the TEA party, that’s sick and tired of the career, business as usual, establishment Republicans who vote the status quo in congress and don’t use their majority status to render the liberal democrats irrelevant. Conservatives on the grass roots level are tired of Republicans reaching across the aisle and then getting jerked off their feet. Bipartisanship to a Democrat means voting the Democrat agenda, nothing more.

So does Ron Paul have a chance?  Based on his campaign to date, I sincerely hope that answer is no.  Don’t get me wrong, I like what Ron Paul has to say on domestic policy, I really do.  We need the federal government to relinquish all powers that are not specifically enumerated in the constitution.  We need to get spending under control, and we need to abolish the federal reserve system.

But Ron Paul’s stated foreign policies are completely at odds with reality.  He seems to have no rational approach to evaluating the intent of foreign powers and how the actions of foreign powers affect the United States.  His statements about Domestic vs. Foreign energy production seem to be at odds with his stated endorsement of free trade.  His ideas about precipitously reducing the US military presence worldwide is ill-advised, does not reflect the very complex reality of world affairs, and could very easily result in millions of deaths where just the implied possibility of US intervention is a stabilizing influence in simmering regional conflicts.

The problem with Ron Paul is reflected in his followers, who mostly have a very libertarian bent.  Remember that Ron Paul was himself the Libertarian candidate for years, until he adopted the “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” attitude that got him elected to congress.  His problem is that his rigid adherence to principle makes him unable to provide a flexible, well-reasoned response to the realities of a given situation.  Given a Republican congress, this inflexibility would actually be an asset in correcting the course of the nation, but in international affairs, that flexibility will be taken advantage of by agents who do not have the best interests of the USA in their hearts.  A flexible, restrained, realistic approach to international affairs is essential to prevent a repeat of the bloody chaos of the twentieth century.  In this realm Ron Paul has demonstrated that he’s no historian, and no social scientist.

Based solely on the support of his ardent – almost religious – following, Ron Paul cannot win the nomination.  But given the very large pool of free agent delegates Ron Paul could force a brokered convention and could conceivably win the nomination if he played his cards right.  There’s a huge number of delegates already in place that would love nothing better than to poke a stick in the eye of the likes of Mitch McConnell and John Boehner and put them on notice that their moderate, RINO way of governing isn’t playing well in Peoria.  The problem that's causing these anti-establishment folks to lose sleep is the idea that a protest vote against the establishment selection of Romney could be too successful, and they end up accidentally nominating Ron Paul!

This doesn’t have to be a bad thing.  Ron Paul could re-ignite his campaign with the remaining undecided or recently disenchanted Santorum/Gingrich camps by stepping back from his foreign policy rhetoric, hiring John Bolton as his foreign policy advisor and potential Secretary of State and making the following concessions to the independent delegates:

• The USA will continue to uphold ratified treaty obligations, including those that require American forces to be stationed overseas.
• The USA will support the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and actively work to deny nuclear capability to unstable countries, i.e. Iran and presumptively North Korea.
• The USA will continue to provide unwavering support to our closest ally in the Middle East, Israel.
• The USA will continue to be an advocate for international law and the sovereignty of all nations.
• The USA will continue to be an advocate of human rights around the world, and will work against all nations who play politics with hunger.

Ron Paul’s stated policy to bring the troops home from all over the world is a laudable one, but totally impractical in the short term.  In the long term this would be a very desirable goal.  But we’ve spent the last 70 years insinuating ourselves into world affairs, and have for better or worse been cast as the major player in many regions outside of North America.  A withdrawal from these stages would need to be well-planned and carried out over a period of years if not decades, to allow these regions the opportunity to adjust to a different balance of power without collapsing into chaos.  Chaos kills people and is bad for business.

If Ron Paul can re-brand himself on international policy; if he will publicly admit that he’s weak in this field and will hire and take the council of reputable experts, then he could very well squeak out a win.  And if this were to happen, I wouldn’t have a problem with that.  Hell, I would heartily endorse the man and raise a toast to his honor!

The lesson to the Ron Paul enthusiasts is that a half a loaf is better than none.  The Ron Paul camp consistently wants ALL of their agenda implemented, no exceptions, and have been unwilling to cooperate with people whose ideas do not match theirs.  They fail to recognize that this rigid idealism inevitably alienates them from people who share most of their values, and results in the candidate who least represents their positions from getting in power.  Very good case in point:  In the Washington state governors race between Christine Gregoire and Dino Rossi, the margin by which Gregoire won was very very tight.  So tight, in fact, that the number of votes cast for the libertarian candidate - that's the same group that will vote for Paul - was more than the number of votes that Rossi needed for a win. I fail to see how electing the liberal Gregoire does anything to promote the cause of the libertarians.  Quite the opposite.  One lesson we need to take from how the liberal agenda has been implemented is that incrementalism works.  The all or nothing mindset of the Libertarian, Ron Paul supporters is self-defeating and needs to be dispensed with.

Want Joseph Kony? Get Him Yourself!

I’m sure you’re aware of the Kony2012 campaign. The expressed goal of this campaign is to make the Ugandan butcher Joseph Kony a household name, to raise awareness and bring him to justice. The implied goal is that this awareness will result in pressure on our government to DO SOMETHING!

Our government. That is, the US government. Because, seriously, who else can do it?

If you haven’t seen the video, you should check it out. At about 13:55 in the video, we see the proponents of action being rebuffed by the government. Washington Politicians rightly state that capturing Kony is not something that affects the US security or US interests. The US government’s charter is to safeguard the rights and safety of US citizens. Not the rights and safety of anyone in the world. Later in the video these folks get a grass roots movement going on the part of a whole lot of people who apparently haven’t read the US Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, the Federalist Papers or the Declaration of Independence. Now the politicians take note, and start paying attention, because their job is to get re-elected, even if it means shredding the constitution to do it.

Before I get into the questionability of what these people propose, let me first state that while the humanitarian activities of this group is laudable, they are hardly the only charity working in Uganda, and there are many others who use the money you donate more efficiently than these folks do. Before you reach for your wallet, research the charity groups, look at their public filings about how much of the donations go where you intend, and make your own mind up.

I vehemently oppose the idea that the US government should have a role in capturing Kony. Anyone; as a citizen of the US, as an agent of the government, as an advocate for US policy; makes an egregious error if they think it's morally acceptable for the US government to deploy military force under the US flag to hunt for this animal Joseph Kony. They do not - the government does not - have the right to coerce anyone else - any American soldier - to act on their behalf in this matter. There is no imminent public safety threat to US citizens; it's not a matter for the US government; any more than the current unrest in Syria is, or any more than the recent actions in Libya were. The US must divest itself of this mistaken idea that we’re the world’s police force. This idea has gotten us nothing but heartache, failure and far too many coffins returning home from war in the last thirty years. I am no peacenik – there is a time and circumstance for war – but far too often we have used the military to try to accomplish missions that by their very nature have no acceptable resolution.

If this movement really has this many people behind it, and is collecting donations, then let them go get Kony themselves. Seriously folks, quit thinking that the government is the go-to person every time you have a problem. There's plenty of mercenary guns for hire - well respected ones like Blackwater - who will take the contract and do the mission more quickly and efficiently than any governmental organization. Or take more general action and just put a bounty on his head - dead or alive.  And let's have a reality check here, to stop Kony, you will have to kill him. Any other result is a fairy tale. He will never appear before the ICC.

And once you kill him, then what? Take a look at ICC's list, see how many other officers of the LRA are on there. And plenty more that haven't gotten notice from the ICC because the leaders are getting all the attention. This is whack-a-mole. You eliminate one, another just pops up to take his place. The fact is there will always be a "Kony" out there until you remove the environment that breeds these vermin. And now we're talking about nation-building again. That concept is a bottomless pit and has never worked when it's been tried, because these conditions aren't about infrastructure or economics, they're a result of attitudes and cultural values - or what we might think of as lack of same.

Get Kony. Then get the fifteen others that take his place. and once you get them all, go after the similar but less well known groups doing the same thing, who never got big because Kony was around. I guarantee you'll never run out of bastards to round up in Uganda. You think Kony is an aberration? Remember Idi Amin? Kony isn't the problem, he's a symptom. Until the Ugandan people are fed up with this and choose a different path, and are willing to - as our forefathers did - mutually pledge to each other their Lives, their Fortunes and their sacred Honor, and take up arms as a community and say "ENOUGH!" then this will go on. This is not something that can be solved by foreign intervention.

The video interviews Santo Okot Lapolo and Norbert Mao, Ugandan politicians. They state that the international community needs to arrest Joseph Kony, that they are willing to cooperate with the international community. If these politicians were true statesmen, they would require the Ugandan army to secure the safety of their citizens in the areas affected by Kony, and be incensed at the idea that they need help from the international community. They know there’s a lot of money to be made if international assistance comes to Uganda, and they’re perfectly positioned to see that a lot of that money goes through their hands. To be fair, however, Kony has left Uganda, and is has been operating in Sudan, the Central African Republic and the Congo for 5 years at least.

You got Kony’s name well known. Good job! Now go get him yourself. Don’t ask for a single drop of blood from an American soldier to do it, and don’t ask for a single dime of taxpayer money to do it. I know there are a bunch of American servicemen who would happily do this for you, but that’s not what they’re being paid for by the US taxpayer, that’s not why we have an army. Remove our advisers from Uganda. If they want military advice, there’s plenty of private companies who will advise them for a price.

I oppose the implicit goals of this movement to raise public awareness for the purposes of pressuring government action. Awareness, fine. Great. Government action? NO! absolutely not. This reminds me too much of how some other Really Bad Ideas got started.

US Presence in Muslim Countries

Smile, but then remember that this video is a metaphor for US efforts to bring peace, stability and progress to countries like Iraq and Afghanistan (And coming soon to a combat theater near you: Iran and Syria!).  There is chaos while everyone fights for their share of the candy.  The bigger kids make sure the little kids don't get any candy.  If the little kids do get candy, the bigger kids take it from them. When the candy runs out, they quickly abandon you, and tell you to GTFO of their country. There will never be enough candy. The more candy that is distributed, the more rotten the teeth become.

Stop the Jizyah!

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

-(The Qur'an (Yusuf Ali tr), Surah   9:29)

“Accept Islam, pay the Jizyah, or the sword!” – The choices offered to infidel communities in the path of the 7^th century Muslim conquests.

Jizyah.  Tribute.  Tax on the dhimmi – the non-believer who willingly lives under Islamic law. One of the purposes of the Jizyah is to intentionally humiliate the non-believer. Everyone living under Islam has to pay for the privilege.  As a Muslim, you would be subject to the zakat, or temple tax.  If you are a khaffir, or non-believer, you are subject to Jizyah.  According to Muslims, this tax subsidizes the protection that the dhimmi enjoys, and is only fair because a dhimmi is exempted from military service.

Before we go down that road, let’s take a moment and recall the other things that a dhimmi is exempted from.  A dhimmi cannot be in a position of authority over a Muslim.  A dhimmi cannot hold public office.  A dhimmi cannot bring suit against a Muslim in court (at least not with any chance of winning – dhimmis are not allowed to be judges).  In effect Dhimmis are third-class citizens, second being Muslim women.

We have to examine the protection that this tax pays for.  Protection from what?  Why, Muslims, of course! In essence, our Muslim friends, having attained authority in a country, declare that non-muslims have to pay protection money, without which. . . well, who knows what might happen the next time a mullah whips the crowd into a frenzy against infidels?  Since Jizyah is obligatory, and every Muslim feels it’s his solemn holy duty to enforce the edicts of Allah, if news spreads that you missed your Jizyah payment, every Muslim in reach will automatically assume that it’s open season on you. You have no recourse to the law.  And there’s nothing a devout Muslim likes better than to do Allah’s holy work and send an infidel to Hell.

It’s the biggest protection racket in the world.  Think Mafia, and then remember where the Mafia learned their lessons: Sicily was under Muslim occupation from 965 until 1061.

Muslims are unabashed in their belief that Jizyah is their due.  In the eighteenth century Maritime powers regularly paid tribute to the Muslim Barbary pirates to ensure safe passage of shipping within reach of the coast of North Africa.  The fledgling USA appropriated $80,000 to be paid in tribute to the Barbary pirates in 1784.  In a day when there was no income tax, the US government was forced to raise money by import duties and raising levies among the citizens.  As can be imagined, the willingness of the US population to contribute to pay the Muslim maritime Jizyah was non-existent. The US was forced to pay ransoms for ships and crews captured, rather than a regular tribute.  In 1795, the USA paid nearly a million dollars in cash, naval stores, and a frigate to ransom 115 sailors from Muslim pirates of Algiers.

In 1801 the pasha of Tripoli demanded an immediate Jizyah payment of $225,000 and annual payments of $25,000 from the US.  The newly elected President Thomas Jefferson realized that there would be no end to the demands, and refused.  The pasha of Tripoli then declared war on the USA.  The resulting four year war was the first time that American forces were deployed on overseas soil, and the US Marine became the natural enemy of the Islamist extremist. Tribute/ransom payments continued in one  form or another until a second war in 1815.

The idea of Jizyah, or tribute, was resurrected in 1978, and agreed to by arch-traitor President Jimmy Carter at the Camp David peace accords.  Again, to purchase protection from Muslim armies, the USA committed to pay $1.3 billion annually in the form of “military aid” to Egypt.  This was the cost of purchasing protection for Israel from Egypt. Those subsidies continue to this day.  With the recent change of power in Egypt, the new government was sure to remind the USA of its obligations, and blatantly stated that ending the Jizyah subsidy would release Egypt from its agreement and leave it free to attack Israel.

The result of this insane policy is that Israel and the USA face the spectre of an attacking force armed with the best Western military technology that money can buy, including the M1A1 Abrams tank – currently undefeated in battle. The Egyptian slang for an M1?  “Jew-killer”.

The US taxpayer pays an annual Jizyah to the Muslim government in Egypt, protection money to prevent Egypt from attacking Israel.  This is blackmail, and needs to stop.  This money would be much better invested in ensuring that we are able to annihilate Egypt’s military capability should they attack a neighbor for the crime of being a non-Jizyah paying infidel. Until Islam is subdued, they will continue to try to extort money from the productive countries of the world and return nothing except the hollow promise that they won’t attack us – today.

Santorum: The Not-Mitt, Not-Newt Candidate

Last night Rick Santorum had a surprisingly good night, coming from out of nowhere to win Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri (although Missouri is admittedly a beauty pageant, their delegates will be selected in a caucus).

Is this an indication that Rick has what it takes to maintain this lead, or is it a repudiation of Mitt Romney?  Sadly, I think the latter.  I’m not sad that Mitt is being repudiated, mind you, but that we’re not fronting a powerful candidate who is a clear choice to lead the country.  I’m afraid that Santorum is benefiting from Romney and Gingrich beating each other bloody. Romney has realized that he can’t win against Newt without going negative, and spent a heinous amount of money in Florida doing just that.  It’s a balancing act, to go negative enough to do the necessary damage to win the nomination, without poisoning the well for November, leaving your base disillusioned and staying home.

Romney has lots of problems.  The conservative base is not enamored of him. His record of governing seems to lean very left of center.  Yeah, people can change, but actions speak louder than words.  He’s seen as a member of the Republican establishment, and if there’s anything the election of 2010 told us, it’s that the right is sick of the Republican establishment, business as usual, reach across the aisle politics of Boehner, McConnell and McCain. It was the Republican establishment that helped get us into this mess by not getting a backbone and standing up against the democrats as they piled on social program after social program without a single idea of how to pay for them.

There’s a considerable sentiment among the conservatives that wonders about the wisdom of nominating the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama in 2008.  Seriously, this guy polled behind career RINO McCain.  Why is he even a contender this time around?  Is the right comfortable with the idea that you can buy a nomination?  I think not.

The right is also very suspicious of another political dynasty. We’re bothered by those.  We’ve had enough country club political dynasties.  We don’t want another Kennedy family or Bush family wielding so much influence on America.  Romney’s father was the Governor of Michigan.  That’s enough Romney for a few generations, thank you. The voting record shows this – Mittens is polling about where he was four years ago, and he lost then.

Romney speaks well and says more or less the right things, but that’s all it seems like.  It’s hard to tell if he’s saying what he does from a conservative foundation of principles, or if he’s just saying the expedient things that will get him elected.  The lack of detail on specific issues makes him sound like any other political candidate.  Newt, on the other hand, is willing to go into whatever level of detail you want to go on any given subject. 

The problem with Newt is not his failed marriages – I’ve heard an interesting argument there that there’s something about this guy that attracts women, even when he’s already spoken for.  That should tell us something.  His problem is not his political record, where he was run out of office by a revolt among the establishment republicans – led by then junior congressman John Boehner.  For a lot of people that’s a selling point – proof that Newt isn't an establishment guy. 

No, Newt’s problem is that he’s usually the smartest guy in the room, and it’s obvious. That’s probably a good thing; it would be nice to have an intelligent person in the White House for a change.  But it’s not likely to happen, because America isn’t made up of brainiacs who aren’t uncomfortable in the presence of someone like Newt.  America is predominantly sports jock types, who squirm uncomfortably in the presence of someone like Newt, because they’re outclassed and they know it. I know, I know, not everyone is like that, I’m not saying Newt isn’t doing well.  He just won’t do well enough to win.  That’s a loss for America.

The bottom line is that Santorum’s main advantage coming out of last night’s wins is that he’s not-Newt and not-Mitt.  Don’t get me wrong, I do like Rick Santorum.  I’ve listened to him on the radio doing interviews for years and never had a problem with what he said. He’s just not the heaviest hitter in the field right now, and I think America is losing an opportunity if Gingrich isn’t nominated.

And then there’s that foreign policy nutter Ron Paul, but that’s a subject for a different discussion. 

An Open Letter to the People Who Hate Conservatives More than They Love America

So in the course of casual surfing, I stumbled upon this hate-filled rant: An open letter to the people who hate Obama more than they love America.  Well, if I have a weakness, that would be a feeling that I have to respond to this sort of stupidity whenever I find it.  This kind of thing is like a red flag waving in the face of a bull, I just can't help myself.  So in true quixotic fashion, I roll up my sleeves and wade in, point by point:

I don't know who this person is talking about. He believes it's directed at me, I'm sure he thinks so, but they’ve apparently never actually talked to anyone that they’re writing about, as much as talked past them. So let me set the record straight. . .

Yeah, I hate Obama. He will go down as the worst president in American history on the strength of his record. It has nothing to do with the color of his skin. His resume showed he was unqualified to be a city dog catcher, but the true believers made him the most powerful man in the world. The folks on my side are still scratching our heads and wondering what the country was smoking when that happened.

Don't hate gay people. Don't know where you get that idea. It's not us that say they can't breed and have kids, that would be something you need to take up with mother nature.

Don't hate black people.

Don't hate immigrants. My grandmother was an immigrant, my mother is an immigrant, my wife is an immigrant. I know probably better than you do what it takes to come to this country legally, and I get quite upset when people break the rules and jump the line, and I think those folks should go back home and apply like everyone else.

Don't hate Muslims - at least not for being Muslim. I know enough about Islam to know that it's values are exclusively incompatible with Western values. A lot of Muslims seem to hate me for my beliefs and my freedoms, and in those cases the feeling is mutual.

Yeah, I'm not too keen on Labor unions. Labor Unions killed GM - the crown jewel of American industrial might. Labor unions prevent free market trade in labor, artificially create labor shortages, add unnecessary costs to production, and practice protectionism in the face of rampant unemployment. They are a refuge of the incompetent who are afraid to compete on a level playing field for their (meager) skills and services. You complain about so many factories who have boarded up and moved overseas, yet you don't see that the labor unions are what caused it. I can and do compete quite well without labor unions, I will never work for a union company, because I know I can do better than most of my coworkers, and I want an environment that rewards me for that.

I don't hate women who feel they have a right to choose, but I wonder why your side is so dead-set against allowing that woman to see an ultrasound of her unborn baby before making that choice. Apparently her right to choose ends if she makes a choice you disagree with.

I hate your kind branding me as a racist and a bigot when I am no such thing. That's your trump card when you have nothing else to contribute to the discussion.  Your claim that conservatives are racist is nothing more than asking someone if they quit beating their wife.

I don't talk about hating gay people. That's a straw man argument, and the only time it even comes up is when you bring it up. I do talk about creating jobs, and how the government gets in the way of that.

I don't assume black people are poor or on food stamps. Apparently you miss the fact that we laud Herman Cain, Allen West, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams and many more. You call us racist not for our non-existent attitude towards a person's skin color, but because we speak out against an entitlement mentality that that you promote for the purpose of enslaving the very group of people you accuse us of hating!

I hate socialism because it's a demonstrably failed economic model. I do not hate social justice. I just disagree with your method of achieving it.

I join with the founders of this country in being suspicious of government, and preferring to choose my own destiny and not wanting government to take care of me. I don't like having my hard earned money taken from me by the government and given to someone who chooses not to produce anything.

I abhor war - probably more than you do - but understand that sometimes it's necessary. I know what torture is, and don't get upset when avowed enemies of the USA are frightened by barking dogs or suffer indignities.

And no, we're not consumed with hate the way you seem to be. We just don't like busybodies like you telling us how to live, what to do, how to act. Live and let live is our motto, but your side can't be content with that, you want us to live and pay for you to live.

We understand that the founders never meant that the State be devoid of the belief in God, but that the State should never enforce a State religion. This was based on the all too recent experiences of the founders in the religious civil wars of Europe, and they wanted none of that here. You bunch of atheists have twisted these words in order to remove every suggestion of God from the public discourse, which is never what the framers intended.

No one is demonizing minorities, but America is great for a reason, and that reason does not include embracing and holding valuable failed systems imported from other countries. America is great because it holds the individual's liberty and the right to private property in the highest esteem. Don't you come to me with other beliefs from countries with failed economies and try to implement those failures here.

You state, "If you hate the Government then you are unqualified to manage it." Non-sequitur. One does not follow the other. You state this as a postulate, but there is no logical connection. But then, logic isn't a strength for your side, is it?

You have your numbers and we have ours, you say BHO’s approval ratings are at 50%, I've seen polls a lot lower, in the low 30’s. He has a campaign ahead of him, and this time he has a record. Do you care to answer a few questions which might arise? Like, "Mr. President, you traveled to Pakistan in 1980 when it was illegal for American citizens to do so; what passport did you use?”  “Mr. President, how many Mexican citizens were killed by guns that came from your failed "fast and furious" program?” “Mr. President, a half a billion taxpayer dollars disappeared when Solyndra went bankrupt; where is that money, and why did you support a failing company with our money?”  “Mr. President, you said that if you couldn't fix unemployment in three years, you would be a one-term president; why are you running for a second term?”  Oh, I could ask many more questions that you’ll never hear the media ask.

No, my friend, more than 50% of the national debt was rung up under your fearless leader. Obama added more to the national debt than all the other presidents combined. We are not holding the economy hostage, we're insisting that giving the government more money is not the answer. We don’t believe playing political games with a tax cut by kicking the problem down the road two months is the answer.  We think a debt ceiling is there for a reason, and that reason doesn’t mean you just raise it when you want to spend more money.  We must force the government to live within its means, and if that means you don't get your entitlement check, too bad. Better now than wait for a full economic collapse where nobody gets paid anything, which is exactly what's going to happen if YOU don't quit spending MY money.

And don't speak to me of obstructionist filibusters. The Democrat party held up 23 legitimate judicial nominations under the Bush administration. You pay lip service to minorities and women, but when Miguel Estrada, Janice Rogers Brown, Carolyn Kuhl and Priscilla Owen are nominated, you shot them down, because your ideology trumps your lip-service to rights for women and minorities.

Obama didn't kill Bin Laden, Seal Team Six and Robert Gates did. Obama had to be dragged off the golf course for the final phase, and the whole world knows that Gates runs the defense department without consulting Obama, so if anything goes wrong, Obama can deny responsibility and throw Gates under the bus.

You call Obama tax cutting and deficit reducing. Do you live in some sort of alternate reality? That's just an outright lie!

The rest of your rant is based on fallacious straw man arguments. You would do well to actually talk with the object of your scorn and listen, instead of telling us what we think. We don't want to go to war, but when we do we want to win, and win decisively. It's your side that cuts needed funds to the troops and cries when we break the china that prevents us from doing so. I don't think the government has any business spending my money to teach you how to have sex. I want to see subsidies to oil companies and farms eliminated. I want my government officials to stop spending like drunken sailors, I don't care if they have (R) or (D) after their name. You think it's okay, as long as they spend it on "social issues." I want the TSA to be disbanded, and the patriot act repealed. I have a gun, I can protect myself, thank you.

The problem with your side is you see nothing but issues that need fixing, and you automatically assume that the government is responsible to fix it. You are a bleeding heart that wants all the ills of the world fixed, but somewhere along the line it fails to occur to you that fixing everything costs money - more money than we have, more money than we can afford. You will spend us into bankruptcy and still not fix all the problems you want addressed. Meanwhile the real power brokers are using you as useful idiots to promote an agenda that makes it easy from them to steal from the public trough, and prolong the very problems you seek to solve, because it's profitable for them. I want to turn off the spigot, let the problems solve themselves, and wean these leeches like Soros away from the public teat.

You promote the "working class" as something high and mighty, and indeed it is, but not for the reasons you state. You accept a working class of mediocrity that can only get ahead by collectively "sticking it to the man" who provides their means of subsistence. I am of the working class, but a working class of excellence who provides value to my employer, and is compensated commensurately. My labor is valuable, and I sell it to the highest bidder on a free market. If I lack value, I improve my skills through education to add value. If I think I'm being unfairly compensated, I go to someone who values my labor more and work for them. I am in demand. The fact that you need to be in a union suggests that you are not. What does that say about you? I would be ashamed if I were you, not proud. You have accepted mediocrity, embraced it and held it up as something to be proud of. You fool.

We don't hate you, or any of the things you say we hate. That hatred you accuse us of is a reflection of your own irrational feelings towards something you obviously don't understand. Your poorly aimed diatribe is an attempt for you to rationalize something you're too immature to wrap your minds around. We don't hate you, but you do kind of disgust us. We wish you would grow up and quit acting like spoiled children. We're tired of changing your diapers and catering to your senseless crying and demands that we return you to the teat and take care of you from cradle to grave.

Keep your dreaming. The only poll that matters is 11 months away. I don't think your guy has a chance. Should he by some miracle win, get back with me in four years and explain to me if America is moving to be the workers paradise that you envision, or the socialist hell that this economic model has produced every other time it's been tried.

Get Rich with the RV of the Dinar! (or Not)

I had an illuminating conversation the other day that forcefully reminded me to never underestimate the depths of human stupidity.  This one makes me very angry, because I know a few people buying into it, but the person in question is literally betting the farm on it.  He’s unemployed, and instead of looking for work, he’s convinced that he has the gold ticket and his ship is about to come in.  Meanwhile his family's on food stamps and his kids can’t afford new clothes for school.  And no matter how I try to explain it to him, he just doesn’t understand that he’s chasing a will-o-the-wisp.

There’s a scam circulating that involves the impending “RV” of the Iraqi dinar.  For those of you not in the know (I wasn’t), “RV” stands for “revaluing” the dinar.  The Iraqi dinar currently trades at about 1170 dinar to the US dollar.  Unscrupulous currency brokers have convinced an astonishing number of people that they should invest in the dinar in preparation that the dinar will soon be revalued, making them overnight millionaires.

What does it mean to revalue a currency?  Well, it could mean several things.  One is just the normal floating exchange rate of the currency on the international market.  This exchange rate reflects the demand for the currency internationally, which is influenced by trade and fiscal policy.  If a government prints a bunch of fiat money and dumps it on the international market, the demand goes down and the rate drops.  Buying and selling into and out of a country involves using that country’s currency, and the amount of trade in and out causes the currency demand to fluctuate.  This is normal.  You can speculate in this market, and even make money, but it’s just gambling, and no one is going to get rich from a sudden, predictable move in this way.  In fact, the Iraqi dinar has been remarkably stable for the last four years, indicating that the exchange rate is being artificially supported by outside agents (Can you say U.S. Federal Reserve?).  Should the US reserve remove its exchange rate controls from the dinar, in all likelihood the value of the dinar will drop like a rock, further wrecking the Iraqi economy.  If you have foolishly invested in the dinar, this is definitely NOT what you’re looking for.

Another way the dinar could be revaluated is for the Iraqi government to place severe controls on currency availability.  The idea would be to reduce the number of dinar in circulation, increasing their value.  The government would absorb (and literally burn) excess dinar being held in bank reserves, thus restricting the money supply.  The problem with this scenario is that it would have a very deflationary effect, causing prices to rise in an economy that’s struggling to get back on its feet as it is.  People would hoard their money, waiting for it to be more valuable, stalling an economy that’s barely moving right now as it is.  No, the Iraqi government has a vested interest in promoting spending, not savings.  Again, for the speculator, this process would be slow, and probably not profitable, as the world exchange rate would probably not notice a shortage of dinar in Iraq.  After all, that paper money needs to be supported by real material wealth and productivity, right?

The third way is the one all the speculators are counting on to make them rich overnight.  The hope is that the Iraqi government will lop a few zeros off the end of the currency, making the dinar worth $1.17 on the world market at the stroke of a pen.  So our savvy speculator buys a thousand  dollars worth of dinar – 1,170,000 dinar to be exact.  Then the Iraqi government removes three zeros, and viola! Like magic, our happy speculator’s 1,170,000 dinar is now worth a cool million!

Hold on, Sparky.  Not so fast.  No one is going to stand for that. That money has to be represented by real wealth somehow, and the world currency exchange will just laugh at Iraq and want to cash their dinar in for the real wealth that Iraq insists it’s now worth, causing the dinar to crash back to its original level almost instantly, because Iraq certainly doesn’t have that wealth.

No, there’s an intermediate step that for some strange reason the dupes in this scam aren’t willing to admit to.  Iraq certainly can remove as many zeros as it wants from its currency – many countries have done so in the past.  But the only way it can do that is to print “new” dinar and exchange them for old dinar – at a 1000:1 exchange rate.  That way no new wealth is demanded, and the available dinars in circulation is reduced by a factor of 1000.  The books balance, no one gets rich, and our happy speculator finds that his old dinar are worthless, except to buy new dinar, which can be traded for pretty much what he originally paid, minus a brokerage commission, of course.

Looking through message boards, this scam has been around for at least 5 years, ever since the post-war dinar sort of stabilized, at a much lower level than pre-war.  This is an understandable devaluation, when you consider how much wealth was literally blown up during the war, how much productivity was ruined, and how the Saddam Hussein regime artificially set the exchange rate by controlling international trade through their oil monopoly.

The average person can’t just go into a bank and ask for dinar.  This scam is perpetrated by currency brokers who are sitting on mountains of nearly worthless dinar that they can’t move, because nobody wants them, not even the Iraqi government.  They find a sucker, and convince him about the impending RV, and tell them how their investment will get a thousand-fold boost when it happens (conveniently neglecting to tell them that they will have to exchange their old dinar for new dinar when it happens).  At the very worst they create a market for their dinar, offloading them to a sucker who thinks he's sitting on a gusher about to blow.  If they’re real slick, they can even sell their dinar above market rate, because of the aforementioned difficulty in the average person getting dinar (Because, realistically, who the hell really wants them?).  A quick look through internet message boards shows that the true believers have been anticipating the RV of the dinar to happen “any day now!” for at least the last five years.  Meanwhile the currency broker takes your dollars and starts investing in a real currency market.

Anyone who's had a basic accounting class will tell you, the books must ALWAYS balance!  You can't just invent a thousand times more wealth out of thin air by fiat.

The amazing thing, is that when I tried to explain this to my colleague who was all jacked up about how much money he’s soon going to be worth, he refused to listen to the facts, and waved me off with an airy “You just don’t understand.”  I patiently admitted that I didn’t understand, and invited him to please explain it to me.  He couldn’t, of course.  His most coherent response was “You’ll see!”

Be very careful.  They’re out there, walking among us.  And they vote.

Proud to be an American

About ten years ago, in an international forum right after 9/11, a European colleague of mine expressed some puzzlement over why Americans are proud of being American. He stated that he was French, but wasn’t particularly proud or ashamed of the fact. He just was.

This opened my eyes to one of the biggest differences between Americans and other nationalities. This difference leads to a much different world view, and consequently is a stumbling block to non-Americans who are trying to understand the motivations and mindset of Americans.

You see, unlike virtually every other nation in the world, America is not a place. America is an idea! America is a loose collection of people who share this idea and embrace it and understand that this idea is the source of America’s incredible prosperity.

Now, not all “Americans” understand, or embrace these ideas, which leads to considerable confusion within our country, as well as for those who are trying to make sense of it from outside. You can easily identify these people, because they are not proud to be Americans, they downplay their national identity when overseas, they speak poorly of America to non-Americans, and they feel they have to apologize for things that America has done in history. Real Americans pretty much wish these faux Americans would find someplace more to their liking and go live there, because they’re not helping here.

When someone proudly and unashamedly proclaims “I am an American!” you can make some pretty safe assumptions about that person (yes, I'm being politically incorrect, I'm using the ancient "He" to refer to the generic human, in which the female gender is implicitly included. If you ladies feel left out, maybe it's time to dial down the sensitivity a few decibels) :

• He believes in personal responsibility, that he is responsible to feed and shelter himself and those who depend on him.
• He believes in a good day’s work for a fair days pay.
• He believes in the rule of law, and will typically observe the reasonable application of the law even when no one is looking.
• He believes in the inviolate right to private property. You have the right to keep what you have earned.
• He believes that the rights of government derive from the governed, that government is a necessary evil that should be kept small and poorly fed, lest it grow too large and become uncontrollable.
• He believes that no one owes you anything because you have a body temperature. You want something bad enough, you’re free to try to attain it, but you shouldn’t expect it to be handed to you.
• He understands that there’s no such thing as a free lunch.
• He believes that liberty is a fundamental human right.
• He believes that you have the responsibility – but not the obligation – to help your neighbor when they’re in need.
• He understands that people are more important than things.
• He has a sense of justice, and a natural inclination to object to and oppose injustices. He recognizes that justice must apply to everybody, or it’s meaningless.
• He understands that one man’s prosperity doesn’t automatically imply another man’s poverty.

As a people, Americans are very tolerant. We have a long history for putting up with a lot of abuse. But there’s a limit, and when you cross that limit, woe to you. A number of nations have discovered this the hard way. Remember that the United States is the only nation in history to have used nuclear weapons in anger, and we don’t apologize for it. Remember also that the target of that retaliation is today one of our fastest friends, staunchest allies and most prosperous trading partners.

These are some of the characteristics of an American. This is the culture in which we were born, and which has allowed America to become the most prosperous nation in the history of the world. We are proud to be Americans, not because we hail from a particular place, but because when we make the statement we are telling you who we are as a people, what our values are and what you can expect from us. If you hold these ideals, if you embrace this ethic, then you are welcome to come to our shores and join us for our mutual prosperity.

Do not come to our country to escape the failed political and economic model of your home country, and then seek to alter America to duplicate the failed system of your home. Do not try to reshape America to your liking. America works just the way it is, and works better than anything else you can find today. Yes, there may be ways of making it better, but not by copying demonstrable failures from other countries. If you prefer another nation’s system to that of America’s, then by all means, go live there, and let us alone. There’s a reason for our incredible prosperity. If you want to partake of that prosperity, then learn what that reason is and reshape yourself to embrace it. If you think you have a right to come here and accept charity in the form of entitlements without having participated economically, then you are not welcome here. We want and encourage people who think like us to come to our shores and help us be prosperous. If that’s not acceptable, or if that’s not working for you, then you’re free to leave. No one is stopping you, and quite frankly, we wish you would go.

Two short tales of my personal experience to highlight what it is to be an American:

It was once observed to me by a man who had never been to America - and indeed had even met very few Americans – that the world was circled by the graves of Americans who died to bring freedom to other people.

One foggy morning in England, during rush hour about ten miles from a major American military base, I witnessed a one-car accident where a local woman missed a turn and collided with a barrier, doing severe damage to her car. At least thirty cars witnessed this accident. Only three cars stopped to render assistance. We were all Americans. I commented on this to one of the police officers who responded, and he replied “Oh, yeah, without you Yanks, we’d get no help at all in these situations.”

I am proud to be an American.

Did Anwar al-Awlaki Deserve Due Process?

Today we killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen by birth. Even as the news flashes around the globe, liberal hand-wringers are agonizing over the idea that the US Government sanctioned and executed a targeted assassination of an American citizen without due process. One such example of this kind of fuzzy thinking can be found here. Even presidential-hopeful foreign policy nutbag Ron Paul is weighing in against this. The case of the hand-wringers is based on the fact that he was not indicted, that his fifth amendment rights were violated ("No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law"), that there was no due process.

Where the hand-wringers on the left don’t get it is that this animal was only technically an American citizen, by accident of birth. He had de facto rejected allegiance to America, scorned American law, and had engaged in an active campaign against the United States. The fact that he hadn’t filed the correct paperwork with the State Department renouncing his American citizenship spoke more for his disdain for the American rule of law than it did for any technicalities of his loyalties.

Anwar al-Awlaki was in fact an enemy combatant. On October 27, 2008, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon ruled that an enemy combatant is anyone who directly supports al Qaeda, the Taliban or an associated group involved in hostile acts against the United States or its allies. This certainly applies to al-Awlaki, inasmuch as he was involved with the planning of the 9/11 attack, and was a mentor and spiritual advisor to Nidal Malik Hasan. He frequently published incendiary sermons on the internet, and espoused armed jihad against America. The FBI considered him one of Al Qaida’s top recruiters.

Is it the position of the hand-wringers that the US justice department obtain an indictment against every member of Al Qaida before allowing the military to strike? Or only the members of Al Qaida who are high ranking and have the media spotlight? Is it the position of the hand-wringers that US soldiers request ID and confirm the legal case for detaining and/or executing members of Al Qaida on the battlefield? Are we living in a Victorian age where commanders refrain from engaging their counterparts in decapitation operations because it isn’t honorable? How do the hand-wringers feel about the fact that the enemy will operate under no such restrictions?

What would the net effect be of having provided al-Awlaki the due process of law? Do the hand-wringers have any doubt that he was a major figure in the global jihadist network of which Al Qaida is a part? Do the hand-wringers have any doubt about al-Awakis very public exhortations to Muslims to take up arms and wage violent war against the United States? Does anybody think for a second that this guy would turn himself in if there was a warrant for his arrest, or that he would be extradited? Yemen is nominally an ally in the War on Terror, albeit not one I would turn my back on, so our forces are limited to playing by their rules in their country. This means we have no military presence there and operate in the grey area of unmanned drones that characterizes 21^st century warfare.

This war is not your grandfather’s war, with neatly drawn divisions of Us and Them. It’s not confined to a location or specific battlefield or even a recognizable theater of operations. With modern communications and technology, one man in a mountain redoubt in a backwater country like Yemen could command a worldwide network for jihadists. It’s only fitting that he met his demise at the hands of a pilot sitting in Missouri or New Jersey, playing the World’s Greatest Video Game. The battles of the 21^st century come in two flavors, the short meeting actions that are decisively over in minutes or hours, and the slow dance of counter-terrorist operations, where armies move at a seeming glacial pace in the dark, in cyberspace and on the airwaves, in a techno-dance of hide and seek, waiting for the moment to strike. This is the battlefield where al-Awlaki was acting as a commander, and in the heat of battle was located and terminated, as we would do to any high ranking enemy commander.

Does the rule of law, the rights conferred by that law, and the due process safeguards built into that law apply to people who actively seek to abolish that law? The law was designed to protect the individual from government abuse. By what twisted logic do we pervert the intent of that law to protect the enemies of that law?

The hand-wringers make the assertion that the law must apply to everyone equally (although I find that these same people are the first to propose to limit the constitutional rights of their political opponents). I contend that this is only true and possible when everyone accepts the rule of that law, and has pledged to abide by it. Those that scorn the law, reject the law, and indeed seek to replace that law with a theocratic tyranny have no business being afforded the protections of that law. The laws upon which Western Civilization are based should not become a suicide pact that prevent us from defending Western Civilization against the well armed and fanatic forces of ignorance and chaos.

This doesn’t mean that the US government has shredded the constitution and that the black helicopters will come and fast roping commandos will start assassinating normal law-abiding citizens with impunity. Although, to listen to the rhetoric, I can’t help but wonder if the hand-wringers would happily endorse this action if it were taken against elements of the TEA party, who have done nothing unconstitutional; but have the temerity to disagree with the liberal policies of the left.

Al-Awlaki stepped out from under the protection of the law of his land of birth, and proceeded to wage war on that land and the laws for which it stands. He got what was coming to him. Good job and good riddance.

Christian Values - 10 years after 9/11

Last Sunday was the tenth anniversary of the tragic events of September 11, 2001.  At Mass that morning we were called both by the scripture and from the homily to forgiveness and called to live by our Christian standards. Unfortunately, I feel our parish priest is not a student of Islam or Islamic history

Let’s reflect on a few things here before we go rushing off to embrace our Muslim brethren in a spirit of unrestrained forgiveness.

Throughout scripture there’s a general theme regarding forgiveness – that forgiveness must be sought before it’s granted.  The offender must acknowledge his sin and seek reconciliation in a spirit of penitence. We have been repeatedly taught by Jesus that faith saves the sinner from his sins, and this theme was reinforced in Paul’s letters. Even on the cross, Jesus did not explicitly forgive his tormentors, but interceded on their behalf for God to forgive them due to their ignorance. 

Where are the penitent Muslims?  Who has sought reconciliation with Western Civilization to atone for the grievous sin that has been committed against us?  As Christians, our hearts are open to forgiveness and reconciliation, but we wait – seemingly in vain – for someone to step forward and seek that forgiveness that we so desperately want to give.  Instead, we are informed by the enemies of Western Civilization that we are hated.  The rank and file Muslim in Islamic nations hates Americans.  This is what they’re taught from birth, and they are quite frank and honest about it when the question comes up.  This is not a result of American interventionism, this sentiment was dominant in 2001.  Throughout the 20^th century, the leaders of the Islamic world have been impoverishing their people under totalitarian regimes and laying the blame on Israel, the USA and Western Civilization for their own sins.  The result are whole nations made up of credulous conspiracy theorists. And these people are more than willing to act on their hatred, as evidenced in thousands of terrorist attacks worldwide since 9/11 (17744 such attacks at the time of this writing).

Yes, Father, we can and will forgive these people.  When they seek it.  For now, all I see is enmity and hatred and the desire to kill us.

We were also informed that as Christians who espouse the uniquely American concept of freedom of religion, we should not be protesting the construction of mosques in our communities.

I’m sorry, Father, but you’re dead wrong on this point.  The mistake you make is assuming that Islam is a religion in the pattern of all others, and should therefore be accorded the respect for its tenets and beliefs that we accord to other non-Christian religions.  Islam is not a religion.  It’s a fascist, totalitarian political construct wrapped in a veneer of sanctity by justifying its actions on the satanic utterances of its founder.

Islam is a belief system that is diametrically opposed to the values we hold dear as Judeo-Christians living in the Western Civilization.  It’s irresponsible to tolerate the presence of Islam, when Islam explicitly refuses to tolerate other beliefs. Islam’s tolerance of other belief systems is inversely proportional to the percentage of population that are Muslim in any group.  Tolerance and accommodation of a small group of Muslims inevitably leads to larger groups of Muslims, who use our Western values of free speech and freedom of religion to protect them in an ongoing campaign to extinguish free speech and free religion and replace them with Islamic sharia law.  If you think this is overly alarmist, then look at the problems that are being faced by the UK and France and other European countries as their Muslim population grows.  This is happening today, exactly as I project.

Moreover, as a Christian I have no problem tolerating the existence of other beliefs systems who do not acknowledge my faith in Christ.  Islam however, does acknowledge it, and roundly condemns it!  Islam specifically denies the crucifixion, states unequivocally that it never happened ( Quran 4:157).  It denies the holy trinity and the divinity of Christ (Quran 4:171).  And it brands me a heretic or infidel for believing these things and instructs its followers to persecute me on that basis (Quran 9:29). As a Christian, I can tolerate even this intolerance, but that does not mean I have to accommodate these beliefs and make room for them in my community.  Having read the Quran, I am aware of its Satanic origin, and as a responsible Christian, it’s my duty to repudiate this belief system.

Let’s suppose that Adolf Hitler justified his actions on the basis that he was in direct communication with the One God, Creator of the Universe, and that he was only doing what God told him was right and proper.  And he explicitly stated that God instructed him to assassinate his detractors, drive the Jews out of his land and murder them and wage war throughout the world to subject the entire planet to his authority. Would we provide a place for such Nazi believers to build their sanctuaries in our country?  Especially when those sanctuaries have been repeatedly proven to be headquarters, fund raisers and recruiting grounds in an ongoing battle to conquer Western Civilization?  Would we make a place for them and accommodate their peculiar Nazi requirements in our society?  In the interest of tolerance and religious diversity would we include Nazi studies in our universities, and invite Nazis to speak in our churches and synagogues so that we can better understand their beliefs?

Of course not, because we understand Nazism and what it stands for.  The problem is that no one has bothered to take the time to learn and understand Islam and what it stands for. Islam has in fact done all of the things I accuse the Nazis of doing, right from its inception. The parallels between Hitler and Muhammad are astonishing. They both established cult-like followers. They both believed their race was the superior race. Neither one tolerated dissension, and had dissenters killed.  Both assassinated their political opponents.  Both exterminated Jews and other undesirables. Both were ascetics. The difference is that Hitler never claimed to be speaking on behalf of God Almighty.

If I would not tolerate fascism and Nazi party beliefs to be accepted in this country, why would I accept those same practices and beliefs merely because the founder of the cult claimed to be talking to God?