Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Court Ruling Prepares Way For Franken To Assume Senate Seat

Finally, Minnesota’s Supreme Court has put an end (at least at the state level) to Norm Coleman’s ridiculous obstructionism and ruled in favor of Al Franken, The New York Times reported. Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty appears ready to certify Franken as the winner and, after 34 weeks, Minnesota will finally have a second senator.

But as happy as I am to see Franken win this bout in the legal contest over Minnesota’s Senate seat, I have mixed feelings about the Democrats controlling a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Simply put, such majorities rarely benefit the American political system and with the Democrats already controlling the White House and the House of Representatives I must say that a Republican counterweight in the Senate would be good for the American people.

The Founders drafted the Constitution with a system of checks and balances in mind. It was designed to prevent one ideology from holding unquestioned sway over the American government and it has protected this nation from the excesses of both parties over the last decades.

From health care to immigration reform, the Congress is preparing to address a series of momentous issues that will benefit from compromise and debate. A filibuster-proof majority in the Senate would endanger such compromise and produce a weaker bill as a result.

But I hope that Franken will recognize his position as one of intellectual and legislative independence to act as a foil to the Democratic leadership in the Senate as he pursues the best interests of the American people rather than the best ideological interests of the White House.

Monday, June 29, 2009

Sotomayor Rebuked By Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today “invalidated a Connecticut city's decision to scrap the results of a firefighter promotion exam in which the white candidates scored better than their black peers,” the Wall Street Journal reported.

The ruling in the case of Ricci v. DeStafano is a blow against Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor and, more importantly, a national victory for merit and competence over racial sensitivity.

For too long, affirmative action has denied the most qualified people the positions they’ve won through hard work and knowledge. The Ricci case is no different but the fact that it was emergency services being tampered with by affirmative action rather than education put it in a different emotional and political light.

I don’t care whether a firefighter is black, white, brown or red as long as he is competent. But the city of New Haven and Judge Sotomayor both placed more value on the race of the individuals up for promotion than they did on their qualifications.

The Supreme Court’s rebuttal to Sotomayor should invigorate Senate opposition to her nomination. Her thinking is an outmoded product of the 1970s when identity politics and multiculturalism were just gaining prominence in American political and intellectual life.

The American Left can’t have it both ways. Either Obama’s election transcended identity politics and ushered in a new post-racial age or racial minorities still need to be protected by the federal government.

Saturday, June 27, 2009

Religious Groups Convene in Health Care Reform Spectacle

Obama’s healthcare putsch has always been characterized by a total disconnect with reality. But none of the town hall meetings, staged press conferences and ABC infomercials could quite sum up the glib nature of Obama’s health care plan like the Interfaith Week of Prayer for Health Care.

An act of interdenominational public theater in Washington’s Freedom Plaza, the prayer week was kicked off on Wednesday with the participation of 40 religious groups, three Obama Administration officials and a few Congressmen, Slate reported.

The week was organized back in April by Ted Kennedy who apparently no longer cares about the separation of church and state or the fact that tax-exempt religious organizations aren’t legally allowed to campaign on political issues.

Totally disregarding the nation’s tax laws, these groups representing Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Jews and Buddhists met to pray for universal health care but still didn’t have a way to pay for it.

I suppose that just like religion, Obama’s health care plan isn’t based on attention to detail. We still don’t have a solid proposal for how to pay for health care reform and the Senate bill that did include such information was scrapped because the costs were astronomical.

I’d have a lot more respect for Obama if he and his party abandoned the smoke and mirrors and made an honest attempt at health care reform building from the details up. Instead, the Administration and their allies in Congress have pushed reform based on rhetoric with scant details on who will make the decisions and how it will be paid for.

The Interfaith Week of Prayer just highlights how ridiculous the health care debate has become.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Obama Protests Chinese Censorship ... Tepidly

China is still going forward with its plan to require that all PC manufacturers pre-install Green Dam, software purportedly meant to shield children from porn online, on all computers sold in China. In reality, Green Dam is a deeply flawed software with "serious security vulnerabilities" that would allow the Chinese government to block an array of websites and monitor what the Chinese People are viewing online.

With the July 1st deadline quickly approaching, the Obama Administration finally took action … sort of.

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and trade representative Ron Kirk sent a strongly worded letter of protest, the contents of which have not been made public, to the Chinese government. The letter framed the dispute as a trade issue and complained that American companies were not given enough time to comply with the Chinese demand.

The letter even suggested that the Chinese plan violates World Trade Organization rules and insinuated that the US might complain directly to that international body about the new censorship requirements.

And although some heralded this as a bold shift in policy initiated by the Obama Administration, all I see is one tepid move in support of liberty abroad. But approaching authoritarian regimes like China and Iran with somewhat scathing rhetoric and formal protests accomplishes nothing and in the end leaves the citizens of these despotisms out in the cold.

The recent upheaval in Iran demonstrates that totalitarian governments regard open-access to the web as a defining threat to their power. Shamefully, Western corporations are often complicit or actively cooperative in this censorship.

Rather than sending strongly worded letters to the Chinese government, the Obama Administration should make global cyber liberty a priority and work with American corporations to limit their cooperation with authoritarian regimes.

If reason fails, the Obama Administration should move to impose harsh penalties on American corporations facilitating censorship abroad.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Obama Plants Question, Undermines Freedom of the Press

President Barack Obama planted two questioners in his press conference on Tuesday making a mockery of this nation’s free press. The “journalists” in question, Nico Pitney of the The Huffington Post and Macarena Vidal of the Spanish-language EFE news agency, were contacted by White House staff and asked to attend yesterday’s press conference, the Washington Post reported.

Pitney was even escorted into the press briefing room by White House staff who “asked him to come up with a question about Iran proposed by an Iranian.”

This is something that the Left and members of liberal media outlets often accused the Bush Administration of doing in order to control the debate and receive favorable coverage. Of course, for all his failings, Bush never actually planted reporters in a briefing and called on them to ask him prepared questions.

The American press is meant to serve as a watchdog protecting the interests of the American people within the halls of power. By subverting the watchdog nature of the press and seeking to turn a press briefing into a managed stunt, the Obama Administration is attacking the very foundations of this country’s liberty.

It’s countries like Russia and Iran that have state-owned media, not the United States. But as disgusting as Obama’s conduct was, it’s the actions of the questioners that was most shameful.

Obama only carried this off with the cooperation of Pitney and Vidal and their willingness to go along with such a sham demonstrates their total lack of journalistic ethics.

This is a warning to the American press and the people they serve that the Obama Administration knows no bounds in attempting to manage public perception. The Administration’s actions Tuesday were duplicitous and categorically un-American.

Obama should personally apologize for this stunt and the aides who arranged it should be immediately fired. The “reporters” who took part in this Soviet-esque public theater should be dismissed by their employers and shunned by their profession.

Most importantly, the American press should be vigilant and refuse to participate in any future press conferences where these tactics are utilized.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Sarkozy's Stand Against Burkas Courageous, Instructive

In a speech before both houses of parliament, president Nicolas Sarkozy identified the burka as an object of “enslavement” and said that it was not welcome on French territory.

Sarkozy said, “We cannot accept in our country women imprisoned behind netting; cut off from any social life, deprived of any identity. This is not the idea the French republic has of a woman’s dignity.”

France has the largest Muslim population of any European country (estimated at 5 million) and the refusal of this population to integrate as well as their aggressively theocratic conduct poses a threat to French secularism.

By refusing to accede to the oppressive practices of some French Muslims, Sarkozy demonstrated a courageous opposition to the multiculturalism that has been undermining the rich secular traditions of nations such as the Netherlands, France, Italy, Denmark and Germany.

American institutions and philosophy inspired the creation of the First French Republic more than 200 years ago. Today, in their stand against Islamic extremism, the French republicans must serve as a model to us in America.

I was disgusted when my President, a man I had voted for, traveled to France and dared to chide Sarkozy for the French ban on religious symbols in school that included crosses, yarmulkes and Islamic headscarves. Obama said, “…in the United States our basic attitude is that we’re not going to tell people what to wear.”

But a defining aspect of the 2004 ban on headscarves and the current controversy over burkas is that the French government is seeking to protect young women from being told what to wear by patriarchal religious authorities who would force young Muslim women to cover their bodies.

I’m with Sarkozy on this one. The values of radical Islam are not the values of Western republics and should be confronted by all governments that value liberty over religious conformity.

Moderate Islam can have a place in Western republics but the radical ideology that seeks to cover women from head to toe must be made unwelcome throughout Europe and North America.

Monday, June 22, 2009

American Aid to Pakistan Counterproductive

Pakistan’s recent offensive against the Taliban and Al Qaeda along the border with Afghanistan has produced results and demonstrated Pakistan’s capability to confront Islamic terrorists and win.

But while Pakistan is working hard to eradicate terrorists that pose a threat to its people and infrastructure it has continued to support Islamists who carry out attacks against India from bases within Pakistan.

Earlier this month, Pakistan released Hafiz Muhammad Saeed who had been under house arrest since December for his alleged role in planning the Mumbai attacks. Saeed is a well-known terrorist and the leader and founder of the Islamist group Lashkar-e-Taiba which was created with the help of the Pakistani military in the 1980s.

Since its inception, Lashkar has been a force for destabilization along the Indian-Pakistan border carrying out a succession of attacks against Indian civilian and military targets in Kashmir. Lashkar is also the main suspect in the 2008 Mumbai attacks in which 173 were killed and was implicated in the 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament.

Today, Saeed is the head of Jamaat-ud-Dawa, a charity that fronts for Lashkar and was placed on an international terrorist list following the Mumbai attacks. The Pakistani President’s office justified Saeed’s release saying, “Pakistan today has an independent judiciary, and the independent judiciary has a right to make a ruling in accordance with the law of the land.”

Using the judiciary’s independence as cover for the release of an active terrorist is disgusting. Pakistan has used such excuses for far too long and its time that the United States holds them accountable for their support of Islamic militants.

A bill recently passed the House giving Pakistan $1.5 billion in aid as well as an additional $400 million to support counterinsurgency efforts but if Pakistan continues to allow men like Saeed and their terrorist organizations to operate in Pakistani territory then such aid should be withheld.

Every penny spent by the United States to strengthen the Pakistani military strengthens their rapidly increasing nuclear program as well as their ability to support Islamic terrorists. But neither Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal nor its support for anti-Indian terrorists is in the national interest of the United States.

Pakistan should immediately move to eradicate the terrorist groups operating along the border with India and provide the United States with a full account of how it spends the military and economic aid we send its way.

If the Pakistani government fails to take these steps, the U.S. Congress should immediately revoke all aid to Pakistan. Furthermore, the United States should direct counterinsurgency aid to India if Pakistan proves unable to combat Islamic terrorists operating within its border.

After all, India shares American goals and values in a way that Pakistan never will. India is a secular democracy facing daily threats from Islamic terrorists. Conversely, Pakistan is at best a democratic theocracy with strong ties to the very Islamic terrorists we are at war with.

American aid to Pakistan is a relic of the Cold War and should be phased out in favor of a closer relationship with India. At least we know that the money and equipment we give to India won’t end up in the hands of Muslim extremists.

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Obama Administration Sides With Saudis Over 9/11 Families

The Obama Administration filed a brief with the Supreme Court to shield Saudi terrorist financiers from a U.S. lawsuit more than two weeks ago. Almost 600 family members of 9/11 victims filed the suit in 2004 alleging that five Saudi princes financed the attacks that killed almost 3,000 civilians.

The lower courts rejected the case arguing that the U.S. has no jurisdiction over the Saudi princes because they were not “primary wrongdoers” but a recent federal case against an Islamic charity that financed Hamas has established a precedent whereby financiers are considered primary wrongdoers alongside the terrorists themselves and thus can be sued under U.S. law.

The 9/11 families are relying on this precedent as well as that established by the families and victims who sued the Libyan government for the terror attacks on UTA 772, Pan Am 73 and Pan Am 103.

But the Obama Administration is ignoring these precedents in an assertion that the national interest of the United States is best served by maintaining a cordial relationship with Saudi princes rather than holding autocratic royals accountable for their ties to terrorists.

This assertion is emotionally and intellectually offensive and should be brought to the attention of the American people but beyond a report filed by CBS, the case has received little national attention.

The Bush Administration demonstrated a similar preference to protect the sensibilities of Saudi royals over the interests of American citizens but Obama was supposed to be different. Instead, American policy toward Saudi Arabia continues to be dominated by a misguided real politik that has not yet adjusted to the post 9/11 environment.

The last eight years of the War on Terror have proved what an important factor finances play in terrorist activity. For this reason, the federal government has pursued cases against charities funneling money to terrorists and frozen the bank accounts of prominent terrorist financiers.

This lawsuit brought by 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism is suing five Saudi princes who directly financed al Qaeda and operated charities fronting for them. But they shouldn’t even have to go after these individuals. The U.S. government should have already acted to freeze their accounts and confiscate their U.S. property.

As important as the U.S.-Saudi relationship is, the Saudis need to understand that they no longer have carte blanche to facilitate the spread of terrorism and the radical Islam that justifies it. Eradicating terrorism and holding both its perpetrators and their benefactors accountable both financially and criminally should be considered our foremost national interest.

It’s time to stop coddling Saudi Arabia’s outmoded royal family and hold them to the same standards as the rest of the Muslim World. This lawsuit is a good start and, even if the Obama Administration doesn’t reverse its position, I hope that the Supreme Court hears the case.

Saturday, June 20, 2009

An Introduction

During the debate over the Constitution, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison wrote 85 articles championing the ratification of the Constitution. These Federalist Papers not only defended the Constitution as a national necessity but also promulgated the basic tenets of American republicanism.

The articles were signed under the nom de plume of Publius in reference to Publius Valerius Publicola who took part in the overthrow of the Roman monarchy in 509 BC that established one of history’s great republics. The Roman republic Publius helped create served as an inspiration for Jay, Hamilton and Madison and as such the Federalist Papers constitute a defining moment in the last 2500 years of republican government.

Like Publius and this nation’s Founders, I believe that the function of government is to maximize the liberty of its citizens and that the republic is the form of government that best does this. But over the last 150 years, the institutions and attitudes underpinning the American republic have been steadily undermined and abandoned.

The Founders warned against factions and populism but it is these two forces that dominate American political life today. These forces have transformed and expanded the federal government into a service industry for the mob that considers the population’s comfort over its liberty.

Today, the government wiretaps foreign and domestic communication, owns a major car company and is poised to intervene in the health care industry.

And so, I’ve created this blog as a forum to discuss developments both foreign and domestic that I believe are important to the future of this nation and the maintenance of its republican identity. I will post pieces specifically for this blog as well as more formal articles I've written for other sites and publications. No matter what, I hope you enjoy it and find it to be informative and thought provoking.

Remember: liberty is the most precious inheritance of the American people and its strongest safeguard is the republican form of government.