Tulip Christian Blog

Throw the WikiBook at Them - Charles Krauthammer - National Review Online

2010-12-03T11:29:00.000-06:00

What to do about Julian Assange (Part II):

Throw the WikiBook at Them - Charles Krauthammer - National Review Online
Charles Krauthammer makes a compelling case for hunting the Australian spy down and bringing him to justice in the US.

Online Digest - November 30, 2010

2010-11-30T21:04:00.000-06:00

Then there is this:

North Korea, Without Illusions - The Editors - National Review Online

Fighting the Wrong Courtroom Battle

2009-11-21T09:55:00.002-06:00

Ever since Attorney General Eric Holder announced that a number of high-profile al-Qaida terrorists were going to be tried in a civilian court in New York City, conservatives have screamed bloody murder--often literally. Probably with the best intentions, they have denounced the decision as a snub to logic and the Constitution, to the safety and emotions of 9/11 survivors and their families, to law and morality. Their arguments are mostly wrong.

There is definitely some truth in their objections, though. The idea that Khalid Sheikh-Mohammed (KSM) ought to be tried in a civilian court is certainly ludicrous. As a war criminal he has no place before a civilian federal judge and the implication of Holder's decision, namely that the military court system does not guarantee defendants' rights adequately, is certainly an outrageous insult to American democracy. But once you have made that step, then only New York City can be the 'logical' choice. As the primary scene of the attack, that jurisdiction naturally has dibs. And yet the objection that many New Yorkers will now have to go through an excruciating media extravaganza, dragging up September 11, 2001 all over again, is no empty claim. These war criminals have no place being in New York to stand trial.

And yet, the battle that many conservatives are waging is the wrong one. For instance, Paul Greenberg, at Townhall.com, insists that the only place for these criminals is in "a secure military court room in Guantanamo." But this is premised on the notion that Guantanamo is outside of the United States, which it is not, as the U.S. Supreme Court has essentially affirmed. The decision by the Bush administration to detain illegal combatants in Guantanamo was naturally based on this perception: that U.S. law would not apply there, since it is only leased from Cuba and therefore technically part of Cuba. Forestalling legal challenges in this manner would buy the administration time to figure out what to do with these people. But through vigorous pursuit in the justice system, opponents of this policy have won the argument and it has been made clear that U.S. law does extend to Guantanamo, and thus that detainees do have certain rights under the Constitution.

This makes the whole notion that Holder is "bringing these terrorists into the US" preposterous. They already are in the United States, even while detained in Guantanamo. They can be tried there or anywhere else--it makes no difference. As long as they are tried the right way: in a military court system, whether the special tribunals set up by the Bush administration (and sanctioned by both Congress and the Supreme Court) or the regular military courts.

Conservative opponents of the Obama administration are making the debate more complicated by focusing on the wrong battle. It is not that we need to keep these terrorists at Guantanamo, come what may, since their location is not of prime importance. By highlighting emotional arguments, such as the feelings of New Yorkers, or the complexity of security during the trial, or the proximity of the court room to Ground Zero, they are losing track of the important arguments and in the process making themselves and other critics of the Obama administration look silly and unserious.

The real problem is, and has always been, making sure the right evidence can be presented without jeopardizing national security by revealing important classified materials. By moving the trial into the civilian court--which has different rules of engagement--Obama and Holder have done exactly that: they have lessened the chances of a legal and convincing conviction of a self-confessed terrorist. Much of the evidence likely won't be admissible in New York's federal court, while some of the other evidence will not be presented because it is classified. This decision has underscored all the more that Barack Obama and Eric Holder simply cannot be taken seriously. Their incompetence has long since stopped "bordering" on being criminally negligent. By putting the United States at risk with such feel-good, ludicrous decisions, they ought to be kicked out of office at the soonest opportunity.

Sarah Palin and the Future of the Republican Party

2009-11-17T09:34:00.004-06:00

Sarah Palin has a new book out, Going Rogue, leading to much controversy in the media. I have not read the book and feel no inclination to do so. The question being asked, again, is whether Sarah Palin has any future in national politics, or more exactly, whether Sarah Palin is the future of the Republican Party. Many political commentators in the media dismiss Palin as a side show with no future in politics, including CBS' Bob Schieffer while appearing on CBS Early Show on November 16. But moderate conservative David Brooks also laughed Palin out of court. Appearing as a guest on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos he said, "Yeah, she's a joke...Republican primary voters just are not going to elect a talk show host."

Conservative media watchdogs like the Media Research Center have blasted Brooks as a token conservative for his betrayal of Palin, and have generally derided the anti-Palin mood in the media as another example of shrill leftwing opinionating in the liberal mass media. So, does Palin have a future in national politics?

My opinion of Palin is complicated. I endorsed McCain and Palin in the 2008 presidential election. I heartily supported Mr McCain as an honorable man, a true war hero, and among a handful of honest politicians in Washington who has tried mightily over the years to promote smart political compromises that advanced conservative principles--rather than the crazy extremist tactics employed by talking heads on the radio which went nowhere. I was initially intrigued by McCain's choice of Palin as his running mate. What little I knew of her suggested she was at least a good, conservative governor. I have still not seen evidence that she was a fraud, a hack, or an incompetent boob in that job.

I have seen other things, however, that have led me to the conclusion that she is not presidential material. Her dreadful performances during national interviews, even granting the unfair questioning she received when compared to the softballs that Joe Biden got tossed, suggest to me that she lacks the intellectual seriousness to run for office in Washington. To not know details about certain foreign policy issues would have been excusable, but her answers to questions seemed to reveal a lack of interest. These were not her personal answers; they were carefully rehearsed endorsed opinions from the McCain machine and she was unable to defend those positions.

Sarah Palin is, I am sure, a fine woman who seems to have done an above-average job as governor of Alaska. She has a certain media appeal that would make her an interesting commentator on TV. But it is this media appeal that would stand in the way of her pursuit of any serious political office. She comes across as someone who will do anything for the effect it will have on the TV screen.

She will be able to amass a certain following among conservatives in the country. The "hockey mom/soccer mom" crowd that attends evangelical churches will genuinely be attracted to her. But even among these people there will be enough doubters to prevent this following to rise above the "Huckabee Level." In a Republican primary she might hang on a little longer than completely new contenders, thanks to her loyal followers. But in the end, I do not believe that she will be able to convince a large enough portion of the Republican primary voters that she is a serious politician. I do not expect to hear from her again after the next presidential election except perhaps as a political commentator in some media format.

The Republican Party is already going another direction. Despite the recent complaints from Democratic politicians and liberal activists that the GOP has become the party of No in its persistent rejection of President Obama's social-democrat agenda, real policy alternatives are being developed by serious politicians. Currently, this rebranding and renewal of the party is still in an embryonic stage, as the party lacks a real leader, but it is at least clear that David Brooks is correct that this development is not going in the direction where media mouths rule the party.

Why Obama Nobel Prize Is the Outrage of the Year

2009-10-09T17:34:00.005-05:00

On one level, the fact that President Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is of no importance whatsoever. Many undeserving human beings, including murderers, terrorists, and dilettante climate alarmists, have been awarded what Andy McCarthy of National Review aptly describes as the Yasser Arafat Prize. Ever since the time when the likes of Mr Arafat were eligible for anything but arrest and trial by supposedly civilized countries, the Nobel Peace Prize has ceased to have any meaning as a measure of civilization.

My first reaction--and that of my wife--on hearing of the Obama Nobel Prize was, "Why?" And we did not scream this in an angry wail of terror, but in genuine bafflement. We were, to use a term my teacher warned me never to use, flabbergasted. What earthly reasons could there be to award Mr Obama this prize? He has accomplished nothing so far in his young presidency. He has been long on promises and grand schemes but up till now he has little show for it.

Our second reaction, after it sunk in with us and Anderson Cooper of CNN that, no, this was not some weird delayed April Fools', was, "Oh, I get it. They're giving it to him simply because he is not George W. Bush." I still believe it is the most important reason the squishy Norwegian progressives in charge of this prize picked on Mr Obama as the ideal candidate for 2009. Never mind any of his actual policies, about which Europeans in general know nothing and care nothing anyway. His most important achievement has been simply being in office instead of the hated Bush. The prize is meant to convey the enlightened message that America is not to repeat outrages like electing backward mental looneys like that Texan cowboy George. To progressives in Europe (and the US, for that matter), the mere act of Bush's replacement by Obama is a tangible and actual benefit to the world and of such great importance as to warrant awarding the Nobel Peace Prize. George W. Bush in the White House was such a threat to the planet that peace has been promoted by his departure.

The truly discouraging part of this state of affairs is the fact that the Nobel Peace Prize does still have a reputation, even though it should not. And Barack Obama clearly cannot live up to that imaginary reputation. He has been an absent president in his own country's politics, prefering to speechify rather than to do any actual constructive work, and a non-entity in both policy realms for which the Norwegian Nobel committee is now awarding him this honor (nuclear non-proliferation and Mideast peace). This fig leaf couldn't conceal an amoebe's wedding tackle. The president actually had the temerity to accept this prize with the words:

Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments.

You're darn tootin'!

The Biggest Straw Man in the Health Care Reform Debate

2009-10-06T15:58:00.007-05:00

If you were to listen to Democrats, the only reason we do not have a sensible reform package on the table to deal with the problems in America's health care is Republican nay sayers. President Obama campaigned explicitly on a promise of bipartisanship, already tied to an implied message of Republican obstructionism. America's deliverance from eight years of Republican tyranny at the hands of the Obamassiah has so far, however, produced nothing of substance and it is clear that Democratic party leaders are getting frustrated. Who better to blame than the Republican minority for continuing a nefarious campaign to stop the One from implementing his promises of bipartisan reform of Washington?

And so the White House rolls out Gov. Arnie 'the RINO' Schwarzenegger and New York mayor Michael Bloomberg in support of health care reform. Here are the real Republicans, is the underlying message of this media stunt. If only the Republican Party could be like them, we would not have had this frustrating summer without the passage of a sound public option.

That Arnie the RINO should have come out in favor of health care reform is not surprising, for several reasons. The most important is the lack of real philosophical differences. But even granted that factor, notice the words Gov. Schwarzenegger used:

Our principal goals, slowing the growth in costs, enhancing the quality of care delivered, improving the lives of individuals, and helping to ensure a strong economic recovery, are the same goals that the president is trying to achieve. I appreciate his partnership with the states and encourage our colleagues on both sides of the political aisle at the national level to move forward and accomplish these vital goals for the American people.

These words help show up the big straw man in the whole debate, at least as Democrats are trying to frame it: that Republicans are against health care reform. News flash to Democrats: Republicans are against the Democratic plans for health care reform because they involve setting up a huge new federal bureaucracy, with new federal oversight, enormous new tax burdens, ill-construed insurance policies and regulation, etc. In general, their plans try to treat symptoms, some of which many Republicans do not even believe are caused by the same disease, and the cures are, in their view, worse than the disease.

If you want bipartisanship, stop trying to force European or Canadian style government insurance down America's throat and instead start listening to Republican plans that promise to cut costs and premiums, and increase the enrollment rate--without hiring more DC bureaucrats.

The Evil of Conservatives

2009-09-22T18:40:00.002-05:00

Conservatives are evil. Of course, they don't actually exist any more according to Sam Tannenhaus's book The Death of Conservatism, but they are still evil. That must be the only possible explanation for the blatantly disparate treatment of conservatives and liberals in the media. Jay Nordlinger has an interesting piece on the topic.

Keep Dictators out of Office in Honduras!

2009-09-21T16:44:00.005-05:00

Why the West keeps insisting that Honduras is currently being ruled by a ultra-rightwing dictatorship is beyond me. And yet the entire supposedly civilized world (the Obama administration, the UN, the EU) is united behind impeached former president Manuel Zelaya and is now crying hurrah as Zelaya has sneaked back into the country. Germany's liberal newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung coos about Zelaya's feat ("Heimkehr nach Honduras") and is tantalized by the expectation of a response by the "Putsch-Regime" (rebel regime). The French newspaper Le Monde ("Le président Zelaya de retour au Honduras") similarly describes Zelaya as the rightful president of the country who had been "ousted since late June by a coup d'état". Roberto Micheletti is described decidedly depracatingly as the man "who rules the country" since the coup.

The situation is certainly not neat and clean. Experts on the Honduran Constitution differ about the question whether the impeachment of Zelaya was legal. The Constitution is frustratingly vague on some key matters. The country continues in an uncertain state of semi-unrest. That Zelaya is a thug seems clear to me, however. Taking his cue from his crony Hugo Chavez, Zelaya was in the process of maneuvring himself into the role of president for life. His duplicitous proposal to organize a referendum on holding a referendum (sic) to change the Constitution was a blatant attempt to have his cake and eat it too. Since the Constitution explicitly forbids proposals to meddle with a number of core articles and rules any such attempt an automatically impeachable offense, Zelaya organized the referendum on a referendum approach so as to insulate himself from prosecution.

The so-called coup was the culmination of several legal steps during which Zelaya was repeatedly informed that his referendum was illegal. Zelaya went on, got arrested and kicked out of his country. The latter step was probably not wise but certainly does not invalidate his legitimate impeachment.

That the Obama administration keeps calling for Zelaya's return is disheartening. As Mary O'Grady describes in the Wall Street Journal ("Hillary's Honduras Obsession"), the President and his Secretary of State are ignoring the facts. Dictators like Zelaya should be kept out of office. The world should stop calling for his return to power and wait, like everyone else, for the results of the elections to be held in November.

UPDATE
The German magazine Der Spiegel ("Gestürzter Präsident Zelaya kehrt zurück") is refreshingly objective, referring to Zelaya as "former president" and to Michelletti as "interim president".

New Justice A-Coming

2009-07-17T16:09:00.002-05:00

Okay, so maybe I overreacted in my previous post.

Don't get me wrong. I still think she is deplorably affected by this postmodern, wishy-washy, multiculti nonsense about race relations and minority rights. I am not at all convinced she understands how evil affirmative action is.

But she is clearly not a nutcase. She gave impressive and intelligent answers to all questions asked of her, even the ones from the committee's new joker (Al Franken) who asked her about Perry mason. I hope Mr Franken has since been informed that the legendary lawyer is a fictional character.

Sotomayor will be confirmed some time before the August recess, with a comfortable margin. Democrats are united behind her and many Republicans are likely to support her too. The Republican defection is not surprising. For political reasons, the GOP cannot afford to waste ammunition on Sotomayor. She is a low-value target because she is simply replacing the ultraliberal and eccentric David Souter. Her appointment to the court will not change the political ideology of the court too much. If anything, she is likely to bring about a more balanced chemistry in the whole court. More importantly, Republicans just do not want to shoot down a Hispanic female judge in an era when they are working hard to make inroads in the Hispanic community.

Here's a balanced assessment of the situation by Marcia Coyle (National Law Journal) and Tom Goldstein (Scotusblog.com) on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer on PBS.

Filibuster Her!

2009-05-26T10:15:00.003-05:00

I thoroughly disapprove of the filibuster. It is an undemocratic sabotage tactic that circumvents the will of the people as expressed in the orderly elections of this country. So I am somewhat disgusted that I see no other solution than the filibuster to stop the elevation of the despicable Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Judge Sotomayor embodies all that is wrong with the hard-left elite that currently has the shrillest voice in the postrational West. She believes in abusing her office to advance social policy but, as is now the norm among liberal intellectuals, shrouds it in lofty and polysyllabic pseudo-legal logorrhea and thus escapes being caught out on it. Except that sometimes the cameras are rolling when she has forgotten to put on the mask:

This woman does not believe in logic or rationality. Her approach to life and the law is all feelings--her feelings, to be sure. She is a slave of the false religion of Diversity Politics and worships at the shrine of Postmodernist Waffle. There is no reason to believe she will interpret the law as it is written--despite what Pres. Obama said in the piece of bromide he served up to the press as an introduction of Sotomayor. She will rule in favor of the Hard Left's favorite causes at every turn: unlimited, tax-funded abortion, federal recognition of gay marriage, more rights for labor unions, greater equality for minorities and lesser equality for white males. On that last point (who remembers George Orwell?), note this statement by Sotomayor:

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life. (New York TimesMay 14, 2009

This woman is a disgrace to the bench and her nomination is intellectually dishonest. Considering that she has been reversed numerous times by the Supreme Court, Republicans must do all they can to prevent her confirmation. She is so dangerous to the foundation of this country that even a filibuster is justified.

Coleman or Franken?

2009-04-27T12:27:00.005-05:00

In the Minnesota recount battle, Al Franken has repeatedly gotten the upper hand. According to a Star Tribune poll published today, Minnesotans are fed up with Norm Coleman's quest to overturn Franken's lead. The Minneapolis paper headlines that "Most Want Coleman to Quit" and cite results from their recent telephone poll which shows 64% of all respondents want Coleman to throw in the towel. Only 28% believe Coleman's appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court is justified.

So, should Coleman give up?

No. And there are better reasons apart from the fact that Al Franken is a disgrace to Minnesota (consider the fact that he once threw a chair at talkshow host Michael Medved in a fit of rage). The Star Tribune has painted itself into a corner as well, having endorsed Coleman over Franken. Now the newspaper finds itself with an apparent majority of Minnesotans rooting for Al Franken.

But there are two arguments that lead me to opine that Coleman ought to continue his appeal. First, the so-called opinion poll seems a little heavily tilted toward Democrats. If you read the fine print in the article, you'll see that of the 1,042 respondents 20 percent were Republicans and 36 percent Democrats. Or almost double the number of registered Democrats over Republicans in a poll on an election issue in which the Democrat and the Republican candidate received virtually even results. Once you control for this curious flaw in the poll, the 28-64% division shrinks closer to a 40-50% distribution. Such a result would have represented more fairly the mood in Minnesota: We're sick and tired of this recount, but we'll live with it a little longer, even if we have to grind our teeth. After this long of a process some discontent with the situation is normal, but I do not believe that 64% of Minnesotans want Coleman to quit. The Star Tribune can argue that one cannot control exactly for party affiliation, but on such a topic that argument sounds very weak. A perfect parallel to Minnesota's party affiliation is probably not possible but a 20-36% spread is a little extreme.

Secondly, the legal arguments that Coleman has raised are not trivial. Just to be clear, Mr Coleman is not alleging that Al Franken or the Democratic Party cheated during this election. Rather, his objections are to the vote counting process which he claims was not fair and equal. Different standards for approving absentee ballots were applied in different counties and it so happens that heavily Democratic-leaning counties were a lot less strict in applying these standards than Republican-leaning counties. As a result, the Republican counties rejected a lot more absentee ballots (and thus, by implication, a lot more Republican votes) than the Democratic counties, which were generally lenient in allowing absentee ballots (and thus, again by the logic of statistics, increased the overall Democratic count in proportion to their representation in that county).

The upshot is that Republican votes were more usually rejected than Democratic votes. Coleman wants the courts to consider his argument that this is a violation of federal equal protection principles. So far, no court has done so; all previous rulings were very limited in scope and specifically excluded any consideration based on this argument. The courts have yet to rule on this basic question. Coleman has every right to appeal. Not only that, if he can provide overwhelming evidence of this situation, then the state of Minnesota needs to rethink its election laws because it implies a systemic unintentional bias in favor of Democratic candidates. Coleman's appeal might well be the catalyst to make elections in Minnesota fairer.

Does that mean the appeals should go on forever? Surely, at some point Coleman ought to give up? True. And the same goes for Al Franken, if at some point the odds get reversed. But let us not be hasty. Appeals are unlikely to drag on for years. The state Supreme Court will hear arguments early June and by mid-summer there will likely be a verdict. This court will not be able to skirt Coleman's constitutional objections as the district court did and so it is highly likely that there will be a different outcome. There are good chances that by the summer there will be an end to this situation. Such a timeline seems a reasonable situation to accept in face of the importance to American democracy.

But even if there is no substantial change at the state level, I would like to judge any hypothetical further appeals to the federal courts on their own merits. I am not of the opinion that Al Franken should be kept out of the Senat at all costs. He can only do so much harm among so many other hard-left senators. Still, I don't mind admitting that I am not against a little more patience before we certify Mr. Franken.

Krauthammer on hESC

2009-03-13T17:04:00.008-05:00

Charles Krauthammer, not a religious man by his own admission, but at least a thoughtful conservative wrote an article in the Washington Post today explaining why he declined Pres. Obama’s invitation to attend the signing ceremony overturning Pres. Bush’s limitations on federal funding for hESC. The article is not just thoughtful, it drives a truck through the phony rhetorics of Mr. Obama’s lecturing on science and ethics. Not only is it disingenuous to claim that until the Divine Revelation of Obama to the world, American scientific policy was shaped by politics and religious dogma. It is also logically inconsistent to claim that in forbidding human cloning one is not putting ethics—i.e. moral dogma, one might say, religion—over pure science.

But Mr Krauthammer’s column makes another thing clear when he says:

I am not religious. I do not believe that personhood is conferred upon conception. But I also do not believe that a human embryo is the moral equivalent of a hangnail and deserves no more respect than an appendix.

This thing is: without religion you have no moral anchor. While I agree with most of Mr Krauthammer’s practical decisions, he becomes completely inconsistent when he concludes, on the basis of the principles in the quote above, that it is morally justified to use “left-over embryos” from IVF treatments. Exactly equivalent to what a human embryo is, Mr Krauthammer is unable to explain and he adds nothing more enlightening to these comments. I suggest that he is wrong in his basic principle and that personhood is conferred upon conception. This is a conclusion not so much based on religious revelation even; rather, it is the safe logical conclusion drawn from the reliable observation that the vast majority of embryos, once implanted in a woman’s uterus, actually develop into persons. So even if one avoids the dilemma at the crossroads of science and faith—the question when personhood is conferred—it seems safer, and in line with actual reality, to simply declare as a matter of categorization that embryos are persons.

It is not up to the pro-life person to prove this statement true beyond reasonable doubt, but rather it is the responsibility of those demanding certain rights that these claims have a basis in reality and do not conflict with the rights of others. It is the scientists who would have to prove that their experiments are safe, not the public at large to prove the scientists’ experiments dangerous.

Slick Willy Doesn’t Know What an Embryo Is

2009-03-13T07:58:00.002-05:00

POTUS 42 as always had problems with basic school subjects. While in office, he had trouble with the English language such as when he could not define the word “is.” But biology also has not been his strong suit, as evidenced again this week by his moronic statement in an interview with CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta as they talked about stem cells. Clearly, Clinton has not a clue what an “embryo” is, when he says that Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research (hESC) is fine as long as we’re not talking about “a process that would allow them to be fertilized and become …ehm, little babies.”

The statement is emblematic of the public debate about hESC and illustrates why Pres. Obama’s decision to throw federal money at this research is so evil. On July 18, 2006, CNN’s correspondent Carol Costello made this blooper on live TV when she was talking to CNN’s medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen about this same topic:

Cohen: “These are four-day old embryos. We’re talking about very tiny, tiny embryos.”
Costello: “And they’re not fertilized either, right?”
Cohen: “Well no, an embryo is fertilized.”
Costello: “Just to make it clear–”
Cohen: “Its sperm and egg have met each other–”
Costello: “So, it is?”
Cohen: “–and they, they’ve grown for about four days. So, they’ve formed a very, very small embryo.”
Costello: “Ok, so I feel silly now.”

The American media, all having been educated in the Liberal School of Journalism, and Democratic politicians, who are too busy grabbing power, clearly all flunked biology. But these same morons are driving the debate about hESC.

Human Embryonic Stem Cell research is murder, plain and simple. You have to terminate the life of a fertilized human egg which thereby has become an embryo, which is a synonym for “baby.” So, yes, hESC is the killing of a human baby. That is why we pro-lifers oppose hESC. That has nothing to do with being unable to separate faith and science. I have no religious ‘beliefs’ about the fact that hESC kills babies. This is not preached in my church nor do I read it anywhere. I know this because I paid attention in biology class and know what an embryo is. Anyone who supports hESC does not know what an embryo is. That Bill Clinton does not know this either is shocking. Newsbusters’ Matthew Balan sighs, understandably, that Sanjay Gupta has ties to Clinton so we should not be surprised that he did not feel it necessary to correct Number 42 on his biology.

Change I Cannot Believe In

2009-02-27T10:50:00.008-06:00

This past TUESDAY President Obama gave an outrageously good non-State of the Union speech (it’s not called that when a new president has just taken office, but it’s essentially the same). I actually watched all of it again on Wednesday online and had to admit that the presentation was practically flawless. Others have since pointed out that it was very hard to watch because Nancy Pelosi kept jumping up like a jack-in-the-box at every applause line. As for content, well. Obama presented a program that is truly astounding—and he has no money to pay for it. On top of the recession, Obama plans to reform education, institute universal health care, create world peace… It was really sickening to listen to the smug nonsense of the speech and much of it was specifically designed to lay blame at George W. Bush’s feet. “We have inherited a deficit,” etc. Well, never mind that it was the Congressional Democrats who created those deficits, even if Mr. Bush can be blamed for not vetoing more spending bills.

What was quite painful to watch was the Republican response to the speech, given by Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal. It was a terrible speech, regardless of what Michael Medved says. I was and am in complete agreement with David Brooks’ assessment which he gave immediately afterward on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer on PBS (that it was “not a good speech”). And I am not just talking about the delivery which was astonishingly bad. He seemed like an eight-year old reading a book report his mother had proofread and corrected. But the contents were stupefyingly bad too. Not that I did not agree with most of the things he said, but he was hammering on the wrong topics as if he were tone deaf to the public conversation that has been going on about the current crisis. It is fine to believe in a pro-business, lower corporate taxes and incentives approach to the economy but it simply is not sufficient, in an address like this to the entire nation, to lambast the Current Occupant—to borrow a phrase from Anoka’s favorite left-wing loony—for being a closet socialist. Jindal’s speech was in essence nothing but a childish McCarthy-esque Red Scare speech. It really made me doubt whether Jindal has any future in politics, much in the same way as I believe Sarah Palin ought to be firmly tethered to the Alaska governor’s mansion for fear she tries to step on the national stage again. Palin presents a scary anti-intellectual approach to conservatism that I believe will do more harm than good. Folksy? Fine. Straightforward? Fine. Anti-intellectual? No way, Jose.

On THURSDAY came Obama’s budget. In addition to the $700 billion Spending Bill (wrongly named the Stimulus Package) Obama is now proposing another $500 billion in “regular” spending. My friend David Brooks again explains what’s wrong with this budget in his New York Times column today:

On Thursday, he [Pres. Obama] offered a budget of his own, and the question arises: Will he really change all that?
The answer is somewhat, but not enough. Obama’s budget is far more honest than the ones that preceded it. It imposes real pay-as-you-go rules on future outlays. Intellectually serious efforts are made to pay for at least half of the cost of health care reform.
But the ingrained habits are still there, and the rot is not expunged.

There is a certain virtue in honesty. George W. Bush’s insistence that the expenditures of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan be hidden by accounting tricks and kept off the regular budget has not convinced me, so the fact that the true cost, at least in dollars, is now visible in the budget is not bad. But this honesty does not go very far, nor is it even complete. As Mr. Brooks explains, Nancy Pelosi is running the show and that is truly a scary thought. It’s bad enough to think she is third in line under the Constitution.

However, the best analysis of the budget I have heard has come from former McCain campaign advisor and former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin. He went head to head with Robert Greenstein, Director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, on (yes, again) PBS’s News Hour with Jim Lehrer on Thursday. Holtz-Eakin exposes the Obama budget (and the economic policy in general) as old-fashiond socialist tax-and-spend dogma. Interviewer Jeffrey Brown asked him whether he thought Peter Orszag (White House budget direcor) was wrong in rejecting the label “wealth distribution.” Holtz-Eakin responded, in probably the best-presented media critique of Obama fiscal politics,

Oh, it is. I mean, there’s no question. This is a trillion dollars in tax increases. They are going to be on business through deferral and other sorts of arcane things and on high-income individuals explicitly. Raise their rates, tax their dividends and capital gains, diminish their charitable and mortgage interest deductions, and use it to fund Make or Pay, Earned Income Tax Credits, on American Opportunity Credit, low-income tax credits, refundable credits for some people who don’t even pay income taxes. So, there’s no question what that is.

Liberal counterpart Robert Greenstein had no answer for this. He took the so-called high ground by reminding the PBS audience that all Obama’s policy does is go back to the tax rates that existed before George W. Bush’s irresponsible tax give-aways to the wealthy. That sounds very good on TV and I’m afraid that many people bought that excuse, but it has one major logical flaw: it assumes that the tax rates in 1999 were good then. (One may ask, in addition, whether the 1999 rates—or the 1988 rates, for that matter—will work in 2009, but we will leave that matter for now.) In other words, what Greenstein was saying is, in effect, our policy is okay because it we used to do it this way before. To take this argument ad absurdum, imagine how high eyebrows would have to be raised if, say, President Grant had decided to reinstate slavery in 1871 with the justification that “all we are doing is returning to the situation before 1860.” Just because a situation existed in the past does not make it right or applicable to the present.

Review of Jeffrey Toobin's "The Nine"

2009-02-02T23:40:00.005-06:00

Jeffrey Toobin. The Nine. Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court. New York: Anchor Books, 2007 (2008 edition with a new afterword). Paperback, 451pp., index, ill. $15.95 (ISBN 978-1-4000-9679-4)

This book is, as the endorsement by Michiko Kakutani from the New York Times (printed on the cover) says, “compelling.” Indeed, Mr. Toobin, well-known legal analyst for CNN is more than just a clear head. He is also a good writer. Toobin knows what he is talking about and he delivers his message in a very readable style.

In twenty-five chapters, the book describes the important developments of the later Rehnquist court and into the new Roberts court. Toobin has one important lesson for any layman with an interest in the Supreme Court: judges are politicians. Especially gripping is his description of the very controversial Bush v. Gore case of 2000. His judgment of that case, which he already described in his previous book Too Close to Call, is devastating but Toobin is also very evenhanded. He condemns all justices equally for conduct unbecoming of a judge. Every last of the justices played politics with that case when any law student could have told you that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction under the Constitution to even hear the case. Nevertheless, the justices also did not affect politics in any way, because even if they had not illegally handed the Bush team his electoral victory on a silver platter, Bush would have won anyway, had Gore’s recount challenge been allowed to work its way through the Florida court system.

Toobin describes that case in several chapters showing enormous depth of knowledge—the most profound knowledge of all the cases he describes—and an ability to empathize with the ‘other side.’ It must come as no surprise that Mr. Toobin, working as he does for CNN, does tip his hand every now and then as a liberal, dismissing some conservative victories as unreasonable and many of their arguments as mendacious.

This becomes all the more clear in the unnecessary new afterword in the 2008 reprint. In it, Mr. Toobin shows himself to be more of a political journalist than a legal analyst. The afterword was clearly written in the thick of the 2008 presidential campaign and Toobin finds it necessary to take some cheap jabs at Republican candidate John McCain. Without the afterword, the book would have had a perfectly elegant ending. With it, the essentially fair treatment of a contested topic is defaced by an author’s ugly unmasking of himself, revealing a bitter hatred for perceived Republican hypocrisy in matters judicial.

Mr. Toobin proves himself to be an especially keen observer of mankind. We learn a lot of things about the personalities of the justices. The book is anything but flattering of the Rehnquist court and the judges who served on it. One wonders whether perhaps the author does not occasionally pass too harsh judgment on some of them. (At least in this indelicacy he pays neither the court’s liberals nor its conservatives any favors.) Justice Thomas is treated perhaps the least kindly when Toobin rakes up the Anita Hill affair again, repeating once more the long-whispered but not substantiated rumor that Ms Hill was right in her charge of sexual misconduct (and that Thomas was addicted to pornography on a profound scale). Mr. Toobin’s description of Clarence Thomas as the kind substitute father to his grandnephew, though endearing in itself, hardly makes up for the unnecessary jabs at Thomas the pervert.

Still, on the whole these are relatively minor flaws in a book that is truly interesting. Mr. Toobin’s look at the politics behind the nomination of justices, the maneuvering of the justices behind the screens, even some of the Congressional debates over the court is enlightening and well written. For those who are prepared for a left-leaning view of the Supreme Court, this book must be considered a very mildly biased book, and with the bias largely restricted to a small number of the author’s pet topics. Because it is so wonderfully crafted, so well researched no reasonable person could dismiss this book as unworthy propaganda—because it is not.

Four and half out of five stars.

NO! It's not as bad as the Great Depression

2009-01-22T17:31:00.005-06:00

As the new liberal Congress gets ready to throw another one trillion dollars down the sewer with the mistaken or, in some cases (read: Treasury Secretary Geithner), mendacious notion that it is going to stimulate the economy and jolt us out of the economic crisis, very few influential voices in this country are willing to call this for what it is: dangerous nonsense.

For one thing, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AR), one of the few brave voices in this rush to pull out the federal check book, reminded the audience of Hugh Hewitt’s radio talk show yesterday (Jan 21, 2009) that the proposed bill to stimulate the economy will do little or nothing in that respect. Not that all of the proposed spending is necessarily pork, but it does not belong in this bill, he explained. Some of the money for infrastructure and energy projects will not even be spent in the next four years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. In other words, under the guise of emergency spending Obama and his liberal allies in Congress are adding enormous amounts to the national deficit. And it will do nothing to the economy in the short term.

But more importantly, this bill is only being pushed because the country is “in the worst recession since the Great Depression”—according to those pushing it. Problem is, that is not true, at least not yet. Baltimore Sun columnist Jay Hancock looked at the actual statistics recently and concluded that while it’s important not to underestimate the economic downturn, right now the recession is not even as bad as the 1982 economic crisis. While unemployment is rising rapidly, it’s still nowhere near the 10.4 % unemployment rate of 1983. It’s not even up to the 7.8% of 1992.

There are other statistics, such as gross domestic products and services produced in the US that suggest things are not as bad as the 1930s--nor even as bad as 1982. Other factors may look disastrous, including the almost total collapse of the housing market in some regions of the US or the dissolution of great bastions in the financial markets, but while these are impressive events, they are not of widespread catastrophic magnitude.

So before Pelosi, Reid & Co. drive us all like lemmings over the cliff, could we perhaps have a little perspective?

One Little Sentence

2009-01-21T21:56:00.003-06:00

Should one be glad that the New York Times is keeping Roger Cohen out of the unemployment lists? I cannot say I am overly familiar with the man's columns, but today's puke-worthy adoration of St. Barack XLIV by Cohen leads me to answer that question in the negative. The column is not just drivel, it's religious claptrap in the official Media Cult of the Obamassiah. Of course, the Times, as any other person or corporation can express itself in whatever way it likes, but I don't have to like it.

In his column, Cohen passes grave judgment on the preceding 8 years and on the president who led the country:

America is returning to its Constitution: “We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” With that little sentence, Obama bade farewell to renditions, torture, the trampling of habeas corpus, Guantánamo and other stains on the nation’s conscience. This work will not be complete until Guantánamo is closed and those wrongly imprisoned, some for more than five years, are compensated.

The arrogance is inconceivable. For years, the public debate as well as the professional debate between Constitutional scholars, lawyers, Congressmen etc. has raged over the legal status of many of Pres. Bush's policies in the War on Terror. But Cohen knows best: it was all unconstitutional and Guantánamo is full of innocent people. With one little sentence, the verdict is passed. Surely fodder for those who want to also impose sentence on Mr. Bush.

Give me a break.

And.... He's In! -- On Roland Burris Being Seated

2009-01-12T18:29:00.003-06:00

After well over a week of legal tug-of-war, Roland Burris, Rod Blagojevich's pawn in his embarrassing game of cat and mouse with the FBI, was finally admitted to the Senate today. Of course, Harry Reid must have been fuming that Blagojevich had won this round in a game in which he, Reid, was also a mere pawn. But Burris has all the legal arguments on his side and so Reid got embarrassed, as the Washington Post put it.

Burris is another product of the Chicago political machine and though he may not be implicated in the Blagojevich scandal, America and Illinois should not expect anything even as competent as Obama's performance in the seat he is now going to be filling. Once Mr Burris takes his seat, he will be firmly shackled by Reid & Co. to make sure he does nothing that is not first approved by the Democratic Party. After all, Burris is hardly electable on his own terms and should be made to understand that he is expected to step aside for a hand-picked candidate in 2010, when Mr Obama's original term expires.

What a circus. Now only one joke remains: the Al Franken show in Minnesota.

Review of David McCullough’s John Adams

2009-01-12T12:00:00.003-06:00

David McCullough. John Adams. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001. (ISBN 0-684-81363-7, 751pp., index, ill.)

After seeing the HBO miniseries John Adams on DVD (we don’t waste our hard-earned money on an HBO subscription) I was intrigued enough to find out more about America’s second president, so I bought McCullough’s book on which the tv-series was based.

Adams is a relatively little-known figure among the Founding Fathers. The extravagant and heroic Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin make for much more interesting reading in history textbooks than Adams, who was never caught out on any sexual sin, never owned any slaves, never invented anything, and never led any battles.

Seen in that light, Adams must seem a terminally boring person, a president who swam against the tide of popular opinion when the country clamored for war with France and who made himself extremely little beloved by signing into law for which any 21st century president would be run out of town for even if he just wondered out loud about the desirability of such a provision: the Alien and Sedition Act. Fair enough, this monstrous law, which elevated personal insults of the president to the level of a criminal offense, ought never even have come to his desk and he should never have signed it.

Yet the second president was no more a monster than the forty-third for all the bile that was directed at both. Though Adams’ transgression of Constitutional safeguards was much more acute than George Bush’s creation of separate judicial procedures for enemy combatants at Guantánamo, since it criminalized speech—and speech against Adams—, there was a context in which Adams agreed to sign this legislation. This context also produced probably his greatest legacy to his country and almost certainly ensured that the infant United States did not die an ignominious crib death. It was Adams’s resolve to avoid war with France, almost at all costs and certainly at great personal political cost, that prevented a disastrous military conflict at a time when the young country could not have prevailed. The Revolutionary War had crippled any military strength the United States could muster from among the untrained farm hands that formed the core of the militia.

At the same time, though, that Adams resisted the evil machinations by Alexander Hamilton—surely the vilest character ever in American politics, period.—to militarize America and prevented the costly and unnecessary build-up of a standing army in peace time, President Adams was enough of a forward-looking realist to see that America’s future safety depended on what he referred to as the “wooden wall:” a strong navy. All of America’s enemies lay across the ocean. Though military success against the Barbary pirates is credited to Adams’s successor Thomas Jefferson, it was thanks to the second president’s insistence not to be distracted with ground troops and funding of a navy that Jefferson had the disposal of a fleet strong enough to defeat a band of Islamic thugs that had so far held all of Europe hostage over right of sea passage in the Mediterranean.

David McCullough’s book is much more than a chronicle of Adams’s presidency or his underestimated involvement in the Revolution. This biography paints a great picture of the man Adams as he was from cradle to grave. A lot of contemporary records have come down to us about John Adams, not in the least because the man was more than merely a prolific correspondent and a firm believer in keeping diaries. There are few people in world history who wrote more than Adams. But in addition to this boon to historians, Adams happened to marry a woman who, if perhaps not a more prolific writer, ranks but little lower on that scale. Most of his children and grand-children also kept diaries. This biography clearly benefits from the enormous library of letters and diaries from the Adams family, his correspondents, and his contemporaries.

One cannot help but gain enormous respect for John and Abigail Adams—and even come to love them in a sense. Their marriage was certainly not idyllic. Abigail suffered from many illnesses and infirmities that sometimes confined her to her bed for weeks or months. The pressures of public life, the burdens of which Abigail often did not feel herself able to endure, led to numerous years of separation while Adams was in Europe, in Philadelphia, or in Washington DC, while his wife remained at home in Massachusetts. And yet these two people were very well matched in every way. Abigail was able to provide her husband not merely the emotional support that would have been expected of a wife in the 18th century. In possession of a keen intellect herself, she was able to provide him with a sounding board and advice on practically any issue he encountered both in his legal and his political career. Abigail is also known to have argued with her husband in favor of incorporating full equal rights for women in the nascent republic. John Adams never committed to supporting such a notion, though he hinted that his reluctance stemmed from a correct appreciation of the mood of the times, which would never have supported it.

Adams stands apart from many of the Founding Fathers by being so normal and mainstream, but also in a sense ahead of his time. Especially on the subject of slavery and racism, the Adamses (both John and Abigail) were very outspoken. While Jefferson too claimed, limply and completely incredibly, to abhor slavery while never doing anything against it, John Adams spoke openly of his belief that all men were truly created equal and that any distinctions on the basis of skin color were morally repugnant. Adams described slavery as a “foul contagion in the human character,” and “an evil of colossal magnitude” (p. 134). Abigail was perhaps even more outraged by slavery, possibly because her father had owned a slave. Yet Adams refused to bring up the topic in the Continental Congress, aware of the fact that it would have killed among the southern states the taste for resistance against the British suppression that Massachusetts was suffering under more than any of the other states. Nevertheless, in his later years, Adams correctly predicted that the issue of slavery would be the cause of civil war between the north and south.

McCullough describes all the important (and many not-so-important) events of his life in admirable detail. Yet I have a few quibbles with the book. The biggest one is that Adams’s faith is hardly ever described. To the modern reader it may seem at times as if Adams believed only in some nebulous spirit-God who smiles benevolently on everything man does as if they are His pets. Adams’s faith seems to play almost no role in his thoughts or his actions. Nowhere are we even told what theology he subscribed to or what sort of church he went to, though one may assume (I do not know this) that he was a Congregationalist like most of rural Massachusetts in the 18th century, and therefore similar to what today would be called a Reformed Baptist. But Adams’s faith, and that of his wife, played a huge role in their lives and, as even the momentary glimpses in McCullough’s book show, provided him with the moral framework that guided him in his political beliefs and his policies. Also, Abigail believed that the calamities that befell Americans may well be the result of God’s wrath on the country for the evil of slavery. Both Adamses lived out of the Bible and enjoyed all of Creation as a gift of God.

I also think that McCullough’s style is, as others have said, too much on “autopilot.” The material seems a little disorganized and often one wonders why some items are even included. At 650 pages it is also simply too long for a popular biography. Many things could have been condensed and left out. What is more, McCullough offers very little argument. The book at times seems like an arrangement of personal writings, but the author provides no framework in which to place the material. Though it is possible to gain an understanding of the historical context of the Alien and Sedition Act through this book, Adams’s biographer includes little or no discussion of this highly controversial scene in American politics. If this were sold simply as a digest of the Adams Papers that would be fine, but McCullough claims it as a biography.

In the end, this is neither the hyped super-biography that it was sold as, nor the horrible failure some reviewers believe it to be. The book avoids the label “mediocrity” fairly easily because it is too well researched and too comprehensive in its inclusion of the various aspects of Adams’s life. But it is true that many topics are treated too superficially. Because of its length, these flaws are quite grave. 3 out of 5 stars.

No Sympathy for Hamas

2008-12-31T17:21:00.002-06:00

For all the wailing and hand-wringing among the instinctively anti-Israel left elite in the world, I fully support Israel’s attack on the Hamas terrorists in Gaza. While all the big names in America’s mainstream media keep shouting, as John Noonan at The Weekly Standard’s “The Blog” reminds us, all castigate Israel for “disproportionate force,” this term is a red herring. Ezra Klein of The American Prospect complains that Israel’s is responding with deadly force to Hamas’s “potshots.” Hamas is not killing anyone, though there are some injuries. Thus, the close to 400 dead Palestinians in Gaza cannot be justified by anyone. Besides, Klein adds, almost as an afterthought, Israel is a terrorist and anti-Palestinian racist state anyway, so why have sympathy for them?

Well, I have no sympathy for Hamas. The nonsensical argument that there is no justification for responding to what Klein calls “potshots” is despicable. You try living within range of those potshots and have them rain down on your backyard day after day for years on end. Even if we grant the—untrue—argument there have been no casualties as a results of Hamas’s continual bombardments, is Israel just supposed to shrug its collective shoulders and ignore Hamas as if it were merely an annoying bug?

For years, Israel has bent over backwards to turn the other cheek. Yes, sometimes it has responded inappropriately, but that is hardly surprising given the fact that Hamas has vowed to wipe Israel off the map. You run out of cheeks at some point. Nor does Israel believe that all Palestinians are evil. But these reprisals are not disproportionate. Hamas is a huge terrorist network sitting on a strip of land about twice as large as the District of Columbia and spends almost all its energy on lobbing missiles into Israel. The relatively low casualty rate is no reason for Israel not to avoid future mishaps.

The Morning After

2008-11-05T01:13:00.002-06:00

WHAT MANY HAD FEARED HAS NOW HAPPENED: A SCARILY inexperienced senator with a wafer-thin resume has been elected president of the United States. That says something. It says something about the mood of the country. It certainly says something about the still simmering racial tensions in this country. It probably says something about the ignorance of the American voter. And it says something about the way the 21st-century media work in our society.

This is a historic moment. America has elected her first black president. That alone is something to be relieved about. The previous failed attempts of black candidates to gain any traction among average voters, though due almost entirely to their extremist positions and their paramount unfitness for office, nevertheless left a foul taste in the mouths of many Americans. This is a huge moment: about as big as the civil rights laws of the 1960s. For that aspect I am grateful. And I am not just saying this because at 1:45am the city of Washington DC, where I was privileged to experience the evening as a guest of Dutch public radio and TV, has exploded in a massive outdoor party.

Yes, Washington DC, which is overwhelmingly Democrat (nearly 100%) and which has slightly more than half African-Americans, is celebrating the election of Barack Obama. As a conservative I did think it wiser to travel by taxi from the studio back to my hotel rather than saunter back past the White House (directly on the route).

Republicans Lost?
Are Republicans now lost forever? Certainly not. The world did not end because the wrong black candidate got to be the first black president. First of all, Sen. Obama has shown himself to be intelligent and who knows how to play the political game. That means there is, to use the man’s own words, hope. Confronted with the realities of office he may yet reign in the most radical parts of his agenda.

But I am also not convinced by arguments that Republicans brought this on themselves by “overreaching,” whatever that is supposed to mean. Surrounded by liberal talking heads at the studio, I kept hearing this theory that Karl Rove’s evil strategy to cement a permanent Republican majority was the main culprit of this kick up the party’s backside. In the words of another famous American: It’s the economy stupid. Well, and that other albatross around every Republican’s neck, the Current Occupant, as liberal looney author and commentator Garrison Keilor likes to call him.

McCain ran an abominable campaign in the homestretch, though this was partly due to the vastly smaller war chest available to him. Sen. Obama’s campaign alone raised over 600 million dollars, while McCain’s net income was under 300 million, a decided disadvantage. But McCain did not have the clear message and he did not have the presentation. McCain killed his own campaign by using his gut instead of his brain. He selected an outside candidate for running mate and he went berserk when Wall Street crashed. One may forgive him for the former mistake because he had no viable alternatives. And do not forget that Palin did rally the base in a way Republicans have not seen in a long time. That was and will remain a valuable asset to this campaign.

But McCain’s second mistake—raving and ranting against this and that person he deemed responsible for the financial crisis—revealed something eerie about his judgment. It is, in my view, what clinched this race. I have spoken to a few of the liberals who attended the election broadcast and more than one said something along the lines of, “Let’s keep our fingers crossed.” They are not sure about Obama. All they know is that McCain was not an option. He was ruled out.

Leadership
So, whither now the conservative movement? I do not think much will need to change in politics, but a lot will need to change in tactics. Democrats benefited from a much better grassroots organization. Republicans will need to develop a parallel structure.

As for Sarah Palin? I doubt we will hear much from her again on the national stage. Applying the Peter Principle, she seems to have risen above the level where she can perform adequately. She seems to be functioning fairly well as governor of Alaska and has a serious argument on her side now that a counter-report has cleared her of wrongdoing in Troopergate.

But that leaves the conservative movement in the Republican party without a real leader. Leadership is not going to come from the Palins and Huckabees who have been weighed and found wanting. But the likes of McCain and Thompson, while honorable men (said the former Fredhead in me), clearly belong to a previous generation. In four years, we will not see them. Romney will not win anything national until he gets a real human soul transplanted into his android body. Who will lead the way?

Sarah Palin for Vice-President

2008-09-01T21:17:00.004-05:00

I think Governor Palin (Alaska) is an exciting choice as John McCain’s running mate. Her record in Alaska shows her to be a sound conservative, an effective governor and politician, and a moral family woman. She is known as a reformer. As governor she cleaned house in her state’s corruption-ridden Republican Party, not afraid to throw fellow party members involved in scandal to the dogs, thus showing her moral integrity. She also single-handedly killed the symbol of pork barrel spending: the so-called Bridge to Nowhere, which (Republican) Alaska Sen. Stevens wanted built at tax-payer expense. Also, her personal background shows she learns quickly and can do many things at the same time, balancing work and family in an admirable way.

Yet this was no easy choice. There was no easy choice. All contenders (Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Tom Ridge, Joseph Lieberman) had major problems attached to them that would have hampered John McCain’s effectiveness in the campaign. To suggest that any of these other candidates would have been better is naïve.

Mitt Romney has two problems. As a Mormon he would scare away a good deal of the so-called Christian Right who will baulk at giving the Mormon cult political legitimacy. The lack of personal affection between Romney and McCain also doesn’t help. Similarly, the liberal pro-choice senator Joseph Lieberman, though sound on foreign policy, especially Iraq, would undo all the healing between McCain and the conservative base in the Republican Party who—unfairly in my view—consider McCain a dangerous left-leaning moderate. Tim Pawlenty’s drawback, even though he is a fine conservative and effective two-term governor, is summed up in Jay Leno’s joke: “Tim Who?” Outside of his state of Minnesota, nobody knows him. Why Tom Ridge’s name has even come up still confuses me. There can be no room for pro-choice politicians on a Republican presidential ticket. Assuming you’re campaigning to win, that is.

It has to be admitted that Palin is not the dream candidate. Palin’s lack of foreign policy experience as well as limited executive experience is a problem. By choosing Palin, McCain has dulled one of his mightiest weapons against Obama: the charge of his inexperience. What is more, within days, the media have dug up two blemishes on her image, if not actually blemishes on her career (note the difference, if you are able).

Her involvement in what some detractors call “Troopergate” (her alleged unethical interference in having her ex-brother-in-law fired from the State Police) is certainly the more serious problem. Palin has sought legal representation to defend herself against the charges. While it may be true to state that Palin remains innocent until proven guilty, even of relatively minor charges, the story does not look well in the media. In our media culture which revolves around subjective images and feelings, the allegations pack a much bigger punch than ought objectively to be the case.

At the same time, her squeaky clean family image has been dented by the revelation of her 17-year old daughter’s pregnancy. Barack Obama may say that “families are off-limits,” the media are drooling over the story. It blunts Gov. Palin’s effectiveness somewhat. Even the reiterations that, naturally, the girl is keeping the baby detract ultimately from Palin’s staunch pro-life image, because the repeated statement actually reinforces the pro-choice norm of America’s left-wing politicians and media that such young girls ought not to continue unwanted pregnancies. Pro-life sensibilities are subtly ridiculed.

Gov. Palin will have to work hard to become a household name across the country. The vice-presidential debate in Missouri will be a real challenge. Joe Biden is a seasoned politician who knows how to work the camera and whose foreign policy expertise could easily dazzle in comparison to Palin’s neophyte stature in that area. Yet it is not entirely fair to suggest, as the New York Times seems to insinuate, that national security and foreign policy experience are of overriding importance in deciding whether a candidate is fit to be vice-president. John McCain, although 72, is not about to drop down dead. The Constitution gives the VP only two duties: inquiring after the health of the president and preside over the Senate. I’m sure Gov. Palin can handle that. And more. To suggest that she is clueless about politics just because she hasn’t served 38 years on the foreign relations committee is nonsense.

Last but not least, it cannot be ignored that McCain has picked a credible woman candidate. Palin was not picked just because she is a woman. But hey, it does help to make McCain’s image more hip. So we have a ticket with a black man running against a ticket including a woman. Sounds exciting.

Thoughts about the Democratic Convention 2008

2008-09-01T17:58:00.001-05:00

The Democratic National Convention was a tantalizing political festival. It was well-directed and the number one impression that will probably linger longest in people’s minds is the atmosphere of unity among the delegates and attendees. The party made a real attempt to present a united front. There was no sudden coup d’etat by the Clintonistas, as some deluded Hillary backers had feared (read: hoped). Both Bill and Hillary nicely towed the party line.

And yet, for those who are willing to look below the surface, what was most important about the convention was how partisan its organization was. While Democrats united, the message of unity among all Americans, stressed by Obama in his acceptance speech among others, was nothing but a façade. Party politics prevailed even in decisions to reshuffle speeches. Gov. Ted Strickland (Ohio) suddenly spoke at prime time, pushing out Mark Warner (former governor of Virginia). Guess what? Strickland’s fervent anti-Republican speech played much better with the party brass than Warner’s concilliatory speech calling for bipartisanship.

Obama’s speech was good, as always. Tone and delivery never failed. It was not a brilliant speech, however. While some glimpses of content were revealed, the speech remained chockful of meaningless clichés. And again, Obama tried to coast on his abstract message of hope and the glowing image of his own bipartisan resumé—which does not exist. All the fancy words about reasonable common ground on abortion, for instance, are nothing but fancy words, coming from the most fervently pro-abortion senator currently serving in Congress. He is ready to debate John McCain on any of these issues, the senator claims. So why has he turned down 10 invitations to debate him so far?

Adding Joe Biden to the ticket was an interesting move. For one it really bolstered the left-wing message of his campaign, considering that Senator Biden is the third-most liberal serving senator (Mr. Obama is number 1 on that list). Senator Biden is primarily a foreign-policy expert, suggesting that Obama wants to make foreign policy his number one campaign theme. No worries for McCain there, as he is much Mr. Obama’s superior on that front. Obama still denies the surge made any difference.

After the convention, Obama received his expected bounce in the polls. But the 15-point lead that was circulated by among others the McCain campaign has so far not materialized. RealClearPolitics reports an average of only 4.5 percentage points advantage for Obama. That seems to suggest that people are really getting tired of Obama and weren't swayed by the propaganda campaign in Denver.

Obama Overexposed

2008-08-12T14:55:00.009-05:00

Could it be true? Is America really getting sick and tired of Barack Obama? According to a study published by the Pew Research Center (available here), 48% of Americans say they have heard too much of Obama. That includes 34% of Democrats and 51% of independents. At the same time, many people (38%) are complaining that not enough has been seen in the media of John McCain. In fact, fewer people say they have seen the Republican candidate in the the right amount (35%) than they have Mr Obama (41%). Even in their own parties, Obama is considered to have the right amount of exposure by 57% by fellow Democrats, against a score of only 37% for John McCain among fellow Republicans.

One reason? Could it be the ridiculous overexposure of Obama in the mass media, at least up until very recently? The same report includes results of candidate exposure research, showing that in the first half of 2008, the media had an outright love affair with Obama (see graph).

The data show that currently, coverage of Obama is about 81%, of McCain about 78%, but between February and this past week, the average difference was roughly 22% in Obama's favor. In early May, Obama-favor in the media was even over 50%!

But it gets worse, at least from McCain's perspective. The report also includes data on how visible the candidate is to voters. McCain's visibility has not improved, hovering constantly between 8 and 11%. And Obama? His visibility has steadily climbed over the spring and summer, currently reaching 76%.

What does this mean? I don't rightly know, but it may mean that voters are realizing that Obama is overexposed. This may lead to a backlash among voters who are getting tired of seeing his face on tv (and repeatedly on the cover of Newsweek) all the time. What's more, Pew mentions that 22% of respondents in their survey reported they have an unfavorable view of Obama, up from only 16%. That may indeed mean the post-Berlin bounce for Obama. Let's hope.

Bush Never Lied about Iraq

2008-06-16T11:47:00.002-05:00

Please all read this important article in the Los Angeles Times, written by James Kirchick, assistant editor of The New Republic. This is hardly a conservative publication and cannot be accused of having succumbed to White House propaganda. It's an enlightening review of public reports by US Congress about the intelligence on Iraq.

On Boumediene v. Bush (06-1195; 553 US 2008) Guantanamo Detainees Case

2008-06-12T17:28:00.000-05:00

This was a close case, decided 5-4 by a liberal v. conservative split. The liberal majority (opinion by Justice Kennedy) decided that the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) did not adequately protect the right to habeas corpus of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The majority concluded that the limitation of habeas rights in that law was unconstitutional because, in the views of the Court, habeas protections can only be suspended by invoking the Constitution’s suspension provision, i.e. when the Commander in Chief declares a rebellion or invasion. The conservative dissenters, Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas, rejected this argument in two separate dissenting opinions, one by the Chief Justice and one by Justice Scalia, in both of which the other conservative justices joined.

The Roberts dissent argued primarily that the DTA adequately protected whatever rights aliens detained as enemy combatants have. The right of habeas corpus is not an independent civil right in US law, according to the Chief Justice, but is first and foremost a “procedural right, a mechanism for contesting the legality of executive detention.” In other words, Roberts implies that it is not the exact formula of the writ of habeas corpus that is the protected civil right, but the intent or content of this writ, i.e. the test whether executive detention is legal. Thus, Roberts concludes that the DTA more than adequately provides for a protection of that essential right and that the discussion of habeas corpus should never even have been considered in this case.

Justice Scalia’s scathing and sarcastic dissent went into the specific question whether the Guantanamo detainees had the right of habeas corpus. He emphatically concludes that they do not because the detainees are held in Guantanamo Bay which is part of Cuba and not the United States. As alien detainees being held outside the sovereign territory of the United States they have no constitutional right to sue in civilian US court. Scalia also argued that the very reason President Bush decided to detain enemy combatants at the Guantanamo Bay facility was that he was advised by legal counsel that US civilian law does not extend to that facility.

As with any legal case, the question is an intricate one. Seen from a political point of view, I am not unsympathetic to the Court’s decision. The reason for this is that I do not agree with the ethical argument that enemy combatants “ought not to be be allowed to sue in civil court.” This seems to be at the bottom of Bush administration arguments, and Justice Scalia’s opinion strongly supports this notion. Hiding behind certain blank spots in the law because it is convenient to do so does not address the ethical question whether even enemy combatants ought not to have a certain minimum guarantee of due process. Scalia’s intricate argument regarding the sovereignty status of Guantanamo Bay is not only unconvincing, it is short-sighted and goal-oriented. He argues in effect that Guantanamo Bay is in no way part of US sovereign territory and that, ergo, the right to a writ of habeas corpus does not extend there, at least not to alien detainees. But his reasoning is somewhat tortured (pun intended) because he has to engage the majority’s argument that US sovereignty extends there at least de jure if not de facto. While this distinction, invented by the majority for this case, certainly is not extremely elegant, it does essentially describe the status of Guantanamo: US duties are imposed there by US agents (the US military and other federal agents) on the detainees and these US agents have to abide by executive directives. The majority’s conclusion that this implies US legal control of the area is not less than reasonable. Scalia’s dissent that there is no such term as de jure sovereignty and that its distinction from de facto sovereignty is contrived is unfair and wrong. His particular example that, in common law history, the English writ of habeas corpus was not issued in Scotland when the power of the English crown extended de facto to Scotland, is a legal non sequitur. After all, Scotland had and has its own law in a way not dissimilar to the way different US states have different and separate legal codes.

But this is mostly politics and not necessarily constitutionally sound reasoning. The Chief Justice’s dissent makes clear that even the alien detainees at Guantanamo Bay have a right to challenge their detention, but he deferred to the decision reached by both the executive and legislative branches in passing the DTA in 2005. This law, he argued not unpersuasively, protects the effective content of the detainees’ rights. Just because these rights are not exactly equal with civil habeas corpus rights that obtain for US citizens anywhere, and for legal resident aliens within the sovereign territory of the United States, this is no reason to declare the relevant provision in the DTA unconstitutional.

We must not fall into the trap of fixing this the quick way because the question is politically controversial. I have always disagreed with the Bush administration’s handling of the legal rights of Guantanamo detainees. I believe the limitations imposed on them are unethical because they contradict the very principles undergirding American law and democracy. Even enemy combatants should have some rights. The administration has claimed to agree with this position but the limitations they have imposed on these rights, as gleaned from the legal arguments employed in the various challenges in federal court to the detainees’ treatment, appear to exceed the standards of reasonableness.

On the other hand, the public at large has no right whatsoever to know anything about the way these enemy combatants are processed as this would clearly violate the national security interests of the United States. And unfortunately, the public, in the guise of journalists, pressure groups, and politicians, have muddied the debate by offering conclusions on the matter when they have no understanding of the facts. This decision by the Court’s liberal majority is clearly driven to appease these ill-informed public opinions. Chief Justice Roberts’ warning that the majority’s decision will create a legal confusion that is in no-one’s interest, neither that of the government nor that of the detainees, is quite correct. As members of the judicial branch of government, the justices have no calling except to look at what the pertinent laws say and then declare that. If this analysis of the law finds that the Bush administration has not violated any law then, no matter the political or ethical quibbles one may have with administration policy, too bad. It is simply not up to the judiciary to correct this situation. Judges are nothing but glorified legal consultants, trained in giving expert opinions on the cumulative effect of legislative and executive action.

Thus, even though I am not unsympathetic to the position or even the arguments taken by the Kennedy majority, the conclusion of that majority cannot be construed as anything but liberal judicial activism. I do not agree with all the arguments propounded by the two dissents, but their overriding redeeming quality is that both the Chief Justice and Justice Scalia understand much better than the liberal majority the position Supreme Court justices as well as other federal judges have in a constitutional democracy.

Barack's "Pastoral" Problem

2008-03-15T10:29:00.004-05:00

ABC News and other news outlets have recently highlighted Barack Obama's relationship to the pastor of his home church Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Rev. Jeremiah Wright's role in the Obama campaign has come under scrutiny and CNN reports that the pastor has now resigned from the campaign.

If you listen to the man's "sermons" (the quotation marks are used advisedly), you cannot but conclude that here is a violation of the tax code. The United Church of Christ (UCC), probably the most liberal denomination in the United States, has long left biblical Christianity. Rather than preach the gospel, this denomination prefers to revel in social activism and self-actualization messages. Ever since the forerunners of the UCC set biblical teaching aside in the 1930s, God has gotten little attention there.

Rev. Wright can be seen in Youtube videos (o.a. this one) fulminating against rich white people. In the video I linked to, Rev. Wright is displaying a ridiculous ignorance of the Bible and a scary disinterest in the Bible. Pointing at a Bible on the lectern, and which seems to be nothing but an ornament because he never apparently reads from the Holy Book, Rev. Wright concludes that "Jesus was black" and the "Romans were Italian, which means they were European, which means white." So, first-century Palestine turns into an allegory for Rev. Wright's view of Black America.

Jesus was not black. He was born to a Jewish woman by a mystical conception through the Holy Spirit. Since Jesus apparently did not stand out in society by an unusually dark skin, or the Gospels would surely have mentioned it, He was undoubtedly similar in appearance to modern Jews: i.e. white.

Rev. Wright can preach whatever he wants in his church, but let's not pretend that the speech on Youtube is either Christian or a sermon. Let's be clear about it: Rev. Wright's Christmas 'sermon' is a campaign speech. For it, the IRS ought to cancel the church's tax-exempt status.

And one can't help but wonder how Barack Obama benefited from the teaching at Trinity United Church of Christ. Christ certainly is preached there but rarely, if the reports are anything to go by. That is legitimate reason, at least, to doubt the depth of Mr. Obama's faith.

Branding Conservative Justices as Racists

2007-07-11T13:48:00.000-05:00

It is hard to tell whether those who have decried the US Supreme Court decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 et al.really believe the nonsense they spout or whether they are just playing a disgusting political game. There can be no doubt that the conservative majority restored sanity and justice when they ruled that racial quotas in school admission policies were unconstitutional. After all, if these quotas were written to make sure black students were kept out of high-performing schools, the ACLU would be mounting lawsuits in every court of the land. School segregation, which was racism plain and simple, was ended by the landmark ruling Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. Black students were no longer barred (at least officially) from attending the ‘elite’ schools that racist school boards had manufactured for white kids only.

But all the liberal human rights groups, in particular the NAACP, are now crying foul because the Supreme Court did exactly the same thing as in that 1954 case: declaring that using race as the main factor in assigning students to schools is racism plain and simple. But this time, the conservative majority is made up of racists, who want to turn back the clock to before Brown. Eh, come again? Apparently, there is good racism and bad racism. The ‘bad’ racism is when non-whites are disadvantaged, ‘good’ racism is when whites are disadvantaged. Call me crazy, but I fail to understand this reasoning. Racism is racism is racism, no matter who is being disadvantaged.

The NAACP and other liberal groups are desperately trying to hold on to official, state-sanctioned racism. It would be one thing if it could be demonstrated that the constituency they represent—or purport to represent—benefited from these racist quotas, by improving school performance for African American students. I have yet to see evidence for that proposition. Thus, the love-affair with racist quotas seems to be perpetuated by these liberal groups simply for its own sake. Or is it because propounding the theory that non-whites need to be awarded unreasonable, illogical and unconstitutional advantages over white people is a valuable chip in the high-stakes poker game of liberal politics? Perhaps it is because playing the race card in this way gives them the money, influence, and self-importance they crave.

The idea that inequality for blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans and other minorities—the existence of which must be acknowledged—can only be remedied by making the white man pay (read: punish) for this state of affairs, is a favorite theory among liberal academics and their followers. The projection of hatred onto those who are not suffering like yourself is a common psychological device. However, in the mumbo-jumbo of liberal, post-rational, pseudo-scientific sociology and economics the same policy of granting special legal rights to the underprivileged becomes endowed with a special grandeur that makes it appear that to deny these rights would be unnatural, racist, and barbaric. This theory can even make it sound logical that white people alive now are morally culpable for the slavery and racism of their long-dead ancestors and should be made to pay for it.

These sentiments are certainly found in the NAACP’s reaction to the Parents Involved ruling. So, have they fallen for this liberal phantasm of reality or are they in on the act? Whatever the answer to this question, they and their ilk can hardly be taken seriously by grown-ups.

Genarlow Wilson and the Law

2007-06-12T19:17:00.000-05:00

Few people could argue, I believe, that Genarlow Wilson, the Georgia teen who was sent to prison for 10 years for having consensual sex with a 15-year old girl, has had justice. Shortly after he was convicted of a felony and thus branded a sexual predator for the rest of his life, Georgia changed the law that convicted him, turning his sort of crime into a misdemeanor. And rightly so. There is a world of difference between a 17-year old having sex with a girl only two years his junior and an adult who preys on immature teens and children.

Genarlow Wilson is not a model citizen. Drugs, alcohol, a party, and a camera were involved in the evening that got him into hot water. And even at seventeen, Genarlow Wilson needed to be punished for his misbehavior. As a Christian, I do not think premarital sex is ever a good idea, and this sort of lascivious willy-nilly loose “hooking up” is frankly immoral and revolting. I do not believe that God will thunder down and punish you to hell for it, but there is a much deeper moral and philosophical reason why God forbids it. It’s because it’s part of a lifestyle that leads away from wisdom and into foolishness. I can hardly find a better illustration for the kind of foolish life described in Proverbs chapters 1-9 than the Genarlow Wilson story.

But one thing that he is not is a sexual predator. At least not yet. He has spent two years in prison and somehow, I can believe that keeping him in the big house for another 8 years and then compelling him to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life might just crush his soul enough to actually turn him into one. The sooner he is out of prison, the better.

However, the Georgia attorney general is correct in his contention that judge Thomas Wilson does not have the jurisdiction to change the sentence. Some might think that this is a triviality—after all, justice is being restored. But do not forget that in America’s legal system, which is a common law system, every decision creates precedent. Next month or next year, another case might come up where things are similar, though slightly different, and then the Genarlow Wilson case will be invoked to justify release. Before you know it, you can drive a truck through the loophole of judicial jurisdiction.

The judiciary does not have the authority to let Genarlow Wilson go. He was properly convicted for a felony by a jury of his peers. The sentence cannot be modified by the courts in this way. The only ways out are: appeals of the original sentence (if any are still available), another legislative change by the Georgia legislature to include Genarlow Wilson’s situation (making him eligible for treatment under the new law, which he currently is not), or an official pardon by the governor. We must do things properly, or the consequences will be worse than the original problem. We cannot be too careful when it comes to sex crimes. No-one wants to give real sex offenders a way out of jail because of our blind compassion for one innocent kid.

Rice talks to Syria

2007-05-03T16:38:00.000-05:00

That elections have consequences is sadly illustrated by the meeting between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the Syrian Foreign Minister Wallid al-Moallem. If the Democrats had not taken Congress, this meeting would never have happened. Instead, the Bush administration would have pursued the only logical course of action: isolating Syria more and more, applying diplomatic pressure to force the Syrians to quit supporting terrorists, convincing the UN and other international powers to support the isolation of Syria, and, finally, provide clear and robust military warnings.

What do Liberals think the US will gain from a meeting with a criminal regime? Did they send Rice merely to pick up the ransom note from Mr al-Moallem? Make no mistake, Syria is holding the US hostage and the demands are very clear: Get out of Iraq or we will send more foreign terrorists into Iraq to harm innocent women and children and the US will get the blame for all the bloodshed. Syria has nothing to offer, only demands to make. Ultimately, there will have to be regime change in Syria and I think it not unlikely that the US will invade Syria in the end, with or without international help.
But such gloomy thoughts should be left off for now. Just because Bush buckled under Congressional pressure and allowed Rice to talk to Syria does not mean that the White House is hanging out the white flag just yet. Shame on you, Mr Bush.

Is Pelosi's Syria Trip a Felony?

2007-04-11T09:31:00.000-05:00

Just a few brief comments about Nancy Pelosi’s ill-conceived trip to Syria. First, the trip was ill-conceived. Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism and I cannot imagine what Nancy Pelosi thought to accomplish there. One cannot negotiate with terrorists and the Syrian regime is certainly made up of terrorists. There is nothing the US can offer Syria. Syria wants the US wiped of the map.

Second, since the president has declared it official policy to isolate Syria, Nancy Pelosi’s attempt to negotiate with the Syrian dictator Assad is a violation of the 200-year old Logan Act, which declares interference with the executive authority in foreign relations a felony. There can be no doubt that Nancy Pelosi committed a felony with her trip to Syria (see this article in the Wall Street Journal).

Third, I agree with Andrew McCarthy of National Review Online that Nancy Pelosi should not be prosecuted for this crime. His assessment that a criminal investigation of the House Speaker would be counterproductive is correct, I believe. Much better to turn the blatant violation of a criminal statute into a public relations triumph. Let’s hope the administration can keep itself to a higher standard than the Democrats who are playing every childish game they know to sabotage the president—regardless the consequences. That’s the kind of destructive policies America does not need.

Back at Blogger

2007-03-20T22:10:00.000-05:00

After a brief stint over at townhall.com, I have decided to return to Blogger for my blog. Townhall, while an impressive gathering place for conservative thought, simply didn't offer the user-friendliness of Blogger. So, find my postings here again (soon).

On the Eve of St. Nancy Pelosi Day

2006-11-06T21:56:00.000-06:00

Tomorrow 100 million Americans or so will go to the polls in local, state and federal elections. The day after Nancy Pelosi stands to be the first woman Speaker of the House. I haven’t seen a poll out there that has the Republicans hold on to the House and only Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard among conservatives has predicted a strong showing of the Republicans.

It makes me wonder what kind of America we will wake up in on Wednesday. The unstinting enthusiasm of the Left and the media—a pleonasm if ever I saw one—seems to have a messianic outlook for Wednesday. They have done everything to reduce reality to one-liners. The election: It’s the War, stupid! (The one in Iraq, in case you’re wondering.) Or this one: It’s the War, stupid! Every time Howard Dean opened his mouth he sounded like he had a stick of dynamite up his rear end because he was much too careful in what he was saying. Could the same man who shouted “yaaaaaaaaaah!” so convincingly suddenly have turned into a sane politician? Doubt it. More likely, NARAL and the ACLU have their hands on the trigger to ignite that dynamite, if Mr Dean doesn’t do his best to steer clear of substantial topics such as abortion, gay marriage, constitutional rights. As long as he keeps bleating, “It’s the War, stupid!” he will live to see another edition of The Nation arrive in his mailbox.

Will America really be better off with a Democratic House (and, God forbid, Senate)? Will it really help to counterbalance the Bush White House? If there are still any conservatives out there who haven’t voted yet, anyone who believes in the Constitution as it was written, not as it is imagined by left-wing visionaries, consider well what you are doing on November 7. Split-ticket voting can seem like a good idea sometimes. And I certainly wouldn’t urge you to vote Republican if you’re more of a Constitution Party person. But you cannot, to my mind, justify strong conservative beliefs with a failure to vote. The two are mutually exclusive.

A Democratic win in Congress will lead to more bureaucracy, a leg-up for every anti-family policy Nancy Pelosi has jotted down in her little black book, more antagonism in politics (driven by the House’s sabotaging of every fart that tries to pass out of the White House) and more jobs for the likes of Joe Wilson at the expense of the American Taxpayer.

I’m quite pessimistic myself but I’m trying to tell myself that it’s just the liberal media’s hyping of these elections that’s making me a half-hearted believer in the opinion polls showing a 230 – 205 Democratic House and a 52 – 48 Democratic Senate. Personally, if I have to make a prediction, I would actually say that the House will be 220 – 215 Democratic (only a slight edge for the Dems) and that the Senate remains Republican by 51-49 seats.

As for Minnesota (where I’m located), I don’t think Mark Kennedy stands a chance to snatch Dayton’s senate seat from Amy Klobuchar. Emily’s List has done too much to bring this pro-abortion professional to the fore. Michele Bachman has a good shot at the congressional seat Mark Kennedy is vacating, though. That is a real toss-up and I sincerely hope that deluded woman Patty Wetterling does not prevail. I deplore the certain election of Nation of Islam minion Keith Ellison as the first Muslim Congressman for Minneapolis. It’s the bluest congressional district in the nation and so Alan Fine stands a chance like a snowball in H.E.7.7. I’m still putting my money (not really, pastor) on Tim Pawlenty for governor. Vote Jeff Johnson for Minnesota Attorney General.

We’ll see what kind of America we’ll wake up in on Wednesday. I hope I won’t feel too blue.

Outing Joe Wilson, Liar

2006-09-02T11:37:00.000-05:00

Talk to the average American on the street and ask them about Ambassador Joe Wilson. Most likely, if you don’t count those brain dead individuals who will be on Jay Leno’s “Jaywalking” segment on The Tonight Show, the comments you will hear about Mr Wilson is that he is the guy who discovered that President Bush lied in the State of the Union. Or something along those lines.

Of course, the popular opinion distributed by the mainstream media and anti-war groups is that Bush lied the country into war when he claimed falsely that Iraq had sought to buy uranium in Niger. Joe Wilson is thought of as the independent diplomacy expert who went to Africa and found this claim to be a complete lie. Never mind that Mr Wilson did no such thing and that Mr Bush’s statement was probably true.

Nevertheless, the much easier, dumbed-down version of reality that is summed up as “Bush lied, people died” remains the one that is promulgated by the mainstream media. Despite the fact that the Washington Post admitted that Mr Wilson was the real liar, you can still go to their website and find sponsored advertisements inviting you to meet Mr Wilson on a cruise in December.

The facts that President Bush is so impopular, that the war in Iraq is so impopular and that the editors of the mainstream media are so left-wing all do a pretty good job of explaining why people like Fred Barnes, who in the Weekly Standard this week—again—completely discredited the national Joe Wilson fairy tale, can simply be dismissed as right-wing extremists who do not dignify a response.

Perhaps it must then be up to the blogosphere to finally get through to the average American with the message that the whole CIA leak scandal had nothing to do with an X-Files-type White House conspiracy to undermine the president’s opponents and institute a right-wing theocracy in the United States. All that happened was that one stupid underling (Armitage) blabbed unthinkingly to a reporter or two and these reporters printed the blab in their papers. Nobody knew, nobody schemed.

And as for Mr Wilson, the Senate Intelligence Committee long ago declared him to be a sloppy and untruthful worker. His trip to Niger uncovered nothing because Mr Wilson basically spent his time in Niger enjoying the hotel jacuzzi without bothering with the actual fact-finding he was supposed to be doing. And oops, he completely missed the fact that in 1999 Iraq did send a trade mission to Niger, headed by Iraq’s top uranium expert. But I’m sure that was just a coincidence: the trade mission probably came to enjoy that hotel jacuzzi they had heard about.

The Poster Boy of the Shallow Left

2006-08-10T11:31:00.000-05:00

In a sense, I am not interested in the story that has dominated the media next to the Israel-Hezbollah conflict. After all, who cares what happens in a Democratic primary in a distant state? As a conservative one may well argue that Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman are—to use a vernacular expression—“the same difference.” And they are for the most part. As Senator Lieberman reminded us in his appearance on PBS’s News Hour with Jim Lehrer after he lost the primary, he has a very liberal voting record on taxes, environmental policy and social security reform, to name but a few issues. In other words, Lamont or Lieberman will make little difference in many respects.

Yet, on the other hand, the fact that Connecticut Democrats selected Lamont, a prime representative of the Shallow Left, to represent their party on the November ballot indicates that the party as a whole is being tugged very much to the nutty left by what The Weekly Standard refers to as the “nutroots.” The involvement of organizations like The Daily Kos, popular stomping ground for left-wing pseudo-intellectuals, can hardly be overestimated.

The Connecticut primary was defaced by unfair and ad hominem attacks against Sen. Lieberman. Considering the heavy anti-Lieberman involvement from powerful liberal interest groups and their adept use of the always complicit liberal media, this primary was, as an election, much more of a sham than the last two general elections, which Democrats and other liberal movers love to refer to as a “stolen election.” Rather than a primary on the question which Democrat could best represent Connecticut, the Kos crowd turned it into a lynch party for Lieberman. Not the candidates’ platform counted, but the fact that Lieberman needed to be punished for his support for the War in Iraq.

Conservative commentators have been raising their eyebrows about this one for a while now. None of them—myself included—have a great liking for Lieberman. He is the wrong man to represent Connecticut because he goes in for what Senator Rick Santorum in his book It Takes a Family calls No-Fault Freedom.

Lamont is decidedly worse, even if only for the signal it sends to the national Democratic party. The selection of Ned Lamont is a coup by the Loonie Left which is finally trying to take the party. If even avowed liberals like Lieberman are considered too moderate by that crowd, one can only shudder what direction the Democratic Party is going in.

In addition, of course, Lamont represents the cut-and-run policy of those intellectually shallow Democrats who had rather win congressional seats by bringing back loved ones from the battlefield than listen to military experts and do what is necessary to extinguish a growing forest fire in the Middle East. Yes, Iraq is burning, but fires that are not put out tend to spread. Bringing the boys back now may be better for the boys and the families in the short run but will certainly—without a doubt—lead to more casualties in the medium and long-distance future.

So what are the consequences of Lieberman running as an Independent? Democratic Party officials are probably justified in their fears that Lieberman will take votes from Lamont and thus increase the chance that the Republican candidate will take Lieberman’s seat. But that is definitely not a given. The idea of a Republican carrying Connecticut is somewhat unlikely. Connecticut is firmly blue and will almost certainly stay blue.

Lieberman stands a chance, if those voters who did not go out to the primary show up and decide to prefer him over Lamont after all. Although I care for neither of these two, and would advise all conservatives to vote for the appropriate conservative candidate—even if he has no chance of being elected, such as third-party candidates—, it is imperative that Lamont not be elevated to a place where he can do great damage as the puppet of the Loonie Left. Even electing Lieberman would be a powerful rebuke to that dastardly group of conspirators.

The Crucifixion of Mel Gibson

2006-08-02T10:10:00.001-05:00

Hollywood is outraged over Mel Gibson’s behavior. The orthodox Roman Catholic actor, already ostracized for his independent production of The Passion of the Christ, was arrested this past week for drunk driving. But what outraged the politically correct Left Coast Hollywood establishment even more was Mr Gibson’s anti-Semitic statements during his arrest. Together with what they consider the anti-Semitic nature of The Passion, Mr Gibson is now branded an anti-Semite. The media are talking of serious repercussions for the actor, such as becoming ineligible for awards.

I am the last one in the world to condone either the drunk driving or the anti-Semitic remarks, but it seems that Hollywood is a little too trigger happy here. Mr Gibson admits his bad behavior and is repentant. He does not deny his anti-Semitic remarks but has given the very plausible remark that the booze was doing the talking and that he disgraced his family by “saying things he does not believe to be true.”

Mr Gibson will be punished for the drunk driving by the proper authorities. Let’s not call for the public crucifixion of a drunk man merely on basis of the incoherent statements made by him in that state of intoxication, no matter how offensive they may have been. I certainly do not believe that we can now somehow piece together evidence that proves Mel Gibson is a congenital anti-Semite. All the arguments I have heard in favor of that proposal were based on the notion that The Passion of the Christ was offensive to Jews because it portrayed the Jews as guilty for Christ’s crucifixion.

I have not seen the movie (out of principle: I consider visual portrayals of God the Son as a violation of the second commandment), but neither have most of Mr Gibson’s accusers. Yet reading the New Testament account, I can only come to the conclusion that while the Romans did the actual crucifying, the Jewish crowd forced Pontius Pilate’s hand even while he was ready to acquit Jesus. Surely, it would not be disingenuous to attach some guilt to that behavior? That means that Mr Gibson’s portrayal of the events—at least in this respect—is merely biblical and factual and can lead to no conclusions about his personal views. Unless one wanted to accuse all Christians of being anti-Semites? Ah, there’s the rub with Hollywood liberals.

A Screaming (and False) NYT Headline on Abortion

2006-07-26T12:38:00.000-05:00

I guess the Times article isn’t so bad, but the headline “Senate Removes Abortion Option for Young Girls” is a grave distortion of the facts. The law would not make abortions for young girls in any way illegal. In fact, the law has nothing to do with abortion as such. It is a law that protects the rights of parents not to have their children abducted across state lines. Considering that the real crime addressed is abduction, the proposed punishment for the kidnappers of up to one year in prison is lenient, since it is classified as a misdemeanor, rather than a felony.

But the New York Times thinks it is more important to pander to its extremist pro-abortion readership by producing such a screaming and patently false headline. Abortion remains legal—by judicial fiat—even for young girls for whom medical complications are much more likely. And NARAL can relax: these young girls can still go and have their babies killed, even if there are no truly medical complications because girls under 18 can always plead emotional or social hardship and have that declared a medical emergency. (Then again, so can women over 18.) They will then be rewarded by the general cheers of a bunch of crazy middle-aged feminists for this first step on feminist womanhood.

We Must Stand with Israel

2006-07-25T14:09:00.000-05:00

Let there be no doubt about it: in the current conflict between Israel and various Arab groups in Gaza and Lebanon the blame lands squarely and exclusively with the Arab thugs. This is no reflection on other Israeli policies with which I may or may not agree.

The current conflict was triggered by open terrorism by Hizb’allah (commonly known as Hezbollah), Hamas and the puppet masters in Syria and Iran who control these groups. Nor do I believe that Israel’s reaction to the Arab provocations has been disproportionate. Whereas Hezbollah is sending rockets indiscriminately into Israel, hoping to kill and maim as many innocent Israelis as possible, Israel has targeted the infrastructure in places where there would be maximum inconvenience for the terrorists and minimum chance of civilian casualties. One prime example of this Israeli strategy is the bombing of fuel depots at Beirut airport: little chance of innocent civilians being in the way but it immediately disrupted air traffic in Lebanon. It underscores Israel’s measured response.

The US and the West should stand with Israel unconditionally. After all, Israel’s demands are no new demands. They want Hezbollah to be dismantled and disarmed. And it is not like they are being unreasonable in demanding this. The United Nations passed a resolution (Security Council Resolution 1559) to this effect years ago and no one has ever done anything about it. So now that Israel is finally enforcing this UN resolution, it is Israel that is supposed to be the aggressor? Come off it. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization and can be no partner in any conference or talk. It must be shunned by government leaders and its members should be hunted down and arrested or killed.

It is especially disheartening that many supposedly moderate regimes in the Middle East are supporting Hezbollah. Even Iraq’s fledgeling government has announced its support for Hezbollah and the Palestinians, blaming the Israelis for everything that is going on now. It is yet another dark cloud over the troubled attempts to set up a responsible democracy in a country wracked by internal strife and terrorism stirred up by foreign (read: Iranian and Syrian) agents.

There is no doubt in my mind that Israel will not solve the conflict “once and for all,” as many naive people phrase it. The Israelis will rattle many cages in the process and stir up trouble in new quarters. I refuse to accept this argument—which I acknowledge—as a reason for Israel to desist from its current actions. Israel has no choice but to stamp out this source of terrorism. Hezbollah’s only aim is to eradicate Israel and drive the Jews into the sea.

Though other anti-Semitic groups will undoubtedly be encouraged on other sides of the Israeli state by the determined military actions of the Israeli government, this brush fire must be extinguished before it becomes a forest fire. Conditions in the Middle East being as they are, this is the only sort of containment one can hope for. Any talk of “cease-fires” or “once and for all” solutions, and arguments based on these views are irresponsible, emotional slogans that will cost hundreds and thousands of lives. Secretary Rice is very correct in perceiving this and refusing to call Israel to stop fighting.

We must stand with Israel in its attempt to destroy Hezbollah, at least for the present. This hydra will return, no matter what, but it could take a while—even if only five or ten years—and this would buy the Middle East some important time to move forward with substantive peace negotiations. That should be the goal because only this route will lead to long-term containment of Islamo-fascist terrorism.

Stem Cells and the Presidential Veto

2006-07-21T10:23:00.000-05:00

The New York Times published a letter of mine about this subject (third letter down). It is clear that my opinion is in the minority here and that the Times seems to think I and the president are in the minority in the country, too. Ah well, we’ll throw in a gratuitous reference to the War in Iraq to discredit the president and ridicule this incomprehensible trait he has that he calls “morality.” Now, what’s that again?

The Courts and Guantanamo

2006-07-17T22:37:00.000-05:00

Well, I have been busy for a while. No time to update the blog. But here is a link to an article I penned on the recent Hamdan ruling by the Supreme Court (you'll need Acrobat Reader). A Dutch translation of it was published in the Dutch daily newspaper Nederlands Dagblad on July 5.

Needless to say, I was not too impressed by all the grandstanding by Democrats and their allies in the media over the way the Supreme Court "disciplined" the bad little boy of the class, George W. Bush. I have my own cavils with W.'s treatment of detainees in Guantanamo, but one cannot help but wonder what is worse: attack by terrorists from abroad or an underhanded power grab by unelected judges. The country will just as much cease to be democratic and turn into a dictatorship either way.

Hillary Shrillary

2006-06-10T11:13:00.000-05:00

Ever wanted to read a good summary of where Hillary Clinton stands politically? Then don’t read The Washington Post’s May 30 article by Dan Balz about Senator Clinton. Instead, go ahead and read the thoughtful article by L. Brent Bozel III. Nope, Hillary really is not the centrist Democrat the mainstream media have pretended she is. She is at least as much a left extremist as John Kerry, possibly as bad as Ted Kennedy. Or worse. She will vote against anything rational and reasonable and will support any cause advanced by NARAL and the ACLU. You may well call her a puppet senator. Bought and paid for and others are pulling the strings. And people talk about electing her to the White House? I wonder who is the ventriloquist doing the talking here.

It is really baffling how people refuse to see the rampant liberal bias in the nation’s media. I recently looked at my browser bookmarks and noticed that the internet thugs had sneaked in a few free bookmarks with my latest browser update, so that the always crazy alternet.org soap box is now listed as one my preferred media outlets. Don’t you believe it. However, I think I’ll leave the bookmark in my list. I can always do with a laugh.

To make a short story long, when, curious what had driven AlterNet into the meanstream, I visited their marbled halls, I noticed the special coverage section on the rampant conservative bias in the nation’s media. I’m still laughing. In a long, very shrill article about the anti-Democratic bias of the media, specifically about the maltreatment of John Murtha, no mention is made of the fact that Rep. Murtha appeared on CNN three times in one day, each time being treated as if he were still a respected veteran instead of a dribbling senile old man who has completely lost his marbles. Ah well.

Gay Marriage Amendment

2006-06-05T17:26:00.002-05:00

It is almost unbearable to watch the discussions on TV news shows about the same-sex marriage amendment which is being debated in the Senate today. One gay activist after the other is paraded on the nation’s liberal media platforms, with a ‘liberal’ sprinkling of so-called ‘actual gay families,’ to underscore the evil of discrimination against a ‘whole class of people.’ I had to switch CNN off this afternoon.

In the meantime, Democratic senators huff and puff that the whole discussion is a waste of time because other, more important concerns (that are more politically convenient for liberals) are not on the agenda: the war in Iraq, illegal wiretapping of US citizens, immigration reform, etc. Of course, all these senators make sure they use up the full allotted speaking time. Just to make a point about exactly how much of a waste of time this marriage amendment is.

I heard Senator Leahy complain that under US law the question of marriage is a state matter and could never be brought to a federal court anyway. So why are the Republicans suddenly abandoning federalism to ram a federal law through the voters’ throats? Besides, he said, if the amendment passed, the same “Republican judges” (his actual words) of whom the Republicans are so afraid would have to do the judicial mopping up of lawsuits arising out of the amendment. Of course, Leahy had argued that since the majority of federal judges have been appointed by Republican presidents, these judges themselves are Republicans too. In your dreams.

I believe a constitutional amendment against gay marriage is necessary. I am not sure whether this amendment is the one to go for because it does not go far enough and does not rule out civil unions. And that is quite apart from the fact that the amendment will not pass. For constitutional amendments 67 votes are needed. There are barely 55 votes in the Senate. Yet it is clear that within a few years, judges will rule in favor of gay activists and rule existing state bans unconstitutional. That is not so much because these bans are in fact unconstitutional but because many judges, who are on the bench already, believe in the “living Constitution” theory, which teaches that the Constitution means what the ACLU decrees it means. So, if the First Amendment talks about the government not passing any laws infringing on the freedom of religion, this living Constitution theory clarifies this text for the modern American (thanks to the ACLU) to read that Christians can only worship if they do so behind closed doors in their church building and do not profess their religious beliefs in public.

As we can see, with this sort of irrational philosophy being swallowed whole—because politically convenient—by scores and droves of jurists, even a constitutional amendment is not safe. But there is no better defense against the hallucinations of the gay rights movement. Leahy’s argument that the federal courts have no jurisdiction is absolutely laudable. I agree with him. But while the ACLU might agree that now outdated theories of the Constitution (theories that hold to the idea that the text means what it says it means) do also lead to this conclusion, more evolved human beings know innately that federal judges have the moral duty to ignore such narrow legalistic views and come to the aid of suppressed minorities. A higher law trumps petty rules such as the Constitution.

This state of affairs is pathetic. It means that the Democrats are in essence right when they say the amendment is superfluous. Yet the amendment is necessary just to bolt the door against activist judges. As the old Latin saying goes, “Who will guard the guards?” so the modern American saying goes, “Who will keep judges’ fingers out of the law?” If everyone played by the rules, such draconian measures would not be necessary. But Liberalism has long thrown out the rule book and plays only by its own rules.

The Brewing Gay Power Grab

2006-05-13T10:37:00.000-05:00

It is a sad time we live in when one has to start with this announcement: I know and have known quite a few gay people and get along with almost all of them.

I say this merely to forestall the accusation of homophobia from those on the loonie left fringe. Disagreeing with the gay rights’ movement is not a crime yet but it most likely will be soon, judging by recent developments in society. The thought police over at the Human Rights Campaign and their agents across the political establishment have now managed to squeeze Boston Catholic Charities out of the adoption business. Their method is as shocking as the headlines announcing the charity’s withdrawal as an adoption agency: by imposing pro-gay compliance laws on society.

A highly recommended feature article by Maggie Gallagher in the May 15 issue of Weekly Standard explains exactly how Boston Catholic Charities were forced to throw in the towel. Needless to say, the judicial tyranny that reigns in Massachussetts has much to do with it. When that state’s Supreme Court ruled that restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples was unconstitutional homophobia, it automatically granted gay couples the right to adopt. The Catholic charity, which excludes such couples from their adoption services, thereby came to be in violation of Massachussetts’ non-discrimination laws. Rather than wait for the first lawsuit to be brought against them, they decided to save the money and disband the adoption service altogether. A sad but wise move because already the gay rights’ movement is so powerful that a court case would have been a long drawn out affair and almost certainly have led to a gay victory in yet another court.

At the same time, gay rights activists elected to the California state Senate have managed to push a bill through the legislature that would make gay indoctrination mandatory in California’s schools. The state assembly is less likely to follow orders from the gay rights lobby, but chances that the bill is approved are not so slim as to laugh it off as another stunt. If it is approved and Gov. Schwarzenegger cannot find the backbone to veto it, children as young as primary school age could be taught the virtues of the same-sex lifestyle as soon as 2012—by government decree.

These are very scary developments. In the name of equality, the gay rights movement is twisting more and more political and judicial arms to impose dictatorial laws requiring compliance with the gay goose step on more and more parts of the country. Make no mistake, the California bill and the Massachussetts gay marriage ruling are as much symptoms of the breakdown of democracy as any other example of dictatorial repression you can think of.

Of course, what gay rights activists are saying is that gays are persecuted by unjust laws in the same way that black people were persecuted by Jim Crow. It’s a despicable accusation. African Americans were denied equal rights in equal situations. This is not the case with gay people. It is already illegal to discriminate against gay people in situations where sexual preference is irrelevant. Gay people already have the right to marry—just as soon as they find an opposite-sex partner they can go to any justice of the peace to get married, like any heterosexual person. Gay people are not denied anything that heterosexual people are not denied also.

It is important to realize that gay rights activists want extra and new rights specifically for them. Not only do they want to live together with their same-sex lover (against which there are no laws), they also want to have the state-recognized rights and benefits of heterosexual marriage, despite the fact that they do not qualify for the terms and conditions of marriage. Already many states and corporations award health benefits to unmarried couples of the same sex. Interestingly enough, these same institutions deny these same benefits to unmarried couples of the opposite sex. Special privileges for special people.

It seems that, in the words of George Orwell, the gay rights movement believes that “some animals are more equal than others” after all.

‘Othercott’ the “Da Vinci Code” Movie: See “Over the Hedge”

2006-05-11T12:13:00.000-05:00

I will be brief about this issue. On May 19 The Da Vinci Code movie opens in theaters across the United States. The book and the movie are a monument of America’s anti-Christian elite. Billed as a spy thriller, the story describes Christianity as one big conspiracy concocted in AD 325. For those of you who don’t worry about this (yet), let me inform you that the story is not considered fiction by most scholars on America’s campuses. In fact, the three prevailing theories used to interpret the New Testament rest on exactly the same premise as The Da Vinci Code. Scholars merely bicker and argue about what parts of the New Testament were written by whom and at what time—naturally ruling out a priori that the authors identified as such in the various Scriptures were the real authors. Anything to debunk the most powerful religion of America, because thumbnosing Christians is very important to the anti-Christian, pro-gay, pro-choice, pro-New Age spirituality liberal elite.

I believe the best way to sink this movie is not to boycott it but to ‘othercott’ it. That is to say, don’t stay home on May 19 and don’t merely protest the movie. Go out to the movie theater and see another movie. Highly recommended is “Over the Hedge,” an animated family movie. Or pick another acceptable movie, to make sure that the Da Vinci Code move does not rank high in the box office results.

Seventy four-year Old Jailed for Pro-Life ‘Activism’

2006-05-11T11:30:00.000-05:00

I stumbled into this worrying story from Britain. Edward Atkinson, a 74-year old man, was convicted last week on charges of sending malicious mail and anti-social behavior. The man, described as a militant anti-abortion activist in the London Sunday Times, had sent pictures of aborted fetuses to the chief executive of Queen Elizabeth Hostpital in King’s Lynn, Norfolk.

Not only is it worrying that this man was jailed at all, but that the London newspaper described the incident as “evidence of the shock tactics being used by hardline anti-abortionists.” Americans especially must be somewhat amused by this description since this usually refers bomb-crazed loonies being dragged off by ATF agents from an abortion clinic. Mr. Atkinson’s most active part in his “shock tactics” was licking an envelope and putting a stamp on.

For those of you who had failed to realize that Britain is rapidly becoming a totalitarian country outlawing religion, or in fact, everything that cannot be proved ethical from Karl Marx’ Das Kapital, here is the evidence. Britain has a law that can send a 74-year old man to jail for “sending malicious mail.” The recipient of the mail, Ruth May, was in tears as she described the “very upsetting and offensive literature” Mr. Atkinson had sent her. Well, of course the mail was upsetting. But could it be more upsetting and offensive than the practices the literature depicted? After all, as the person in authority in the hostpital she is in charge of the abortions performed there. In other words, it is legal to abort babies, but illegal to tell people about it?

People of Britain, wake up!

UN Report Calls It As It Is: Guantánamo Is Illegal

2006-02-17T17:02:00.002-06:00

It would be easy as a conservative to deride the UN report on Guantánamo Bay as a piece of irrelevant foreign politicking. In a sense, it is, of course. The United Nations have no jurisdiction over the United States, and considering that the opinions in the report were reached without a visit to the prison facilities at Guantánamo, one might well wonder whether anyone should take notice of it at all. Also, the UN are rapidly becoming merely the international arm of the Democratic Party.

That, I say, would be easy. It would also be very unhelpful. Sadly, reputable conservative magazines like National Review have taken the stance that Guantánamo is a perfectly sane place. Deroy Murdock, in a contribution in the online version of the magazine, argued, in his opening sentence, no less:

“As a new United Nations Human Rights Commission report demands the closure of
the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, President Bush should
go in the exact opposite direction and announce a brand-new policy: None of Camp
Delta’s 490 enemy combatants shall be released until America wins the War on
Terror. ”

I must strenuously disagree. The prison facility at Guantánamo Bay is illegal, at least the way it is currently run. I take no position on the question whether prisoners are actively tortured there. However, I do vehemently oppose the very existence of this facility. Since Guantánamo Bay is considered foreign soil, the government can claim that US law does not apply and that, therefore, prisoners there do not have any rights.

Since this is the same type of reasoning that is applied to human fetuses by the liberal loonies of the country, it is eyebrow-raising, to say the least, that a Republican government can consider some humans to be ill-qualified to be treated fairly. If the phrase “equality under the law” is to mean anything, the government should allow detainees at Guantánamo access to judicial review of their case. I reiterate the position I have taken before, that some secrecy rules may be imposed, in the interest of national security. But a basic right to challenge one’s detention is an absolute must. There can be no compromise on this. US policy as it stands now is in violation of the Constitution, not to mention general (Judaeo-Christian) morality.

Whether the US close Guantánamo is not relevant; what matters is equality under the law. As long as the Bush government continues to hide behind “commander-in-chief authority” to deprive a whole class of people indiscriminately of basic human rights, the rule of law is impaired. Conservative or not, I must protest.

Alito Confirmed... But at What Price?

2006-02-17T16:42:00.000-06:00

(Originally posted February 3, 2006 - recovered February 17, 2006)

Finally, on the last Tuesday in January, after an exceptionally long confirmation process, Samuel Alito was confirmed as the 110th Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. The vote in the Senate followed pretty much the same pattern as the one in the Judiciary Committee, that is to say, almost perfectly along partisan lines.

This, I believe, is the true story. Not the so-called scandals the Democrats wouldn’t tire of dragging up out of the distant past of the candidate. That is not to say that Samuel Alito is perfect in every respect. I am sure that some of the ‘scandals’ in the man’s past turn out to have more than a grain of truth in them. Let’s face it: he probably made mistakes. But that should not stand in the way of concluding that now Justice Alito was eminently qualified for the Supreme Court. It is not as if you have to be perfect to make it to that court or that Supreme Court justices never make a mistake. After all, five justices made a most lamentable mistake when they ruled to enshrine Roe v. Wade in American law.

So, let’s make a clean breast of it: Samuel Alito has, like any other human being, some stupid mistakes in his past. His involvement in the racist Conservative Alumni of Princeton is reprehensible, as is the fact that in 1985 he chose to list this as an accomplishment on a job application. But the assertion that these incidents are indicative of a pattern of bad or even bigoted judgments is a bold-faced lie. They are individual exceptions on an otherwise exemplary record.

Thus, the real story is the irrational resistance put up by all but three Democrats. For what reasons did they oppose this nomination? Do we really believe those bogus statements about his judicial record showing a bias in favor of big corporations and the federal government and against the little guy and the oppressed minorities? I certainly do not. On the hot-button issue of abortion, Alito sided with the pro-choice argument more frequently than with the pro-life movement, simply because the laws as they exist left him no other room. Yet Planned Parenthood came out and said that the man would undoubtedly “turn back the clock” to the time of “illegal, back-alley abortions.”

The Democratic representation of the man’s failings is nothing short of a distortion, and totally—let me repeat: totally, one hundred percent—based on irrelevant, emotional or political arguments. That the man is a Roman Catholic and considers abortion murder nevertheless did not stop him from upholding the secular abortion laws of the country. In other words, in this and other matters, he has shown his ability to separate his private beliefs and political preferences from judging the law as it is.

And then there is that catchphrase that Democrats love to bandy about, that this man is “out of the mainstream.” What does that mean? Are liberal political ideas the mainstream? Surely, the phrase is a euphemism for “not in our looney liberal in-crowd.” It can hardly stand for “average American” since the party is dominated by wealthy New Englanders and Left Coast university professors. Every time Ted Kennedy opened his mouth to paint Alito “out of the mainstream,” I had to wonder: How do you know? You’re a spoiled, overweight, rich drunk who’s part of a famously dysfunctional family. I have one word for you: Chappaquiddick.

The sad thing is that all this posturing by the Democrats has sincerely cheapened the whole meaning of congressional democracy in the country. Since they have apparently thrown out the rule book, what is to keep the Republicans from ignoring all decorum and good manners when it suits them? It sets a scary precedent that may have actually brought the end of civilized political processes a lot closer than we think. The Democrats have resorted to arrogant temper tantrums, running around with their fingers in their ears rather than participating in the political system. By doing this they have given legitimacy to this kind of puerile contempt for dignified debate that is already rampant on the country’s university campuses where the leaders of the future are currently being bred. When they come to power, or maybe even before, a bunch of them might just, in a sort of righteous anger, decide to by-pass the elections and simply march to the Capitol to demand the power they believe is coming to them. That’s the kind of politics they were taught.

That is the truly scary upshot of the Alito confirmation. He won the seat but with a nation of spoiled teenagers stopping their ears with their fingers, whatever he says may not be that important after all.

Devotional Blog Started

2006-01-16T17:22:00.000-06:00

This New Year I have started a non-political devotional blog at calvinchristian.blogspot.com.

George Lakoff’s Nightmarish Vision

2005-12-26T21:48:00.000-06:00

Drawn to the local Borders by the lure of a 50%-off second item coupon, I stumbled into a quite enlightening, if frightful, book. I left the bookstore, not unexpectedly, without cashing in the coupon for I am not quite ready to spend money on such spying expeditions into the mind of the hard, if not, atrified Left. And though in some sense I consider the 45 minutes I spent perusing the book and reading excerpts from it lost, I have gained a valuable insight into the true state of the nation. The book in question is George Lakoff’s Moral Politics (second edition, 2002).

Although Lakoff—a noted linguist at Berkeley in the sense of “noted” which generally detracts from the value of the noun it modifies—claims to give an unbiased look at both sides of the political aisle, his openly professed liberalism has clearly caused him to have a view of the world that I cannot agree with. Not only that, it is one which I am convinced is, to use a term he would expect from a conservative Christian, and abhor, wrong.

Lakoff describes politics in the early twenty-first century as building on two completely different understandings of morality. So far so good. Unfortunately, his way of defining these different moralities is skewed by his own preconceptions of right and wrong. This is ironic because as the expert socio- and psycholinguist, the main purport of his book is to uncover a ‘hidden’ mechanism of the human mind by showing how our preconceived notions, informed by our moral frameworks, causes us to frame debates in our choice of topics, viewpoints, and even vocabulary.

For Lakoff the US consists entirely of people who subscribe to either one or the other of two mutually contradictory moralities: Strict Father morality and Nurturing Parent morality. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out which of these two in Lakoff’s binary, I daresay, dualist universe is the yin and which the yang, which the good and which the evil. His caveat that there may be variations on the general pattern he describes does nothing to diminish his absolutist statement. Lakoff ordains ex excelsis.

In a lengthy treatment this expert then applies the two moralities to all the contentious political issues of our time and ‘proves’ that Liberalism is far superior to Conservatism. He shows the inner inconsistency of Strict Father morality, in that it does not apply to parenting. Conservatives are bad parents as scientific studies have shown, Lakoff claims. Liberals, who subscribe to the Nurturing Parent morality, which foreswears punishment of all kinds, churn out far superior offspring, much better prepared for a society in which all problems can be solved, even prevented, by just loving (nurturing) everyone, regardless of race, gender, age, sexual preference or criminal record or inclination.

That is, if they churn out any offspring at all and refrain from exercising their perfectly moral decision to abort their “clusters of cells” or “embryos,” who, Lakoff claims, are not identifiable and individually existing members of the species. In a ridiculously off-hand and short chapter, Lakoff deals with abortion, possibly the number one contentious moral issue of our age. Instead of dealing with actually used arguments or referring to any medical evidence, our linguist merely notes that there are two different vocabularies employed by our two main choruses.

There is the factual, scientific vocabulary of the medical world, used by the cowboys in the white hats, which includes words such as “embryos” and “fetus.” Use of these words indicates, our linguist notes, that one is engaging the situation in a rational way. Conservatives never use these medically correct terms but instead use the emotional—and factually incorrect—term “baby” to refer to all stages of pregnancy. Lakoff then proceeds (one almost imagines him doing some casual cartwheels as he treats this topic) to explain why it makes sense for conservatives to reason in such a way about abortion.

After all, Lakoff claims, conservatives see it from the Strict Father’s perspective: the unwanted pregnancy is the result of the woman’s stupidity or disobedience of well-rehearsed rules (beaten into her). Thus, the knee-jerk response of any consistent conservative must be to enforce the appropriate rule (punish). The much preferred liberal’s approach is, naturally, to sit down calmly with the distressed woman who is “in trouble” (this is the actual term Lakoff uses), and come to a rational conclusion. Any liberal will want to nurture this woman and do for her whatever she needs. Getting rid of a “cluster of cells” or “embryo” is, of course, a viable option, if not doing so would stand in the way of the woman’s full potential.

Yada, yada, yada. Lakoff goes on like this for a good many pages on many topics. His second edition includes an “afterword” in which he ‘explains’ to the poor befuddled liberal intellectual why the Republicans were after Clinton in the Lewinsky affair and why George W. Bush, the illegitimate president, used all means, fair and foul, much better to his advantage to beat the wooden Al Gore. The latter includes profiting from the five Strict Father worshipers on the Supreme Court who “arbitrarily” chose to elect him president regardless of the perfectly legal recount ordered by the Nurturing Florida Supreme Court that would have put Gore in the White House.

Perhaps his most jaw-dropping chapter is on Christianity. Of course, being the academic intellectual that he is, Lakoff has to show his respect for the diverse religions in the country and rescue the Bible from the clutches of the Strict Fathers in order not to upset influentual liberal Christian elites. Thus, conservative Christianity is merely the natural result of a Strict Father morality imposed on the Bible. The Bible alone, he argues, endorses neither morality—it is completely and utterly neutral morally.

Yes, that is what Lakoff actually writes.

If you happen to be a poor befuddled conservative picking up your jaw from the floor right about now, let this be a wake-up call. This truly is the extent of the lunacy of the Left and this is how influentual it is on American campuses. This reasoning is completely in line with what is preached in all the mainline denominations, except possibly Southern Baptists (who are not considered “mainline” by Lakoff), and in academia. After all, the deconstructionist movement in literature of the latter half of the twentieth century has pushed to the extreme the idea that texts only “come to be” in the interaction with the reader. Thus, the Bible, like any text, has no internal meaning. Only every individual reader can impose this on the text by means of his ideas, biases and preconceived notions.

I do not know whether Lakoff, being the trained linguist that he is, actually believes this ridiculous philosophy, but it is clear that he has no intelligent relationship with certain key passages in the Bible, such as, “You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal.” Sound morally neutral to you?

In short, Lakoff’s book is probably a must-read reference book, and I may have to go back and buy it after all (though my wallet groans at the idea of being used for this purpose). Lakoff is clearly completely loopy. He makes fun of conservatives who hold to such ridiculous notions as exclusive truth claims, yet his entire book is a neon sign testifying to his own belief that only liberalism is true and conservatives are just plain wrong. The book is a tissue of such undigested logical contradictions.

But then, the deconstructivists and post-rationalists who now populate America’s universities (no, these are not made-up names, there are real groups of academics who hold to philosophies by those names), have taken leave of sense: their senses, to be exact.

Movie Review: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

2005-12-26T21:41:00.000-06:00

I do not venture into a movie theater very often, especially now that we have an infant in the house. Nevertheless, my wife and I joined a friend today to see The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. I can heartily recommend the movie.

Some Puritan hotheads have already vented their complaints about the supposed blasphemous nature of the movie and C.S. Lewis’s heretical Christianity, but I am not impressed by their arguments. If Lewis’s Narnia series cannot be considered wholesome Christian literature, then I do not think there is much to read beyond the Bible and the Nicene Creed. It is a view of culture that I do not think is warranted by the Bible, since it leads to cultural withdrawal and monasticism.

The movie—the cinematic portrayal of the first in the series—is a great success. It is a sound product on various levels. The special effects are wonderful (done by the same crew that worked on Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings), the casting is spot-on, and the movie is very faithful to the book.

That is not to say that one could not split hairs about some things in the movie. I will not render a verdict on the question whether it is theologically sound to have Christ portrayed as a lion. This allegation, from the conservative quarters mentioned, hinges on the supposition that the Narnia series are a straightforward allegory of the gospel and that author wrote it as an evangelistic tool. Seeing as C.S. Lewis categorically denied the accusation of allegory, I do not think we need go any further into this argument.

Of course, for those who carefully pick their theater visits, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe will be compared to Lord of the Rings. In that comparison, the latter is decidedly the better production. But it is important to realize that this is an unfair comparison. The Tolkien trilogy is a whopping one thousand pages, written primarily for adults, whereas Lewis’s Narnia series is a much lighter creation, aimed at children. If printed in comparable lettertype, all of Narnia is about a third the size of the Lord of the Rings.

Thus, it must be accepted that the Narnia series does not have the same realistic depth as Lord of the Rings. Indeed, the characters in the movie The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, are not as well-developed as those in the Ring movies. Others might also cavil at the looser relation between book and movie, but one really must make allowances for the ‘padding’ the producers had to employ to make a feature-length movie out of a 100-page children’s book.

The great compliment that can be made in view of these minor defects is that Narnia really comes alive. What we meet really is the Narnia of the books, the Narnia I was longing to see. The stern rules about faithfulness to the book imposed on the producers, and the intimate involvement of Douglas Gresham, Lewis’s stepson, in the production, has paid off.

Anyone who, when seeing the film, does not have the feeling of meeting old friends and having come home, has been splitting too many hairs.

Bringing Down the White House

2005-11-04T10:43:00.000-06:00

With the indictment of Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby, many opponents of the Bush government are now hopeful that a dramatic political shift could come soon.

Already a majority of Americans thinks the president is doing a bad job on all fronts, and that includes the War in Iraq. The anti-war protests on campus last Wednesday were part of a growing discontentment with the president’s insistence on staying the course. After the media reports about the White House leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent, most people have become convinced that the current administration has more than just a few drops of blood on its hands when it comes to Iraq and the reasons for going to war.

Not surprisingly, the Libby indictment is considered evidence of a White House cover-up of the government’s lies about pre-war intelligence. Many media present it as the first step toward bringing down the White House. The Minneapolis Star Tribune exhorted senators on Thursday to refuse debate on the Alito nomination until the White House comes clean on the leak scandal. The secret session forced upon the Senate by Democratic leaders this past week was interpreted by some as a reminder to the Republicans that the Democrats are not impressed by threats of the “nuclear option” in case Judge Alito is filibustered. But minority leader Harry Reid used the Iraq War as the grounds for his request.

However, what is perhaps even more troubling than the indictment of a White House official on felony charges is the fact that Americans are now listening to only one side of the media. Ever more Americans are digging into partisan trenches and accuse the media of being biased, yet are astonishingly willing to believe those media that play tunes to their political liking.

Many Americans believe that, in the media, there are only sources of Truth and sources of the Lie, yet the opposing political sides identify these sources differently, of course. This simplistic representation of the media and their role in politics is doing little for a critical engagement with the news. It is important we get our heads out of the partisan sand.

Take the CIA leak scandal. Joe Wilson’s repeated appearances on national TV recently are quite sickening. Just because it was the right-wing Weekly Standard that revealed a number of disconcerting inconsistencies in Mr Wilson’s version of his trip to Niger and subsequent government actions, does not mean we have further justification to hail him as a whistle-blower against White House corruption.

Nobody has to get a subscription to the Weekly Standard, but their arguments in this case are compelling and they suggest that the former ambassador and his wife are more than up to a very dirty game of bluff poker with the White House. Right now, they have already won several hands, thanks to the mainstream media’s gullibility and disinterest. On this topic, American media has its fingers in its ears, shouting, “Bush is a liar! Bush is a liar!”

Indeed, I believe that the Bush administration has been wrong on many things concerning Iraq. But the a Senate Intelligence Report from July 2004 also drove a small truck through Mr Wilson’s tearjerker op-ed piece. Nobody takes any notice of it because it is politically more convenient to enlist Mr Wilson in the all-important cause of bringing down the Bush White House.

I cannot help but protest that it does matter whom you enlist. The political left hailed the indictment of Lewis “Liar” Libby as a victory of justice. The reason: it is the first step toward cleaning out White House corruption. Joe Wilson can hardly be an advocate for truth and accountability, considering his shady part in the affair.

Mr Wilson and his ilk are not going to convince moderate conservatives like myself to join the campaign to hold the Bush administration accountable. As long as this campaign is dominated by people who can only shout mindless choruses against the current president, we are not making any progress, and you will not see me outside Coffmann Union to protest the war.

Call me crazy, but I would like a little more substance and intelligence in politics. The idea that demonstrations and revolutions are the only way to effect political change is a rather quaint Bolshevik fantasy.

As for Iraq, let’s put our thinking caps on and think of a way to bring back America’s soldiers without leaving the terrorists dancing and singing in Iraq. And as for the current administration, continue the protests, naturally. I would also advocate regular visits to factcheck.org, a non-partisan media watchdog project at the University of Pennsylvania, to get a reality check on the media bias that permeates all news in this country.

For one thing, they show that the famous “16 words” in the 2003 State of the Union were certainly factually incorrect but, fair is fair, that at the time President Bush had good reason to believe his claim about WMD in Iraq was accurate. There is a huge difference between being wrong and consciously lying.

There is no point in replacing one lie with another. If we want real change, let’s first do our homework. Don’t just rely on the Cliff’s Notes to current politics. You’ll miss the all-important details.

Miers Withdrawal a Good, If Ungraceful Thing

2005-10-28T12:22:00.000-05:00

Harriet Miers and President Bush have to be applauded for finally doing the right thing. Although conservative commentator and Law professor Hugh Hewitt complains in today’s New York Times that Miers’ withdrawal of her nomination for the Supreme Court was an outrageous act of sabotage by other conservative commentators—he specifically accuses National Review—there was little doubt left that Ms. Miers was not the right choice for this seat.

One can come up with many reasons to reject Ms. Miers. Some right-wing Christians have complained about her unknown stance on abortion but we should ask whether that would be a fair reason to reject her. I have advocated that a nominee’s stance on abortion should be an important litmus test and I will stand by it. Abortion is abominable and should be recriminalized. However, this discussion should be embedded in a thorough view of constitutional law. After all, if we want a safe anti-abortion activist on the court we might as well nominate James Dobson. We have no doubts about his position.

Thus, the complaint that Ms. Miers was fuzzy on abortion is not good enough. What we really need to know is a nominee’s views on the way US law, and especially the Consitution, works. Mere opposition to abortion is not good enough. What we need to see is a developed legal opinion about the Supreme Court precedents that caused the legalization of a practice that kills unborn people. Abortion is an outrage, but there is a second, separate outrage that should teach us something about the anti-child forces that advocate special rights for women to kill their babies. This outrage is that pro-choice activists and politicians are willing to ignore the plain words of the Constitution in order to invent these special rights. In other words, I am charging that you can only support legal abortion if you are willing to throw out US law and make the Constitution inferior to special rights for women.

Thus, what we need in a new nominee is a candidate who can see through these legal implications. That means that we should not expect any candidate, to mix some metaphors, to put his or her head in the noose before the pack of wolves known as the US Senate and proclaim to be anti-abortion. But it does mean that we have a good compass to navigate on, with plenty of leeway to find out where the nominee stands on abortion without asking him or her. It also means, however, that the nominee should be comfortable operating on the knife-edge between politics and sound judicial practice.

Ms. Miers was not that candidate. She is undoubtedly a smart women with many credentials but not the judicial credentials she would have needed as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. I agree with Hewitt about the disgraceful and ungraceful way she was brought down by another pack of wolves, the (religious) right. No Christian has a right to use slander and lies to destroy a person’s reputation (Ninth Commandment, Sixth Commandment) and the agents in question should understand their reprehensible, anti-Christian, and hence sinful, behavior. The process should have been allowed to run its course. The Senate Judiciary Committee would have rendered their verdict on the resubmitted questionnaire, there would have been hearings and—if the senators had retained any logic and dignity—Ms. Miers would have been soundly voted down by a majority.

Mr. Bush should never have nominated Harriet Miers and Mr. Hewitt points out the most important objection to this month-long excursion into nowhere: it delays the replacement of pro-choice Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. No-one would have expected her to be still on the Supreme Court in November, least of all O’Connor herself, who resigned after the previous Supreme Court Session last summer. But because she promised to remain on duty until her replacement is confirmed, she will likely be around to cast her vote against New Hampshire’s parental notification law in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood to be argued next month. With the way the votes are lined up on the present Supreme Court, Justice O’Connor will likely cast the 5th and deciding vote against the constitutionality of parental notification. That will be the real tragedy in the Miers debacle.

Pledge of Allegiance Thrown Out Again

2005-09-17T17:14:00.000-05:00

A federal court in California has—again—ruled that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional. According to judge Lawrence Karlton, the words “under God” in the Pledge are a violation of the First Amendment. Reciting the Pledge would mean forcing a “coercive requirement to affirm God” on all students, according to the judge.

Christians and conservatives have not unexpectedly condemned the ruling. Legally, they say, this ruling is suspect at the very least since the judge claimed that he was bound by precedent. The precedent in question was the ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled on this same question in 2002. However, conservatives claim that this precedent was overturned when the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff in that case—the atheist Michael Newdow who is now representing two other plaintiffs in this case—had no legal standing to bring the case.

But quite apart from the legal squibbling, Christians are outraged that the judge has now declared affirming God in public an offense. It is seen as another step on the increasingly slipperly slope toward official prohibition of visible religion. Although the term “God” can be taken as a very non-descript title of the Divine in general, there is hardly any doubt that in a Christian country like the US, Christians are the main victims of this ruling.

So, what are we to think of this ruling? The first observation that needs to be made is that the ruling is hardly a surprise. All the same actors were on the scene and the California courts are hardly known for their conservative leanings. Whether or not the 2002 ruling was rendered inoperable by the Supreme Court ruling, the same facts were presented to substantially the same court by the same people. One could hardly have expected the same liberal court to suddenly take a shine to affirming God.

Yet we need to look a bit deeper than that because the outrage vented by the conservative critics is virtually the same as the very shallow objections raised by Democrats this week against Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. Just as the Democratic senators continued asking the judicial nominee Roberts questions about his political views, so the critics of judge Karlton’s ruling have complained about its ethical and moral insufficiency rather than its legal value. Regardless of whether judge Karlton is Christian or anti-Christian, he had to decide this case based on the laws available to him. And like it or not, the notion that the First Amendment prohibits reciting the words “under God” in a public school is legally quite compelling.

After all, the relevant words in the First Amendment are as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It can certainly be argued that at the basis of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance there is no act of Congress so that there is no legal coercion. But such an argument would be restricted entirely to a very legalistic, quite frankly pharisaical view of law. In actual fact, Congress has passed many laws regulating the mandatory school attendance of America’s youth and regulates the public—and even private—schools with numerous laws and rules. American children who find themselves in a public school classroom where the Pledge of Allegiance is recited are not there of their own accord and cannot effectively influence the school system that arranged for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I believe, therefore, that as a legal ruling, based on current American law and the Constitution, judge Karlton’s ruling is correct and will be upheld if it is appealed. If it should reach the Supreme Court, newly appointed Chief Justice Roberts would almost certainly uphold the ruling. Probably not because he agrees with the sentiment of the ruling, but because he would be bound to do so based on the laws as they are on the books now.

One may wonder why the Pledge of Allegiance has ‘suddenly’ become unconstitutional when it has been recited for decades. Of course, speaking from a very principled point of view, the Pledge has always been unconstitutional. But no judge in the 1950s would ever have ruled it so. Before the rampant outbreak of postmodernism, which rejects all authority and truth, including relgious truth, it has probably not occurred to anyone that the words “under God” might be in violation of any law or right. America, even liberal America, simply had not become allergic to religion yet. The Pledge flew under the radar until Michael Newdow went into his now infamous anaphylactic shock over the word “God” and decided to do what he believed was the American thing to do: sue.

Thus the tragedy in this case is not so much the ruling. Judge Karlton probably had no choice. The tragedy here is the fact that American culture has degraded to such a level of rabid secularism that religion offends some people to such an extent that it excites them to acts of anti-religious vengeance. Mr. Newdow could not let the Pledge slide. In his view, it is so odious and dangerous that it needed to be eradicated from society.

It is a tragedy that America has let society get to this point. More than likely, we are paying the price for a number of very unrighteous acts performed in the name of Christ in the past that religion is so hated by a large chunk of the general public. But then again, it is in man’s nature to rebel against God and so perhaps it is merely the decadence of twenty-first century luxury that allows some of the most ardent rebels to elevate their wickedness to higher levels. After all, as Agur said in Proverbs 30: 8-9,

Remove falsehood and lies far from me;
Give me neither poverty nor riches—
Feed me with the food allotted to me;
Lest I be full and deny You,
And say, “Who is the Lord?”
Or lest I be poor and steal,
And profane the name of my God. (NKJV)

Perhaps America, which is getting obese on whopping amounts of unhealthy food, is getting full.

Robert Daniel van der Hoek

2005-09-05T07:49:00.000-05:00

Today at 7:49am (CET) my son Robert Daniel was born. He was 19.5 in and 7 lbs 2 oz at birth.

Tell Cindy Sheehan to Go Home

2005-08-17T11:17:00.000-05:00

While soldiers in Iraq are putting their lives at risk, terrorists plan attacks against soldiers and civilians alike, and Iraqi politicians work hard to put the finishing touches on an Iraqi constitution, one woman from California has decided to camp outside president Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas. She wants to meet with the president. Never mind that the federal government employs a number of well-trained individuals—known as the Secret Service—to keep uninvited guests away from the president and arrest them if necessary.

You would think that for all the media attention that has been diverted away from real news and instead focused on Cindy Sheehan, 48, that this woman has something very important to say to the president. The righteous anger in the tone of both Mrs. Sheehan and the media who cover her ill-advised camp out in the blazing Texas heat suggests that Mr. Bush’s refusal to talk to her amounts to a major diplomatic snub that will cause World War III to break out. A sickeningly biased article in the New York Times on Saturday (August 13, 2005) suggested as much. The president’s refusal to talk to Mrs. Sheeehan was presented as an inexplicable and callous neglect of duty.

So, why should Mr. Bush find time during his busy schedule to talk to Mrs. Sheehan? What important information that he has not received from his advisers—you know, people who run such quaint institutions as the Department of Defense and Homeland Security—does Mrs. Sheehan have that is so important for the country’s Iraq policy?

The answer is, of course, nothing.

Let’s not mince any words. Cindy Sheehan is just a crazy 48-year old, Left Coast woman who lost it mentally when her son got killed in Iraq. She has my sympathies. I hope she will soon give up this insane idea that the universe revolves around her and her grief. The same New York Times article by Anne Kornblut also mentioned that her marriage and her family are falling apart—not because of the death of her son, for which she blames the president, but because she has gone nuts and is stalking the president of the United States.

The scary thing is that the way this situation has been handled is symptomatic of the left’s view of Bush policy. While I make no secret out of the fact that I, too, disagree with Mr. Bush on many policy decisions, there is one important difference between my disagreement and that of the leftist politicians and media outlets. I disagree with Mr. Bush because I think he has made wrong decisions. They disagree with Mr. Bush because they think he is mentally deranged. It must be a frightening experience to wake up in their America every day, knowing that a man who talks to God has the nuclear button in his possession.

How else can you explain the enormous media attention for Cindy Sheehan’s crazy camp out? She could not be any crazier if she were wearing her underwear on her head and insisted on being addressed as ‘the emperor Napoleon.’ If this had not been about a war—and if we had had a different president, I suspect—there would be no cameras, no journalists, no attention. At some point, there would have been a few marked cars, an ambulance, and a few men in white coats. Mrs. Sheehan would have been quietly carted away to the nearest looney bin. But, hey, this is great Bush-bashing material, so let’s put some cameras and some lights on this woman!

It’s sickening and it’s pathetic. Mr. Bush should not, under any circumstances, meet with this woman. The president has appointed professionals to advise him on policy, who may or may not make mistakes. But he certainly does not need to have weekly town hall meetings to take pointers from Mrs. Baker, housewife, from Centerville, East Dakota, Mr. Kurtz, plumber, from Average City, North Virginia and the retired Easterman twins from Knowitall Rapids in North Florida, on everything ranging from the running of the National Reserve to military strategy in the greater Kirkuk conglomeration. Hello, wake up! He is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. He doesn’t meet with just anyone who rings the doorbell. He is, like, kinda busy running the country right now!

Get over it, already and tell Cindy Sheehan to go home. There are elections in three years. Feel free to vote for Hilary. Until then, George W. Bush will be president. Thank you, and good riddance.

The Troubling Adoration of The Second Amendment

2005-08-01T11:31:00.000-05:00

Another last-minute decision by the Senate was to pass a bill that essentially gives immunity from law suits to gun sellers and gun manufacturers (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (S.397)). Conservatives would add “frivolous” before the term “law suits” since they argue that those who legally and innocently sell a product that is protected under the Second Amendment should not be held accountable for what wicked, evil people do with their products.

Well, I agree. There is nothing inherently immoral about producing guns. In this fallen world there will be violence and people have a right to defend themselves. What is more, John Jay, writing in The Federalist, argued that “[a]mong the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their safety seems to be the first” (essay no. 3). His essay included both foreign and domestic violence as threats to this safety and argues that it ought to be the prime responsibility of a unified state to guards its citizens against them. Thus, weapons are a necessary tool in defending the safety of the state.

It would be easy to laugh off the red-faced tirade of the senior senator from Massachussetts against Republican plans to pass this legislation as another looney liberal, anti-gun craze. But unfortunately, Mr. Kennedy is right on this issue. The legislation that was passed does “lock the courthouse doors to gun violence victims,” as president of the anti-gun Brady Campaign warned. Perhaps not all doors, but many are now locked.

So, how do we reconcile these two viewpoints? How can one hold that self-defense and defense of innocent citizens is a valid right while at the same time holding that it is unconscionable to exempt gun makers and sellers from lawsuits?

But look at the reasoning there. The allegation that such reasoning is contradictory is based on the premise that gun makers and sellers are somehow not a normal industry but are immune to all kinds of corruption and deviousness. The legislation the Senate passed declares not so much—as Republicans wanted us to believe—that this protects good and honest businesses from “politically motivated predatory lawsuits,” as the NRA put it, but rather that gun makers and sellers are canonized as saints and cannot be touched by almost any lawsuit. It preempts nearly all judgments by judges and juries by declaring the entire industry innocent of any charges that could possibly be lodged against them.

Now it is true, that lawsuits can stil be brought against gun manufacturers and gun sellers, but the burden of proof has now become so onerous that hardly any civilian will be able to avail himself of the legal expertise to meet that burden. In other words, the game is now rigged to such an extent that the gun industry is almost certain to win. Even if the actual words of the legislation allow for an escape hatch, that escape hatch only leads into a blind wall.

For that reason, we must agree—as much as it annoys me—with Senator Kennedy. He alleged that this legislation is nothing but a huge pay-off to the NRA. In essence, he claimed, the NRA are in control of the country. He is probably right. While no-one should ever dare to claim that citizens do not have the right to defend themselves, America’s religious adoration of the Second Amendment has made the country complacent about gun safety and responsible use of guns.

If the Founders had only seen fit to phrase the Second Amendment in terms of “the right to defend oneself” rather than a blanket approval to “bear arms,” we would still have had reasonable legislation defending the rights of good and innocent citizens while there could not have been a gun crazy NRA. Surely, you do not believe the NRA backs this kind of legislation for any reason except that it rakes in the cash from the sale and manufacture of guns, do you?

Bill Frist’s Immoral Flip-Flop on Stem Cells

2005-07-30T22:37:00.000-05:00

On the last day before the Senate went on summer break, Bill Frist ended a good pro-life record by endorsing more federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. One can only imagine his decision to have come as a result of the intense pressure of the pro-choice lobby and its allies. The conclusion drawn by Eric Cohen and William Kristol in the Weekly Standard is correct: “Senate majority leader Bill Frist did the wrong thing at the wrong time.”

However, Cohen and Kristol do not go far enough in their disapproval of Mr. Frist’s decision. Their article sets out further policy moves Mr. Frist should employ to make sure that this will not lead down the slippery slope toward a completely utilitarian medical philosophy that will include human cloning. They are profoundly naive in their assessment of the situation. Mr. Frist’s speech in the Senate sent the nation hurtling toward that situation and we are already approaching the end station rapidly. The New York Times bewailed the fact that the current bill as proposed does not allow “therapeutic cloning” yet, but is confident that Frist’s flip-flop will lead there eventually. This is the true horror of Mr. Frist’s decision.

Thus, Mr. Frist’s decision to endorse embryonic stem cell research is more than merely a “wrong decision.” It is a catastrophic decision for which he should be held accountable. Not only should President Bush hold good on his promise to veto the bill—it would be the first veto of his entire presidency—conscientious voters should remember to cross him off the list.

The decision shows that he does not understand what is truly at stake in opposing embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research is murder because it kills unborn babies. Compromise is not possible on this issue. By compromising on the issue, Mr. Frist showed that he is not worthy of a vote and that voters’ trust up till now was not justified.

Yes, this issue is that important. It’s a matter of life and death for millions of unborn babies who are currently in suspended animation in special freezers. Liberal media talk of “destroying” embryos or “cells” or “zygotes” or such like. They also talk about the “enormous hope” afforded by this new technology and then try to emotionally blackmail you into having compassion with the many peole that could be cured by therapies discovered through embryonic stem cell research.

Hogwash. That’s the argument used by Joseph Mengele and his Nazi henchmen: we can sacrifice these Untermenschen (‘inferior people’, with which the Nazis meant Jews, Roma, homosexuals, handicapped people) because their lives are not worth anything. They are expendable. Well, embryos are people too and we have as little right to sacrifice them for the greater good as we have to sacrifice any group of people deemed ‘inferior.’ Life begins at conception. Embryos are past that stage, ergo, they are people. Don’t fall for the liberal, utilitarian and tear-jerking arguments. And see Mr. Frist’s action for what it is: a sell-out to sin and to a crime against humanity. This is way more important than some will make you believe. Mr. Frist is unfit to be elected to any office until he confesses his sin and repents of it. This is very troubling indeed.

German Court Takes Custody Rights for Homeschooling

2005-07-26T07:55:00.000-05:00

PADERBORN –
A court in the German city of Paderborn has temporarily taken away custody rights from two sets of parents. The parents refuse to send their children to public schools for religious reasons. The families are immigrants from Russia and members of a conservative Baptist church.

They belong to a group of eight families of whom 16 children do not attend school. The parents especially object to the manner in which public schools teach Biology (including comprehensive sex education and Darwinism) as well as to the very liberal Religion classes.

The court contends that the parents are hindering the children from “developing a personality appropriate for their age afforded by attending school.”

The parents homeschool their children until about age 10, but refuse to send to public school after that. Despite fines levied on them, they persist in their position. Custody of the children of two families has now been awarded to Childrens’ Services which have been charged by the court to make sure the children attend school in fall.

A spokesperson for the district of Detmold has confirmed that the parents have filed a request to start a private school. This request has been denied since the district judged that it was merely a thinly disguised form of homeschooling. “A living room is not a class room,” according to the spokesperson.

Homeschooling was outlawed in Germany in 1938 during Hitler’s Nazi regime but this prohibition has never been repealed. Nevertheless, approximately 500 children are currently being homeschooled in Germany.

Non-German Christians from around the world are encouraged to sign a petition online at www.solidrockfaith.com and send it to the German embassy in Washington D.C.

Source: Nederlands Dagblad / Christenkurier.de / www.solidrockfaith.com
translated and edited by : Michel van der Hoek

Bush's Smart Supreme Court Pick

2005-07-25T22:30:00.000-05:00

Confirmation hearings are still more than a month away, but the country is already abuzz with talk about Bush’s nominee for the Supreme Court. In the days after Justice O’Connor’s resignation, commentators rejected the possibility of an early nomination. They believed that the administration was afraid of a repeat of the Bork nomination when a long wait until confirmation gave liberals plenty of time to rake up the dirt against the nominee.

The question for conservatives (and for liberals no less, of course) is whether John Roberts, currently a federal judge on the D.C. Court of Appeals, is the right pick. Wary of all the supposedly conservative judges appointed by Republican presidents over the past couple of decades, conservative politicians and columnists have warned that no chances can be taken. We do not want another Justice Souter, their warning is. Souter looked like a conservative, walked like a conservative, talked like a conservative, but unfortunately rules according to the desires of the lunatic left-wing.

Thus, some wariness is appropriate. Some on both sides of the political spectrum have already declared Roberts the wrong pick. NARAL Pro Choice has—not surprisingly—sounded the alarm about Roberts in view of his well-documented pro-life views. Ann Coulter recently rejected Roberts as an other “Souter in Roberts’ Clothing” because of his lack of documented views. So, which of the two is it?

Strictly speaking, Coulter is probably right. On the particular question of abortion, Roberts has no personal view on the books (though there is a document from when he was defending Reagan policy, which does not reflect his personal views). But I do not think we need to follow the vitriol of Ms. Coulter; partly because she does not look at the evidence properly.

Shannen Coffin of the National Review has a better perspective. He realizes that, unless a foolproof crystal ball is invented before September, the best way to predict Roberts’ rulings is to assess his character and method on the bench. In his article, Coffin points out that Mr. Roberts’ record indicates more than a mere inclination to follow the clear letter of the law. In interpreting the law as it relates to cases before him, he is certainly not devoid of emotion or even humor. But when it comes to deciding the case, he has only one standard: what does common sense tell us about the interpretation and meaning of the law?

That means that he does not invent meaning on the spot. He looks only at what the law says in the visible ink, not the invisible ink seen only by left-wing loonies. Roberts’ most illustrative decision was issued only last week. In this case, he dissented from the majority which ruled a search of a car’s trunk unconstitutional, since they followed the driver’s reasoning that the police should first have investigated his claim that the car belonged to his girlfriend, rather than assume the car was stolen.

Roberts was sharply sarcastic of the majority in his opinion: “Sometimes a car being driven by an unlicensed driver, with no registration and stolen tags, really does belong to the driver’s friend, and sometimes dogs do eat homework, but in neither case is it reasonable to insist on checking out the story before taking other appropriate action.” In other words, there was nothing unreasonable about the police officers’ assumption that the man was up to no good and that the trunk of the car needed to be searched.

This bodes well for Mr. Roberts. We will not be able to find out his exact stance on all topics. If he is smart—as he has proven himself to be—he won’t answer the question Ted Kennedy is certain to ask: “Will you reverse Roe v. Wade?” Senator Kennedy will grit his squirrel teeth, knowing that Roberts’ wife is an active pro-life lawyer (who works for Feminists for Life). But even though Kennedy is on the record of saying that for judges’ wives to be pro-life “ought to be out of bounds”, he is not allowed to use it against Mr. Roberts. Stick that where the sun don’t shine, Kennedy!

I am confident that President Bush has picked the right guy and it is an astonishingly smart pick. No-one in his right mind can help but like the man and his record. There are no certainties in this life and Justice Roberts may well, on occasion, rule with the liberals. But his record shows that he will only do so when the Republicans are plainly wrong in the matter. (Let’s not declare the Republicans infallible, please.) As for the rest, he promises to interpret the law by looking at what it says, not what the cross-dressing, gender-bending, neo-Marxist academics of the elite left believe it ought to have said. That’s good enough for me.

Again Bombs in London

2005-07-21T17:51:00.000-05:00

And again London is rocked by terrorist attacks. During the afternoon, three bombs exploded on subway trains and one on a bus, paralleling the attacks on July 7. But the similarity did not go all the way because all four bombs failed to explode fully. Police say that only the detonators exploded without igniting any possible explosives. Yet all the signs seem to point to a link to the same organization that carried out the attacks on July 7, since even the backpacks used to carry the bombs are identical to those of the earlier attack. Let us hope that British law enforcement will be able to act as quickly on these attacks as on the previous ones and nab the terrorists who are responsible.

Rove-Gate and the Scrambling Media

2005-07-21T17:49:00.000-05:00

The case surrounding Karl Rove and the CIA leak has all the appearances of a storm in a tea cup. When word first started to trickle into the news media that the secret source of Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller was none other than White House Advisor Karl Rove, the feeding frenzy soon began.

What was most disheartening about the whole affair was that it was (and is) all so predictable. Leftist media outlets, the New York Times leading the way, accused Karl Rove of breaking the law and called for his resignation. Conservative commentators defended Mr. Rove merely on principle without going into the case at all.

The New York Times had it right when they wrote, “[T]his isn’t just about Mr. Rove” (July 15). And yet, would that the New York Times had been able to show the same kind of wisdom as professed by the National Review, which declared openly that the jury is still out on the question whether Karl Rove broke the law (July 14). Instead, the Times complained that the whole affair was about Bush and his broken policies.

But then again, they are right: this isn’t just about Mr. Rove. It’s also about Judith Miller and the Times’s thirst for revenge. Because when Judith Miller was sentenced to a stint in prison for contempt of court, her employer immediately turned around and went for the jugular. According to the New York Times, it was Mr. Rove’s evil genius who plotted the whole affair. Mr. Rove leaked to Ms. Miller something to leak for which she could then be forced into an awkward position.

Now they want Rove’s job. Paul Krugman, never short of venom, avowed that Karl Rove is a criminal and belongs in jail. In an editorial on July 13, the newspaper put out a complicated argument in which they tried to reconcile the irreconcileable. The first is that Judith Miller, their jailed reporter, did the right thing to protect her source’s identity (presumably Karl Rove). The second that Karl Rove did not have the right to leak this kind of things to the press because, well, no reason really, except that they can’t stand Karl Rove having any rights, because, well, he’s a conservative toad, and, well, you get the picture.

But Mr. Rove has not broken any laws and morally he also seems to be in the clear. All the accusations that claimed he had somehow engineered the affair as part of a political plot seem now, with the hindsight of a few weeks, to have been dreamed up at the New York Times headquarters, with many of the major news media jumping on the bandwagon. “Didn’t the president promise to fire leakers?” they all asked, implying that the president was breaking his word by not axing Rove. In fact, the president remained resolved to display a close relationship with Rove. The special prosecutor who is investigating the CIA leak also announced explicitly that Karl Rove is not being investigated. Thus, even the cautious statements by conservative news outlets such as the National Review are unnecessary because, I repeat: Rove is not being investigated.

Let us not pretend that Karl Rove is not a slippery guy. As an advisor to the president, he has not exactly succeeded in making Bush seem wise. A host of policies, especially in the war on Iraq, policies that conservative Christians could not in their right minds subscribe to, are frequently being endorsed by the president. Rove ought to have given better advice. But that is hardly a cause for dismissal. But one can hope.

Bombs in London

2005-07-08T17:48:00.000-05:00

After the terror attacks in the US in 2001 and the Madrid bombs in 2004, now London, too has its 9/11. Who could do such a thing? But we know that: Osama bin Laden and his thugs. The sooner they are found, judged and executed, the better. But, of course, there’s more to be done than find individual terrorists. We also need to educate, both at home and abroad, so that we can show our determination to remain true to good and to reject evil. That in itself won’t solve the problem, but it should be the basis for sending troops to catch those whose faces are on our wanted posters.

In the meantime, London is not frightened by these attacks. Stiff upper lip and all that.

When Clinton Lied...

2005-07-06T17:45:00.000-05:00

You do not have to be a Bush hater to be against the Iraq War. But it does seem to help, judging from the bumper stickers. One in particular springs to mind: ‘When Clinton lied, no-one died.’ It’s a cute little rhyme that must give no end of satisfaction to the Bush hating crowd. It’s so smart-alecky that it must contain a deeper, more profound truth.

President Bush did lie. The Downing Street Memo proves that he did, though many conservative commentators dismiss the memo as a left-wing conspiracy that has no validity. Unfortunately, it is an authentic British government document and it proves a lot (see my log entry for 17 May). Congress should investigate the extent and the nature of the president’s lies and act accordingly.

But that is only one part of the equation. People almost certainly died as a result of Bush’s lies, the notion that nobody died when Clinton lied is decidedly an unproven statement. Such a statement can only come from the mouth of someone who has crossed “sexual morality” off his list of priorities. After all, the claim is that Clinton’s sexual misconduct in the White House did not hinder him in his job as president. Perhaps not, though one wonders. However, a comment made on CNN this week highlighted the enormous damage Mr Clinton caused the nation.

When discussing teen culture and their supposedly improving sexual mores, Atoosa Rubenstein, the editor of Seventeen magazine, remarked that the encouraging statistics are accompanied by a growing stoic attitude to sexual adventures. After all, Rubenstein reminded the CNN interviewer, this is the generation of teenagers who had in the president of the United States a powerful role model teaching them that some sex isn’t sex, that it doesn’t matter anyway, that you can always try to lie your way out and when you get caught nothing bad happens anyway.

Presented to us in this light, the failure to remove Clinton from power appears a much greater error than it did at the time. At the time, the excuse was, of course, that the affair was private and did not impact the country. Now it seems that many more teens have become much more hardened in their immature stubbornness to defy adult wisdom. As a result, though the statsistics appear to show improvement in awareness of sexual morality, at the same time, they show the clear effects of a moral change in the minds of the next generation of Americans.

Suddenly, that little rhyme is no longer funny because we can see that it is not true. But for any Bush hating, Clinton worshiping liberal there is always the satisfaction of knowing that no-one will ever be able to prove how many teenagers were led by Clinton’s example to engage in unsafe or unwanted sex, or how many of them contracted venereal diseases, had abortions or were driven into potentially deadly despair as a result of the “unintended consequences” of Clinton’s lies.

So, don’t give me that “When Clinton lied, nobody died” nonsense. It ain’t true, and it ain’t funny.

The Legacy of Justice O’Connor and What Comes Next

2005-07-05T10:28:00.000-05:00

The feeding frenzy has started. Although it is a different justice than the one everyone had been expecting to resign, the clouds are nevertheless gathering as predicted. With Sandra Day O’Connor’s announcement that she will be retiring from the United States Supreme Court, the whole country shudders at what will come next, because president Bush will have to nominate a successor. No candidate will be acceptable to everyone and loud protests, both in Congress and on the streets, are a certainty.

Sandra Day O’Connor’s legacy is a mottled one. No conservative liked her, since she often ruled against clear constitutional principles. Her support of Roe v. Wade, reaffirmed in a 1992 ruling, marked her off as a key disappointment to the conservatives who supported her. Appointed in 1981 by Ronald Reagan, and the first woman on the Supreme Court, Justice O’Connor was expected to infuse some conservative soundness into the court. Instead, she proved to be the continuous swing vote. Lawyers soon realized that the key to winning a case in front of that panel, was ignoring the other eight justices and instead winning over Sandra Day O’Connor.

In that sense, the comment in the New York Times, that Sandra Day O’Connor was sometimes called the most powerful person in America, is spot on. Since the Supreme Court has become the final arbiter in all of the hotly contested cultural issues, its rulings have attained enormous influence in the country. Justice O’Connor’s deciding vote on nearly all these issues has hugely magnified her importance in shaping the political climate of the country.

Considering the current make-up of the Supreme Court, it is imperative that president Bush nominate a sound conservative judge to replace Justice O’Connor. At the moment, the court is more or less balanced between a number of irresponsibly liberal judges and some conservatives of varying degrees of rationality, with O’Connor tipping the balance on all important issues. Her replacement will upon inauguration tip that balance one way or the other.

It is quite true that potential justices should not be asked questions about potential future rulings. That is not fair to anyone, since without a crystal ball they cannot predict the exact legal parameters of any future case. However, there should definitely be a number of litmus tests: pro-life issues and church-state relations are the two prime areas of concern. The Senate should only approve justices who not only disagree with but are fervently critical of the travesty known as Roe v. Wade. In the same way, only those justices should be confirmed who are willing to stop the erosion of the rights of Christians (the only religion against which the courts are issuing discriminatory rulings).

I am thus unabashedly calling for a conservative judge. This country does not need liberal judges. They have already imposed their tyranny in many places, illegally imposing same sex ‘marriage’ on the citizens of Massachussetts and striking down perfectly constitutional laws that would have protected the unborn from barbaric abortion techniques.

Nor do we need another swing vote like Sandra Day O’Connor, turning this way and that just as the wind blows. When she was once asked what her tombstone should read, she answered, “I hope it will just say, ‘Here lies a good judge.’” Unfortunately, she was a decidedly bad judge, with a brilliant mind she chose not to employ. Instead, she was often swayed by the emotions of a case, ignoring the legal arguments completely. We do not need that again.

The president should not bow to Ted Kennedy’s blackmail remarks which all but promised to take the country down the path to filibusters and the nuclear option. The chess game has started and the clock is ticking. Let’s not make any foolish moves or lose sight of the long-term effects.

Spain and Canada legalize Gay 'Marriage'

2005-06-30T21:44:00.000-05:00

In what almost seems like a coordinated attack, both Spain and Canada have given the final legal push in overhauling their respective countries’ marriage laws. Canada’s House of Commons approved Bill C-38 on June 28, a decision that is still subject to approval by the Canadian Senate. And though the Senate is widely expected to confirm the bill, making gay marriage in Canada a virtual certainty, Spain by-passed the Canadians in a surprisingly easy vote a day later. Since Spain’s parliamentary vote is not subject to further political scrutiny, gay marriage became a reality as soon as the official vote was recorded. The Spanish law comes into effect on the day the parliamentary bulletin is published, by the beginning of next week.

These are troubling developments. We must be clear about the fact that gay people should not have the right to marry. The very word “marriage” means “life-long, monogamous union of one man and one woman.” No two men or two women can enter into such a union since they are lacking some of the prerequisites. The state has legitimate reasons to support the institution of marriage with special financial and social privileges, since only such relationships can produce and protect the foundation of society: the traditional family.

Such statements are not mere homophobia, though gay rights activists do not tire of accusing conservatives of it. In their eyes, gay people can only be loved if they are supported in all that they do. That is a ridiculous notion. The secular state should not have any laws that disadvantages private citizens—be they gay or straight—in what I would call “neutral situations.” These neutral situations include legal and financial affairs related to private property and medical next-of-kin rights. Even coercive legislation—such as the anti-sodomy laws struck down by the Supreme Court last year —has no legitimate basis in law or any Christian doctrine of the state.

Legislating morality can only go so far and should always be written in terms of general rights and common sense. The current attacks on traditional morality does not come from individual sexual or non-sexual practices by gay people, but rather from infiltrations and intimidation by organized groups of gays of public institutes, such as public schools, political parties and the court system. In this way, what in Christian terms are private sins and aberrances become public dangers. It is, therefore, on that level that politicians should engage the threat, by legislating common sense morality to protect those who are vulnerable, e.g. by keeping gay rights activism out of schools and setting general decency standards. After all, gay groups charge that they are unfairly singled out for discrimination, an allegation that would be bolstered by special anti-gay laws, such as anti-sodomy laws.

In the same way, the state does not have a duty to codify special rights for gays in non-neutral situations. Christians should have the right under secular law and do have the duty under God’s Law to tell gays that we disapprove of their lifestyle and that we believe it is harmful to them and those around them, without showing disrespect to individual gays. Since gay people, as a result of their confusion over their own sexual identity, cannot pattern healthy sexual identities to children, it should be clear that they should not be allowed to adopt children.

But that is exactly the kind of right now awarded in Spain and Canada. The Netherlands restricted adoption rights for gay couples from abroad, fearing that international adoption agencies would blacklist the country and so deprive also heterosexual couples of adoption from abroad. However, Spain has no such restrictions. It will be interesting to see whether gay rights activists in the Netherlands will now also push for lifting of the restrictions there.

One final note on the Spanish and Canadian votes is that both countries approved gay ‘marriage’ with rather large opposition. The Canadians voted 158 against 133, while the Spanish vote was 187 to 147. Both votes indicate that conservatives in both countries—including a strong Roman Catholic opposition in Spain—have enough clout to remain hopeful, unlike the Netherlands, where opposition to gay ‘marriage’ is minimal. Let us take lessons from these examples.

Rounding Up Marijuana Users

2005-06-13T12:22:00.000-05:00

The recent Supreme Court decision on the use of medical marijuana was hailed as a great triumph in the war against drugs. Many conservatives have warned about the slippery slope of allowing marijuana in because we will end up with a Ralph Nader program that simply leaves drug use to the individual pothead. The Supreme Court sharply asserted the federal government’s power to prohibit illegal drugs, essentially overruling laws in 11 states that have allowed the medical use of marijuana.

I agree with the New York Times editorial (8 June) that one can only approach this ruling with mixed emotions but I do so for almost completely opposite reasons.

As a born Dutchman and conservative Christian I will be the last to advocate letting marijuana slip by. I have lived in a society where innocent children can walk down the street breathing in the fumes of marijuana smoke that wafts out of coffeeshops and downtown appartments. I have also seen up close what smoking marijuana does to the brain and the body—it’s not pretty. Marijuana is a dangerous and addictive drug and should always remain a controlled substance.

The claims by the opponents of medical marijuana are, however, completely ludicrous. They assert that state laws that allow the use of marijuana as a medication is the same as turning a blind eye to illegal drug dealers and would inevitably lead to the corruption of children and other innocents in society. This is complete nonsense. Also, the idea that there is no scientific evidence for the benefit of marijuana as a medical drug is wrong. The most one can claim is that the jury is still out on the possibility of positive effects of marijuana. British scientists are researching the idea that certain active ingredients in hemp plants could be extracted and prescribed in pill form.

The problem in this debate is that emotions ran so high that reason went out the window. No government should allow marijuana to be scrapped from the list of controlled substances and no-one should smoke marijuana—especially not mixed with regular tobacco, as is the custom among many drug addicts. But under the supervision of a doctor, marijuana may well have positive effects in addition to the negative effects. I believe that there may well be a class of citizens who, as a result of some grave illness, may need the freedom to weigh these positive and negative effects and request marijuana.

Of course, the Supreme Court decision was not about the question whether medical marijuana should be allowed. Instead, it was a dry legal argument about whether Congress had constitutional authority to trump state governments. The case was even restricted to a few specific arguments brought forward by two California plaintiffs. Thus, the decision speaks more about the court’s view of states’ rights and federal authority than about its view of drug laws.

This explains the response of liberal media like the New York Times which hailed the decision as a triumph for strong federal control, but deplored it at the same time because they see the danger of conservative judges abusing that federal control to “turn back the clock” and strip Americans of hard-won civil rights. At the same time, conservative responses are equally deplorable because they unfairly use the decision to claim that it is an important victory in the war against drugs. It is not. It adds no protection against illegal drugs and only disadvantages a number of people who are so ill that cannabis represents the same kind of relief that morphine does for others. Christians should have compassion for them and at least have the decency to give them the benefit of the doubt. Not an inch needs to be sacrificed in the war on drugs to accomplish that.

Bad show, I say.

The Legacy of “Deep Throat”

2005-06-02T21:36:00.000-05:00

Although Washington Post reporters Woodward and Bernstein vowed not to divulge the identity of their inside source in what would become the Watergate scandal until that person had died, the man in question has gone public himself. What is particularly unseemly about the situation is that the man, former FBI deputy director Mark Felt, is in his nineties and has failing health and, apparently, diminished mental capacities. As a result, society’s discussion of his original motives in the Watergate scandal, is taking place while the man in question is not fully able to defend himself, though unfortunately still around to hear other people’s confused accounts.

This week Charles Colson, a former Nixon advisor who pleaded guilty in a case related to the Watergate scandal, issued a statement that there is no justification for any government official to leak classified information. Colson implied that the standards he himself failed to adhere to, for which he has done penance, applied equally to Mr Felt. In other words, if Mr Colson had to admit he broke the law, so should Mr Felt. On the whole, Christian and conservative commentators tend to be negative of Mr Felt’s actions. Many think that instead of the hero many in the liberal media have made him out to be, Mr Felt is nothing but a traitor and a criminal.

I do not agree with this assessment. Naturally, it is true to maintain that laws are there to be upheld and there is no arguing that Mr Felt broke the law when he talked to reporters about matters he was not allowed to share with the media. But at the same time we cannot dismiss the comments by Mr Woodward and Mr Bernstein that, at the time, corruption within the various government agencies was running amok. Mr Colson sternly reproved Mark Felt for not taking the evidence of the president’s wrongdoings to his boss or even to the president himself. Other commentators have suggested that the proper course of action would have led him to a grand jury where charges could have been filed against those involved in Watergate.

But in effect, these routes were not available. Mr Felt’s critics fail to appreciate the fact that he chose to inform the media because he considered the proper channels unsafe and unworkable. The whole reason for Mr Felt’s comparatively minor nudging of Woodward and Bernstein in the right direction was that the Nixon administration was corrupt.

We do not need to beatify Mr Felt. He himself was involved in certain improper FBI actions and was even convicted of authorizing unlawful searches—a crime for which president Reagan pardoned him. It is simplistic to hammer on moral absolutes in a case where there were only shades of evil. Mr Felt realized that the greater evil was the administration’s attempts to keep the matter under wraps. This secrecy was doing harm to the country. In my view, it would have done more harm than any actions by Mr Felt.

The Unconscionable Act of Donating Embryos

2005-05-30T09:42:00.000-05:00

The radical left wing that dominates US media is crying blue murder over president Bush's announcement that he will veto any bill that would allow for federal money to go into embryonic stem cell research. Eleanor Clift of Newsweek on May 28 blasted the “Christian right” for imposing their wrongheaded religious views on perfectly reasonable science. Another case of the church persecuting those who stand for reason.

And yet, her article abounds with nothing but utilitarian arguments about why it would be a shame to let all those useful embryos go to waste. They’re just lying around. If we don’t use them now, they’ll get thrown away when they get past their “best before” date. Or how about this one: adopting embryos is way too difficult because the bureaucracy is huge.

Sound like convincing arguments to just go ahead and use these embryos where they can be useful? Heck no! If we had been talking about nothing but a piece of technology, some plant material or minerals, that would be a different matter. But we are talking about human babies here. That’s right: embryos = human being. No amount of twisting words and fudging the terms will get away from the SCIENTIFIC FACT that embryos are human beings. Every last one of these embryos is a baby.

“So why is there such a low success rate in turning these embryos into babies?” opponents may ask. When they ask this question they want us to believe that this ‘proves’ that embryos are in fact NOT human beings or babies. But that is completely faulty logic. Aren’t there other reasons for this high rate of failure? Such as the deplorable conditions under which the embryos are being stored?

After all, the loony liberals are complaining that if conservative Christians were consistent, they would be against in vitro fertilization. Apparently, Christians are not, they reason. Aaaaaargh! But Christians ARE against in vitro and always have been. In vitro fertilization is a wicked technology because it creates so many excess babies that are left to rot and die in cryo-vats. How about this outrage of the century! First they assert a lie and then use the lie to prove the inconsistency of their opponents. Please!

Embryonic stem cell research is equally wicked science. It is a crime against humanity and I really don’t know why it has not been declared a felony yet. As long as we keep talking about human beings as mere “tissue,” we cannot call ourselves civilized.

Dutch Education Secretary Ridiculed by Evolutionists

2005-05-25T11:01:00.000-05:00

It is heartening to see that my home country, generally considered to be the cesspool of liberal thought, can produce politicians like Mrs. Van der Hoeven, the Dutch Education Secretary. She suggested recently that public schools look at the errors and inconsistencies of Evolutionary Theory. She mentioned Intelligent Design (ID) as an interesting alternative.

Immediately, scientists and politicians from all parties—except conservative Christians—started ridiculing her. It is interesting to note that, whereas in America there would have been calls to sack and sue the secretary for incompetence, abuse of power and violation of the First Amendment, in the Netherlands there is only derision. The substance of the disapproval is the same, though: proponents of Darwin's theory, both in parliament and in academia, dismissed any debate as irrelevant and unnecessary, indeed, as non-existent.

The majority of scientists believe that Evolutionary Theory has been conclusively proved and that, therefore, there is no debate. Intelligent Design is rejected as a thinly veiled version of Christian theology. Parliamentarians complained that Secretary Van der Hoeven was trying to include material fit for a Religion classroom into a Science classroom. The two are mutually exclusive, they contend. Mrs. Van der Hoeven responded that her opponents ruled out debate a priori without giving proof of their reasoning. Only a handful of Christian MPs were willing to stand up and defend the secretary. One member said, “I believe that a greater leap of faith is required to accept [Evolutionary Theory] than to believe in God.”

Do we need more evidence that liberal atheists have stacked the deck in favor of junk science? Do they even have any shred of a capacity to logical thought left, since they argue that God is irrelevant simply because they do not believe in Him?

Senate Should Tolerate the Filibuster

2005-05-25T10:36:00.001-05:00

Both sides in the filibuster debate have done nothing but spout misinformation. That includes telling only that part of the truth that furthers their argument.

The Star Tribune’s editorial on Sunday, May 22, is equally one-sided in its defence of the filibuster as a “right.” That is Democratic partisan nonsense and also plain wrong. There is no “right” to filibuster. Senators have simply used this and other sabotage tactics when it seemed expedient to them. Now they put a feather in its cap and call it a “right.”

Yet the Republicans have engaged in no smaller sins. When they make it seem that only Democrats have used the filibuster to block judicial nominees, they are, well, lying. Of course, they are technically correct when they say that the Republicans were never successful in filibustering judicial nominees. But let’s not mince words: both parties have tried every sabotage tactic on the book to frustrate the hopes of judicial nominees.

From a purely democratic point of view, the filibuster is a hateful monster. It allows the minority to frustrate the plans of the majority, in clear violation of the voters’ will. None of the current minority’s reasons to justify the filibuster have any philosophical merit. It is undemocratic and no legal document grants anyone the right to filibuster. It merely exists by the coincidence of tradition.

Nevertheless, Republican senators would do well to let the filibuster stand, even if they have to do it while grinding their teeth. The fact that voters are limited to only two parties--parties that are both getting more and more extreme--is a serious hindrance to true democracy. Despite the many shades of gray in voters’ opinions, only these two parties matter politically. Thus, any majority in Congress will almost necessarily be slim and the minority sizeable. Unless the political system were reformed to include more checks and balances and water down the power of the majority party, ending the filibuster will cause a de facto one-party dictatorship.

It is a catch 22 because both keeping and scrapping the filibuster are undemocratic. But Republicans should not gloat over the short-term benefits of the “constitutional option.” The Democrats will take their revenge when next they are in the majority and, using the same strategy, impose on the country a host of life-time judges who, in their turn, will rule against each and every issue conservatives stand for.

I agree that there are serious cracks in the system, but I had rather hang around for a better plan to fix them because the “nuclear option” will at the very least deepen the partisan rift and at worst start a dangerous meltdown of the federal government. Faced with that prospect, I’ll be content to grind my teeth at Democratic incivility.

Yes, this is a reversal of an earlier standpoint. But I'd rather have wisdom late, than not at all.

British Memo on Iraq Changes Everything

2005-05-17T10:27:00.000-05:00

When it comes to the Iraq War I have always been clear: nobody likes war but pacifism is not an option because there will always be bad guys who do not believe in peace. Turning the other cheek only goes so far. At some point, you run out of cheeks. Thus, I have been giving president George W. Bush the benefit of the doubt, knowing that Sadam Hussain had a track record. And while it is good to have a healthy interest in politics, so that politicians remain accountable, it is impossible in any indirect democracy like the United States to demand to be involved in every step of every policy decision. To some extent you have to trust the government as the appointed experts doing things for the common good.

However, politicians remain accountable and when enough information becomes available, you are entitled, in fact, obligated to judge their work. The recently published “Downing Street Memo,” a document leaked from the British government, changes my stance on the Iraq War and my opinion about the Bush government. In this posting, I will not only explain how a religious conservative, who endorsed Bush’ reelection in November, can come to be an opponent of the president, but also why it is a moral imperative for a conscientious, Bible-believing Christian to condemn the president’s handling of the matter.

The case for war on Iraq was never a great one and yet I never made a secret of it that I was cautiously in favor of taking Sadam out. The risks that regime posed, according to the evidence presented by the Bush government, were too great to be ignored. The problems I had with the anti-War crowd were mainly the following two:

First, they argued that the matter should be handled through the UN. I have no inherent dislike of the UN or international bodies. In fact, I am fairly critical of the disdain many Republicans have shown toward the UN. The nomination of John Bolton, an outspoken UN hater, troubles me greatly and I deeply disapprove of it. It is a sign that the anti-UN wing within the Republican party has a lot of leverage in the White House.

However, when the Iraq crisis was building, we already knew that the UN was itself embroiled in various internal crises. The track record of the UN in dealing with international situations was not merely imperfect, it was downright unbelievable. The UN are in a state of disorganization without any clear leadership and beset by many corruption scandals, including a case of bribery related to the Iraq Oil-for-Food program. All the UN do is talk. The Iraq matter had already been discussed ad nauseam. Thus, the demand, at the time, to insist on more UN involvement was little more than a demand to wait for the verdict of the high school debating club to render its verdict. And then to demand to wait for a rematch. I still think that the president’s claim, that the UN showed itself to be irrelevant by its lack of action is not an unfair characterization of the problems within the UN.

Second, the anti-War protesters argued that there was no legal basis for war. This is a more meaty problem, since the government is bound by the Constitution and other national and international regulations regarding the declaration of war. No government should declare war lightly. But the opponents of the war were never able to convince me that the supposed offences against the legal precepts were grave enough to warrant ignoring the evil of Sadam’s regime. In fact, they made themselves ridiculous by insisting that war is always the wrong choice. By claiming such a patently non-sensical point, they ceased to be taken seriously by me and many other moderates.

In a sense, the Republican silence on the recent “Downing Street Memo” shows the depth of the partisan perversion within that party. Conservatives are pretending that the memo does not exist, and few US media have even commented on it. Indeed, what few comments have been elicited from officials in London and Washington were mere mumbles to the effect that it had no significance.

In my opinion, that memo changes everything. I ran into news about the memo in a New York Times article by Paul Krugman, a columnist I consider to be thoroughly detestible and hateful. I still would not give a dime for his article because he cannot write two sentences without spewing hate and contempt for conservatives, but the link he provided to the memo was more important.

The memo, dated to July 23, 2002, proves that the Bush government was already decided on going to war against Iraq and was merely debating how to arrange it. It flatly contradicts a number of claims by Bush and White House officials that all avenues of approach were still open. Furthermore, the memo also proves that the Bush government already had preliminary plans for the attack on Iraq. The memo also shows that the head of British Intelligence at the very least was suspicious of the quality of pre-war intelligence on Iraq. The man, Sir Richard Dearlove, believed that the US government was manufacturing evidence to favor the war policy. Finally, it also proves that the post-war situation was not a great priority with the Bush administration. And it also seems to prove that Mr Blair is indeed what his opponents in Britain have always labeled him: George Bush’ lapdog because what little input the British Prime Minister provided during the recorded meeting was limited to making suggestions as to how the weaknesses in Mr Bush’ approach might be fixed.

The issues resulting from the publication of the Downing Street Memo are too important to be ignored by Congress. I support Congressman Conyers (D-MI) in his attempt to convince the House Judiciary Committee to investigate the matter. Congress must investigate. I also think that, if proved accurate, the allegations of the memo are serious enough to impeach and convict president Bush and his advisors Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell on charges of fraud, conducting an illegal war and abuse of executive power.

This is a tough claim to make since I am thoroughly opposed to the liberal agenda of the Democratic Party. Right now national politics are taken up by the filibuster issue and you know where I stand on that matter. However, I have come to believe that George W. Bush has broken the law and does not have the right to be president of the United States. If we as orthodox Christians want to take the idea of moral absolutes seriously, we have to consider God’s judgment of this matter. I do not think we can afford to find excuses for the president’s behavior and make strategic arguments about the importance of a conservative force to counteract the so-called ungodly policies of liberals. Wrong is wrong, whether it wears an elephant or a donkey button on its lapel. We must insist on this standard or the standard has no meaning.

In the Nuclear Winter of the Filibuster

2005-04-22T21:01:00.000-05:00

The Republicans have put the nomination of two judges on the agenda again, even though the previous Congress filibustered their nomination. It is the first move in a complicated chess game that Republicans have warned will lead them to change Senate rules, unless Democrats back down on the filibuster.

Naturally, Democrats are outraged. They argue that it is the dictatorship of the biggest bully, When the game does not go their way, Republicans change the rules, Democrats say. The underlying argument is that the filibuster is not illegal, in fact, that it is a purposely designed part of the system of checks and balances, intended to prevent the majority party to rule by decree. Every senator has the constitutional right to speak, even if it be ad nauseam to the rest of the Senate. Tough toenails, is the Democratic response to that objection. The law is the law.

Technically speaking, the Democrats are right. Limiting debate without the required sixty senators to end it is a violation of the rules as they stand. But ethically and morally, Republicans have every right to be outraged at the Democratic use of the filibuster. The concept of “filibustering” in the Senate was not designed by the Founding Fathers, nor any other statesman. The filibuster came into being when political debate degenerated into political sabotage. To talk of the filibuster as a constitutional device is nothing but propaganda. I have written about this before.

The question is, will the Republicans have the guts to change Senate rules? Vice-president Dick Cheney has already indicated he will cast the tie-breaking vote if the Senate votes 50-50 on the question. But Democrats have already warned that they will shut down government if the rules are changed. That would mean, no legislation of any kind would get passed, with severe consequences for all branches of public service. No salaries of federal employees would get paid and federal services and agencies such as US Mail would shut down.

The Democrats are banking on the likelihood that the Republicans will find that perspective too worrying. A handful of Republican senators have already said that the “nuclear option” as the Democrats disparagingly call the proposal to end the filibuster is too much for them, and they will vote against it. The Democrats are probably right. Their assessment, that the voters will hold Republicans—and not Democrats—responsible for the mess that would ensue, is probably correct. It is an illusion to think that the Republican electorate is made up largely of highly-principled conservative Christians. In the chaos, it will probably become clear that business interests and lobbyists’ money do most of the talking.

Thus, I believe that, even though I support ending the filibuster, it will not come to that. Nevertheless, the dispute has highlighted how wide the fallout would reach if the partisan Civil War did come to a head. New York Times columnist David Brooks yesterday analyzed the situation correctly, when he noted the main wedge separating red from blue America: Roe v. Wade. Until the liberal tyranny from the judicial benches is undone, there can be no normality in US politics.

Spain to Legalize Gay Marriage

2005-04-21T21:53:00.000-05:00

After the Netherlands and Belgium, Spain is set to become the third country in the world where gays and lesbians will be allowed to marry (source: BBC News). The Lower Chamber in Spain’s parliament approved a bill today that would make this happen. The Upper Chamber is not likely to block it. An unprecedented roar erupted from the public balcony when the bill was approved. “A historic day for Spain,” the numerous gay activists exclaimed.

A historic day indeed. But it will be a black page in Spain’s history books. Gay activists had campaigned hard to get this bill approved. The main reason for passing it? According to the gay activists, Spain needs to award gay people these special rights in order to move Spain from a conservative Mediterranean culture to a progressive European society, that is, to make it more in line with the rest of Europe.

But there are only two other countries in Europe where gay marriage is legal and they are not exactly the most important ones either. It is just another example of gay activists giving phoney reasons for claiming special rights and being just a little bit more equal than other people.

There are rumblings in other countries, too. Sweden is already notoriously pro-gay, as is Denmark, which recognizes gay partnerships. And last year, Great Britain worked on passing a bill on civil unions as well. Pro Family groups in that country have been campaigning hard to explain to the British public that the civil union bill would create gay marriage in all but name. It would award, like the Spanish bill, special privileges to a group of people, solely on the basis of their sexual preferences.

In other words, two non-gay men or non-lesbian women who share property or a house together for other reasons—because they are long-time elderly friends sharing rent, or a disabled mother and her daughter who takes care of her—would not get any of the privileges and benefits that gays and lesbians do get. Despite the fact that there are only a few gay couples who would benefit. If you are not gay, you just don’t qualify.

A Protestant’s Response to the Election of Benedict XVI

2005-04-20T23:00:00.000-05:00

It would be easy to say, as a protestant, that the election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to be the next pope, leaves me completely disinterested. It would also be a complete lie. And for all those protestants who scoff at the media hype about it, here’s news for you: it matters for protestants who is pope.

The sad thing is that in the dechristianized West, your average heathen neighbor cannot tell the difference between Christians and Mormons, or Christians and Muslims, and certainly not between Protestants and Roman Catholics. Read the liberal media and you should realize that everyone who talks about Jesus is automatically labeled an evangelical and if you ever mention anything contrary to one of the New Age creeds

—“We believe in a woman’s right to abort her baby because she cannot face changing diapers. We believe in the right of any human to marry any other creature regardless of race, religion, gender, species or number. We believe in creating life for spare parts and ending it for spare parts. So help us the Universal Energy into which we hope to be dissolved when our bodies die.”—

you are sure to be called a right wing extremist or be compared to a member of Al Qaeda.

In other words, most ignorant liberals (not necessarily a tautology) will consider the pope the universal representative of Christianity. What the pope says or does, reflects on all Christians, even protestants. It is the weakness of the schismatic nature of protestantism that there is no unified ambassador on earth. But then I guess, protestants believe in that one Ambassador, Jesus Christ, Someone the RC church has sort of lost sight of when Mary and the saints (please do not start a rockband with that name) started crowding Him out.

So, what is a protestant to make of Pope Benedict XVI? As far as I can tell, he is a clone of John Paul II. He has somewhat less charisma and more of a German accent but, apart from that, it seems John Paul II is ruling from beyond the grave. That means a strong conservative voice on social issues but also, unfortunately, unflinching on the RC superstitions, i.e. Mary as a fourth person in the Trinity, purgatory and indulgences, praying to a pantheon of saints and worshiping the bread-god in the eucharist. Another toughy. Let’s just pray that the new pope will focus on the former and down-play the latter, at least in the public arena. Because if he is seen as a strong, principled Christian, his example may yet be a PR opportunity for the gospel. After all, the Holy Spirit does not need human perfection to effect grace and faith. Even the pope can be saved.

Dutch Secretary Labels Prostitution ‘Fitting Employment’

2005-04-15T12:22:00.000-05:00

Dutch parliamentarians are struggling with some unforeseen consequences of the legalization of prostitution in their country. The lower chamber debated on Wednesday, April 13 with Labor Secretary Mr. De Geus about his assessment that prostitution cannot be dismissed as unfitting employment in all circumstances.

Under the Dutch welfare system, the unemployed can only continue receiving benefits if they are registered with a government employment agency and actively participate in finding a job. The government also has guidelines to link vacancies to jobseekers’ qualifications. Under those guidelines, refusing a job considered a fitting match to one’s qualifications results in a benefit cut.

However, with the legalization of prostitution, the government employment agencies were forced to start registering vacancies in this branch. In a letter to parliament last month, Mr. De Geus reported his department’s assessment that there is no basis under current Dutch law to exempt prostitution from the government guidelines regarding fitting employment. While he remarked that the agencies are not actively recruiting jobless women for these vacancies, and are in fact encouraged to leave them “dormant” in their databases, the enforcement branch of the Department of Welfare and Labor is compelled to consider the question whether a job as prostitute may be fitting employment for certain people. The secretary suggested that “women who were formerly employed as prostitutes” might well fall into that category.

Even the Dutch parliament is unhappy with this situation but is faced with the consequences of its own actions. Many secular representatives are scrambling to find a compromise but legally there can be no exemption for prostitution as long as it is legal.

Meanwhile, Christian representatives are warning of worse situations in the future. Rep. Tineke Huizinga and Ms. Yvette Lont, both members of the Christian party ChristenUnie, write in the Nederlands Dagblad that the legislation creates a trap for women who are currently trying to get out of prostitution. Registering with the government employment agency would only cause the agency to make the observation that they are qualified for their vacancies in prostitution. While no-one has as yet had their benefits cut under the Dutch rules, Rep. Huizinga and Ms. Lont note that authorities in Germany, where similar legislation was enacted, have done so with a 25 year-old schooled IT worker who refused to accept a job as prostitute. The fact that Mr. De Geus is ignorant of the true state of affairs in the world of prostitution is commendable in him as a private person, Huizinga and Lont write, but as Secretary he should know better.

While it is important not to engage in superficial assessments of the climate in liberal Holland, there is no denying that ignorance and a sharp decline in Christian values have made the country into a showcase for what happens when utilitarian pragmatism becomes the basis for morality. Perhaps the most difficult for conscientious Christians in the Netherlands is the fact that their battle for traditional values is somewhat invisible in the absence of active persecution of Christians and in a place where Satan does not fight openly under the banner of outright evil but deludes good but ignorant citizens in the disguise of New Morality. Let us remember to pray for those who are fighting and for those who are being deluded.

Sources: (for those who read Dutch)
http://www.volkskrant.nl/denhaag/1113368295894.html
http://www.refdag.nl/website/artikel.php?id=1210356
http://www.nd.nl/newsite/artikel.asp?id=60182

Nuclear Option A Good Thing

2005-04-14T11:02:00.000-05:00

The sooner Congress decides to outlaw the sabotage practice known as “filibustering” the better. Personally I think that the Founding Fathers were having a bad day when they forgot to prohibit it. The filibuster is a deeply undemocratic tool that has never been used for anything but obstructing the will of the majority of the people. Now, don’t get me wrong, minorities should not be robbed of their rights. But there is no justification for claiming special rights for minorities. The Declaration of Independence talks about “all men [being] created equal”, not about some minorities being so special as to warrant extra rights, because otherwise it would be unfair.

Yet that is the position of the Democrats. They have been denouncing the so-called “nuclear option” as more evidence of the fact that Republicans are just power hungry and want to lord it over the poor little Democrats. I could not disagree more. Democracy is Greek for “rule by the people.” The majority of people voted for Republicans so that they have the mandate to make decisions. The Democrats’ misuse of Congressional debating procedures is unconstitutional and unethical and should be prohibited.

But wait. That does not solve everything. I am not a Republican and while I happen to side with the Republican proposal on this topic, I do not support the Republican party. I am quite wary about the hypocrisy that is manifesting itself among Republicans (and Democrats). Scrapping the filibuster would tip the balance to the Republicans. It would be foolish to deny that. It would be in line with the election results but does have certain risks.

So, what is the problem? The problem is the two-party system. Since everything in US politics is binary, the result in Congress is that one of two parties will always be in charge. If there were ever a third party with enough clout to keep either party from 50% influence, the filibuster would become unnecessary to prevent the dictatorship of the majority. That would mean pretty large changes in the US election system. Right now all other parties apart from the Republicans and Democrats are completely meaningless. That is something I worry about, since I support neither party. So, let’s start retiring some of those Republicans and Democrats and replace them with third-party candidates. Let’s build up a true conservative party that is not in the pocket of big businesses and special interests but finds its true basis in Scripture and the Constitution.

(That, by the way, is not an endorsement of the Constitution Party, with whom I also have certain quarrels.)

New Ambassador to that Institution that Doesn’t Exist

2005-04-13T23:43:00.000-05:00

I suppose it’s not a promising start to a conservative blog if the first couple of messages just rail against Republicans. Well, see my previous posting. The thing is, this Bolton guy doesn’t merely look bad in the liberal media portrayals, this guy is a loonie. Of course, his embarrassment must be enormous. Before he was nominated for this high-profile government post, he was free to say whatever many protectionists really do think (that the UN is an unnecessary super-government). Now it is coming back to haunt him. I don’t know whether he is qualified for the job in the mere technical sense (i.e. does he have the right diploma’s and job experience). But I can tell you now that the guy is not qualified for this job. If you are on record as saying that you can remove the top floors of the UN building without anyone noticing the difference, that doesn’t sound like you take the UN very seriously.

It is another very disappointing decision by George W. Bush. I am really not a great fan of him as a president. He’s probably a nice enough guy in person but there are a number of policies that I really can’t agree with. What ever possessed him to nominate John Bolton for the UN ambassadorship? Are there really no other Colin Powells out there, people who don’t necessarily have to be perfect but who at least aren’t complete fruitcakes?

Tom De Lay Should Resign as Majority Leader

2005-04-13T23:38:00.000-05:00

Well, call me a liberal then, if you have to. Even if I am really a conservative, I am by no means a Republican. Many in the US confuse the two terms. And don’t think that Mr. De Lay is not conservative enough for me. I simply think that his conduct is, shall we say, less than entirely ethical. Even for appearances’ sake, he should have stepped down as majority leader long ago. I do not believe all the allegations Democrats are lodging against him, but, for goodness sake, he is an embarrassment for conservatives. Don’t confuse my politics with this man’s practices, please.

A Calvinist's View of the Papacy

2005-04-12T17:10:00.000-05:00

So, what are we to make of the recently deceased pope? Even among Roman Catholics there is considerable disagreement about John Paul II and his achievements. Most liberals, both Catholics and non-believers, always reviled him as a backward fossil who was out of touch with reality. Yet many nominal Catholics in Europe—those who barely make it to church once a year—mourned him as one of the greatest popes the church ever had, a view shared by many conservative Catholics around the world.

Pope John Paul II was honest and consistent. Once he had made up his mind he would not waver. He did not change direction with the wind. He was consistent in everything, sometimes to minute details that nevertheless could affect important public pronouncements. John Paul II condemned war as an outworking of sin and as inherently evil, but he did not reject it as morally repugnant by definition. He believed that any country has the right to defend itself and use military means if all other avenues were exhausted. As a result, he was known to be against the Iraq war, a fact often cited by anti-war protesters. But he condoned the US intervention in Afghanistan without having to compromise his principles because that war was justified: it was in direct reaction to a military attack and thus counted as self-defence.

He was a fierce promotor of environmental protection and criticized the false notion, still held by many American conservatives, that capitalism is the most effective economic system ensuring freedom and equality. One can hardly accuse the pope of having been a communist, since he saw its evils firsthand in his native Poland. He was simply smart enough to see that economic policy can only do so much to make man happy.

But in other areas Pope John Paul II had more troubling views. Liberal secularist condemn his views of abortion, women’s rights (within and without the church), contraception, gays and AIDS. As a Calvinist, I disagree with many theological doctrines held by the Roman Catholic church. The heresies pointed out by Martin Luther, John Calvin and the other reformers are still adhered to by the largest Christian denomination in the world. The erroneous idea that Mary and the saints can somehow intercede for us with God, among the most damaging inventions of the medieval church, was strongly revived by John Paul II. The Roman Catholic church still holds to a number of such errors, such as the validity of the apocryphal books of the Old Testament, the idea that one is saved through faith and works, indulgences and purgatory, and transsubstantiation during the Eucharist. Any Protestant must be annoyed that the Roman Catholic church never repealed its 16th century pronouncement that all non-Catholics are going to hell. And, finally, the whole idea of a "pope", based on a misreading of Jesus’ charge to Peter, is something Calvinists shrug their shoulders at.

In other words, there is enough for Protestants to complain about. Some have called the pope the anti-Christ, echoing the words of the Westminster Confession. Similarly, the Heidelberg Catechism talks about the "papal mass" as a condemnable idolatry. But these documents always talk about the institution, never about individual people. While I heartily agree that the Roman Catholic church stopped being a faithful church somewhere during the High Middle Ages, that does not mean that there is no shred of Christ or the Gospel left within that denomination. Nor does it mean that all Catholics are condemned to hell, neither the ordinary believer nor those in orders.

The man Karol Woytiła was a sinner like everyone else. Yet he seems to have loved God and his neighbor to the best of his ability. As pope he did nothing special to deserve to be condemned to hell by any on this earth. That judgment is up to God. He was gentle and kind, a charismatic speaker and writer, intelligent, principled and a good leader. He was someone who heard, believed and taught a version of the Gospel infected by a millennium of Roman heresies. Considering the extent of the pollution, it is to the credit of God that His grace shone through even within the Roman Catholic church during the ponitificate of John Paul II. Just as no man is expected to grasp all of God’s truth completely, neither was the late pope. The errors he taught will be charged against him at the Judgment Seat but if he believed in Christ as his only Savior, then he, too, is now in glory.