Trump Travel Ban Is Not Unconstitutional

Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has declared the Trump temporary travel ban not only "un-American" but "unconstitutional." Others have joined him. What is exactly is "unconstitutional" about it? "There should not be a religious test. The Constitution prohibits it," was Sen. Schumer's claim. They "imposed this religious test on Muslims in the executive orders," said former VP candidate Sen. Tim Kaine. What religious test?

Worth noting, there is a "religious test" clause in the Constitution ( Article VI, Section 3). It prohibits a "religious test" to holding federal public office. There is no such prohibition regarding immigration or foreign travelers.

The detractors and airport travel obstructers have, with their hashtags and media support, further declared this a "Muslim Ban." It isn't. Even George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley who labeled Trump's order a "terrible mistake," says legally “the odds are in his favor... And president’s power is at its zenith at the border. The courts have historically given great deference to the president. He has the advantage here, putting aside all these objections, historically, presidents have been allowed to do very similar things." It's not a "Muslim Ban." One billion Muslims are not included in the order. All measures are a few month temporary restriction on travel and immigration from six countries (plus avowed enemy of the U.S. and terror sponsor Iran) that had been designated by Congress and Obama as serious concerns in 2016 while the "vetting" process is reviewed. Even if it were a "Muslim Ban" it might still past constitutional muster based on historical past precedent and the plenary power doctrine, especially with current statutory backing (e.g., 8 U.S. Code § 1182(f)).

Chuck Schumer, whose grandfather was a Holocaust survivor whose large family was murdered, instead of crying before the cameras, should appreciate providing religious minorities preference for entry purposes. It's something precious FDR explicitly failed to do during WWII. Why provide such a preference? I'm sure his Jewish grandfather would have appreciated such a policy should he have had the opportunity to flee, as would the members of the infamously sent away St Louis. If only there were an Executive Order like this providing a preference for religious minorities from Europe in WWII countless Jews would have been spared a cruel genocidal death. What's that? This order specifically includes a provision regarding protecting "religious minorities."

Despite being massacred and wiped out by Islamic forces, Christians and others seemed to curiously not make the "refugee" cut of the Obama administration despite the rather special circumstances of religious persecution. CNN’s chief national security correspondent tweeted: "There is no basis to the claim Muslim refugees were prioritized over Christians. Fact is, refugee policy not based in religion, until now." What an ignoramus! As former federal terrorism prosecutor Andrew McCarthy responded: "False. False. False. Religious considerations are BY LAW part of refugee policy. And it is entirely reasonable to give preference (though not exclusivity) to members of minority religions. Finally, you can read the entire executive order from start to finish, reread it, then read it again, and you will not find a Muslim ban. It’s not there. Nowhere. At its most draconian, it temporarily halts entry from jihadist regions. In other words, Trump’s executive order is a dramatic climb-down from his worst campaign rhetoric." In fact, the order mentions neither Christians nor Muslims. It says: "The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality." That includes Christians and Yazidis being wiped out by Muslim jihadists. Trump is protecting persecuted "religious minorities," not providing any "religious test"! Shame. Shame. Shame, on Schumer, who perhaps more than anyone should realize the value in such a provision.

Tweet

Natural Born Citizen: Ted Cruz's Eligibility For President Is An Open Question

I am a Ted Cruz fan. If my endorsement means anything, I back him as a presidential candidate and likely intend to vote for him. Yet I will not lie or be a hack. The likes of Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt, others on talk radio and elsewhere, claiming it is an open and shut case that Ted is eligible to be President are being misleading and being total shills for Cruz. The Constitution requires a "natural born citizen" be President (Article II, Section1, Clause 5). This is distinct from a "naturalized" citizen, or a citizen in accord with congressional statute. The founders were intimately aware of English common law and Sir William Blackstone when they ratified the Constitution. Blackstone wrote that "natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England" and that, in contrast, "naturalization cannot be performed but by act of parliament." Does Ted Cruz meet the requirements for the highest office? Let's not pretend it's not an issue worthy of being litigated. I for one would be mighty interested to see how Clarence Thomas would rule on the question. In fact, Ted Cruz was born abroad to an American mother, and prior to May 24, 1934, U.S. citizen mothers were not permitted to transmit U.S. citizenship to their children born abroad (prior to 1934 children born outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States acquired citizenship at birth if they had American fathers, unless the father had never "resided" in the United States prior to the child's birth). Suffice it to say that Donald Trump is not at all wrong in saying it is an open question, especially if one believes the only proper method of Constitutional interpretation is to look toward original meaning.

The question becomes what "natural born citizen" meant at the time of ratification. Was the original intent that the Constitutional clause would be subject to Congressional statute? Some have made this argument. Perhaps, but if so, it would be quite an anomalous provision in the Constitution (after all, you don't need a Constitutional provision to set a requirement subject to Congress, the whole point generally is that Congress is supposed to be subject to the Constitution). What was the original meaning of the phrase? That alone should be dispositive. While I am not completely certain, let's not be hacks and pretend the question suddenly went away because it's our guy running for office.

I can't see why Blackstone's views would not affect originalist exegesis. Why would that not be the case? That seems mighty odd. Granted, reading the natural born citizen clause to mean "anyone Congress says is a citizen at birth" is a possibility. Maybe. But are you truly convinced of that? A recent article in Washington Post arguing the opposite said that James Madison, known as the “father of the Constitution,” stated, “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. . . . [And] place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”  In originalist circles there is clearly an open question. Why the need to pretend the answer is obvious? It's not. The whole Obama birther movement was based on him being born in Kenya, and nobody responded to it saying it made no difference because he had an American mother. Instead they proved he was born in Hawaii. Prior to these "birther" movements it seemed to be a rather broad consensus, taught in basic civics or government classes, that one had to be born in the United States to be President. Why were we all being taught that? Am I supposed to wipe my memory drive clean and pretend I never heard that before? That it wasn't the "consensus" before the new consensus. 

The main substance of John Eastman's argument in National Review argues that the 1790 naturalization act says what Congress considered "natural born citizen" within that statute. It is certainly interesting that they used the same phrase as the Constitution, and maybe that alone should be dispositive as to fact that they meant to leave it open to Congress to decide who was a citizen at birth, and only those people were eligible for the Presidency. Or maybe not, because typically we don't look to acts of Congress to define a Constitutional provision, let alone one replaced in 1795. See, the argument then goes not that he is a "natural born citizen" based on the 1790 statute, since that's long gone, and replaced within a few years, but rather the 1934 one. And that statute defining him as a citizen at birth makes him a "natural born citizen." Again, maybe. That seems to run against Blackstone's distinction, but it seems to also run against the basics of "originalist" jurisprudence. Then again, some are arguing that's what they originally had in mind. Maybe. Even if that is right, and it may very well be, don't tell me this is obvious, open and shut, legal consensus, against "birtherism." That's baloney, and I say that as a person who is big fan of both Cruz and John Eastman (who on this issue, in line with his politics, suddenly agrees with the other "smart guy" on Hewitt's show, the liberal "living Constitutionalist" Erwin Chemerinsky). 

Also, the idea that this would affect those born to military members overseas is a red herring.  A leading authority in England prior to Blackstone was Edward Coke, who wrote about this subject in Calvin's Case. According to Coke: "[I]f any of the King's ambassadors in foreign nations, have children there of their wives, being English women, by the common laws of England they are natural-born subjects, and yet they are born out-of the King's dominions." One could easily argue that those posted overseas in service to the government, such as members of the military, would be treated no different than an ambassador in this regard. Tweet

ARE WE BEING LIED TO ABOUT THE SAILORS TAKEN INTO CAPTIVITY? TEN QUESTIONS THAT REQUIRE ANSWERS

 The Iranians taking our sailors into custody stinks to high heaven. We are not getting the real story or any true transparency. Am I supposed to believe, as Biden put it, that this was a "rescue mission" and "standard nautical practice?" Here are 10 very basic common sense questions the Obama administration and Navy should have to answer post haste:

 1. Our seamen get taken by Iran rarely, if ever, and they are suddenly taken into Iranian custody on Monday. Am I supposed to believe it is pure coincidence that Iran takes sailors into custody a few hours before the State of the Union? Days before billions and billions of dollars are being released to Iran? Is the timing really just pure chance or did it play a role in this happening precisely when it did?

2. A former Naval Commander stationed in Bahrain said, per CNN, that there is "no reason for a small vessel to be out that far and especially without escorting ships around it." Where are the other ships? The Commander also said: "The Navy has to explain why you have small ships transiting 300 miles of open ocean." How did these two boats end up alone out there just hours before SOTU? CNN sent this Commander's questions to the Pentagon and they "declined to comment."

3. Per Popular Mechanics, the Riverine Command Boats (RCBs) have a crew of 5 and can carry up to 20 passengers. 10 sailors were held by Iran. Why would they surrender in both boats rather than board a single boat before being taken captive, perhaps even attempting to tow the other?

4. Each of these boats had twin inboard diesel engines. The RCBs use Swedish-made Scania diesel engines coupled to Rolls-Royce FF410 waterjets to reach speeds of more than 43 knots. That means there would have been a total of four engines between these two boats. With that many engines in play, were there no opportunities of escape or evasive action prior to capture? Was there no possibility of one boat being able to tug the other before ending up in Iranian waters?

5. Is it standard rules of engagement for U.S. service members to surrender on their knees? Was no evasive action attempted before this? There are four mounts for machine guns which can handle M2HB .50-caliber heavy machine guns, GAU-19 .50-caliber miniguns, and M240 medium machine guns. Typically a RCB mounts one of each, with one .50 caliber station sometimes mounting two heavy machine guns. The boats are also equipped with a Mk49 remote control weapons station equipped with a M2HB heavy machine gun. Developed by Israeli defense contractor Rafael, the Mk49 has a 360 degree arc of fire. The armor on these boats provides protection from up to 7.62-millimeter bullets.

 6. RCBs are packed with sensors and communications gear. The Sea FLIR III infrared sensor system features a thermal imager sensor, laser rangefinder, and autotracker, all on a gyro-stabilized package to keep the image stable on a rocking boat. So how did they end up in Iranian waters? Further, the latest in communications allows the boats to communicate with other navy ships, aircraft, and even ground forces. Immediately upon entering Iranian waters or well before was there no communication to the U.S. Navy to provide rescue? Or is it standard procedure when in mechanical failure to await surrender one one's knees before an enemy rather than call for back-up?

 7. Even non-soldiers know that per the Geneva Conventions one communicates only name, rank, and serial number. The military’s code of conduct requires prisoners to resist providing propaganda statements. Why would one of the sailors provide a video apology? What exactly were the orders this group was operating under? From who at the highest level did those orders come from?

 8. Instead of reacting like there was a crisis, every high ranking official in the government went to listen to a speech within a couple hours. They then immediately began saying there would be a release because of cooperativeness resulting from the "Iran deal." Why was no one acting like there was an emergency situation? Why was this spin ready so early?

9. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) told an interviewer that the Obama administration alerted Iranian forces as to the "mechanical failure." Is there any credence to this claim? If so, is there any possible way to explain alerting the enemy rather than the Navy?

10. When American Navy members are shown on camera on their knees surrendering and on the floor in captivity, with the female being forced to wear a hijab, when those pictures are paraded in the media in violation of international law, is it standard procedure to thank the hostile force on video and in writing? This doesn't pass the smell test. It's worse than fishy. In case you think I am being overly conspiratorial, please recall that there's precedent for dishonesty. Anyone remember Bowe Berghdal? The initial stories from the White House were total lies. It took forever for the truth to get out, and the White House knew the full story from the start. The Army went along because they were under orders. So forgive me if I don't take every word coming from this White House when so many very basic questions remain unanswered. Unless a lot more answers are provided, I am forced to conclude we are not getting the full story, and may be intentionally being lied to.

UPDATE:  Pentagon is already changing their story: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/14/carter-says-navigation-error-not-mechanical-problem-put-us-boats-in-iranian-waters.html  Tweet

Rabbi Finds $98,000 In Craigslist Desk, Returns to Owner

Tweet

USA Today: Israel Has Endured "Three Months Of Near Daily Attacks By Palestinians"

USA Today reports that Israel has endured "three months of near daily attacks by Palestinians... Since late September, Jerusalem and the West Bank have been plagued by almost daily stabbings, shootings and vehicle attacks." Among the dead was an American student. Today two were killed in Jerusalem's Old City during a stabbing attack before the terrorists were neutralized. This murderous Jewish hatred is not an aberration, a fringe, a tiny minority, but deeply rooted in Israel's enemies. A poll published just last week by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research found 67% of Palestinians support stabbing attacks on Israelis. What would your nation do if it faced daily attacks from an enemy population? Should Israel not be pressured to protect its citizens from time to time, rather than having its arm twisted to concede and appease time and time again? If this were happening on the streets of London, Paris or New York, daily, would there not be a greater international outcry? Would there not be UN resolutions and demands for justice? Sad fact, but Jewish life has again become cheap. People of goodwill, civilized nations, if a truly moral compass pervaded our world, would together launch an international outcry. Israel can't count on anti-terror marches from world leaders in Tel Aviv. That's saved for France. And it's a damn shame. But like France, Israel's leadership should promise a "pitiless" response. If Jewish blood is less important to the world, it should be made far more costly to take by the Jewish State to make up for it. Tweet

John Kerry Excusing Palestinian Murder of Jews Blaming Israel

To hell with John Kerry. Jews are getting mowed down and stabbed to death day after day, after the "moderate" Abbas says Jews are defiling Al Aqsa with their "filthy feet" and glorifies the killers, as Imams incite their followers to kill, after Abbas says he is not bound by Oslo at the UN, the Secretary of Surrender blames Israel for the "frustration" of the Palestinians. Kerry and Obama have been rotten leftists from before their political careers. They are an embarrassment to America. See http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Kerry-to-visit-Israel-amid-crisis-423892


Tweet

Random Thoughts On The Democrat Presidential Debate

Did anyone notice the irony in Bernie Sanders slamming "casino capitalism" at a debate held at the Wynn in Vegas?

Ann Coulter should start watching the Democrat debates. That's where Israel never gets mentioned.
 
Hillary actually responded to a question about Edward Snowden saying "he broke the laws of the United States" and allowed info to fall "into the wrong hands." You mean kind of like that private e-mail server? Hillary for Prison 2016!

Why the jubiliation and excess cheering from the crowd at refusing to answer for her illegal actions easily exposed to foreign surveillance? What's wrong with the Dems in that room? They like bold lies and cover-ups? And what's wrong with Bernie Sanders for bailing her out on that question?

Most of this snoozefest was about how awful America is because of Wall Street, because America doesn't spend enough, and because rich people are not taxed enough. Not a word about the head-choppers all night. 

Jim Webb seems like the only sane person on that stage. Too bad he's not polished enough to impress. He seemed like a normal guy standing next to three leftist stooges and the smiling nobody all the way at the other end.

If Jim Webb is against affirmative action, against gun control, for coal, is the only person on stage willing to say that "all lives matter," and gave an actual answer on our greatest national security threats that didn't fall back on "climate change," why isn't he a Republican? Move him to the Republican debates.

Lincoln Chafee seems like he'd be useful if you needed someone to read a story to your grandkids. Not much else.

Asked who is the enemy they are most proud of having made in their career, aside from Webb, I heard the coal industry, the NRA, and "the Republicans." Donald Trump already has a more real enemy in El Chapo. Why no answer about the radical Muslims or those threatening America?

Why is "illegal alien" a forbidden word at the Dem debate? It's in the United States Code. US law doesn't say anything about those who are "undocumented." I guess they must think U.S. immigration law is racist.

Why does Hillary always have to remind us she's a woman? I guess she thinks we can't tell.

Tweet

THE "GENDER WAGE GAP" IS BOGUS

The 77 cents to the dollar figure that is bandied about so commonly is a "raw gender wage gap," the ratio of the median earnings of women and the median earnings of men. That's not as important. You have to compare apples to apples, taking into accounts such obvious factors as career fields, experience, education, and so on. If you don't account for the factors it's a completely meaningless statistic. Worse, it's a pernicious one, meant to deceive and create the impression of drastic discrimination where none exists. It is a fact that there are all sorts of factors therefore unconsidered that have nothing to do with minimizing women's accomplishments, but rather respecting women's choices. One can find all sorts of studies that demonstrate that once factors that account for variations in wages are taken into account the wage gap all but disappears, if not greatly decreases. I'll link to one such study, precisely because it was released by the Department of Labor in 2009. I would assume this would be a credible source to those who think this is some conservative conspiracy I'm espousing. "Extant economic research has identified numerous factors that contribute to the gender wage gap. Many of the factors relate to differences in the choices and behavior of women and men in balancing their work, personal, and family lives. These factors include, most notably, the occupations and industries in which they work, and their human capital development, work experience, career interruptions, and motherhood. Other factors are sources of wage adjustments that compensate specific groups of workers for benefits or duties that disproportionately impact them. Such factors for which empirical evidence has been developed include health insurance, other fringe benefits, and overtime work... [I]t can confidently be concluded that, collectively, those factors account for a major portion and, possibly, almost all of the raw gender wage gap." Also, "statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent." The Department of Labor's own study flatly contradicts liberal conventional wisdom. I of course find it unsurprising that most would be unaware of this fact as well.

Here's the link.  Tweet

Corker-Menendez Bill On Congressional Involvement In Iran Deal Is Republican Capitulation And Inversion Of The Constitution

Why is the White House suddenly declaring they will sign the current Corker-Menendez bill on Congressional involvement in the Iran deal? Because it's a complete capitulation from Congress and an inversion of the Constitution. Article II, Section, Clause 2 clearly states that "two thirds of the Senators present" must "concur" on a "treaty." The Iran deal should be subject to a yes-or-no up-or-down vote requiring a supermajority for enactment. What this bill instead does is allow both houses of Congress to vote by simple majorities as to whether to lift current sanctions as per the eventual deal. If they vote against doing so, Obama may use his veto pen. It then would be incumbent upon the legislative chambers to gain two-thirds to override the President's veto. This arrangement effectively shifts the supermajority burden in the President's favor, rather than the strong Congressional check and balance intended by the Framers of the Constitution.

Sen. Bob Corker can pat himself on the back all he wants, but in reality he surrendered Congressional authority. That's why Obama will sign the bill. Shame on Congressional Republicans for their mock victory when they should have worked to pass a bill in line with the Treaty Clause. Not only that, but you need no bill for this process. If Obama was not going to treat the Iran deal as a treaty, a majority of Congress could have easily passed a law against lifting sanctions anyways which Obama could then veto. You need no special bill to line this out. What this bill does is effectively lock that process in and grants a victory to Obama by ensuring his Iran deal will not be treated like a treaty by the legislative branch.

Tweet

LEFT & RIGHT: THE MARXIST vs. MORAL MINDSET

"[P]olitical forms [cannot]...be comprehended whether by themselves or on the basis of a so-called general development of the human mind, but...on the contrary they originate in the material conditions of life... It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness." - Karl Marx, "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy," 1859

Leftists look at the world through a Marxist lens. Karl Marx reduced every struggle to class conflict. Liberals are influenced and educated by leftists and it is no surprise therefore that liberals too, consciously or not, are constantly blaming the system or class conditions as the true cause of destructive and dangerous behavior. They don't like Marx, however, only look to economic class. The politics of the left is defined by categories of thinking tied to perceived oppressed classes needing protection. If you are not any preconceived protected class, you may become a target of the left. 

Yesterday, State Department Spokeswoman Marie Harf stated, "We cannot kill our way out of this war [with ISIS]. We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups...[such as] lack of opportunity for jobs." Time Magazine published "In Defense of Rioting" during Ferguson with the author writing that "in our capitalist society...[u]ntil I have had to walk in a person of color’s skin...I will be inherently privileged." Extremely high violent crime and murder rates in the black community are chalked up to "poverty" and blame is placed on "the system." After the 9/11 attacks, in a Newsweek cover essay, "Why They Hate Us," Fareed Zakaria argued that jihadism was a result of political/social/economic stagnation of Arab societies. The left launches campaigns to demonize Israel and blames all Palestinian jihad terror on Israeli "oppression" and "occupation." The left's refrain is that "the rich" must pay their "fair share." Abortion is viewed as a "women's rights" issue and a "woman's right to choose." Sexism, intolerance, xenophobia, Islamophobia, homophobia, intolerance, racism, and bigotry become the knee-jerk epithets of choice against anyone that dare take a position the left disagrees with. Only a Marxist-style framework could produce this kind of thinking.

On the other hand, conservatives view the world through a moral prism. This requires unabashedly making moral judgments and disavowing moral relativism. This morality mindset looks to values and ideology rather than perceived oppression and protected classes. Misconduct is more often attributed to downright evil ideologies, backwards cultures, warped or absent values, or an inability to distinguish between right and wrong.

Conservatives refer to a "clash of civilizations," and are far more unembarrassed in calling out and blaming the Islamist ideology of America's enemies. George W. Bush at least at times referred to "Islamofascism" or "radical Islam," while Obama and his minions are incapable. ISIS is a deeply religious Islamic millenarian group, with a theology that must be understood to be combatted. Ronald Reagan called the Soviets an "evil empire," and George W. Bush warned of an "axis of evil." Black crime rates are disproportionate because of a culture in need of repair and moral fiber in need of strengthening far more than any white racism. No one seems to have imparted a basic moral constitution or meaningful values into Ferguson rioters. Israel is a vibrant democracy facing a primitive evil enemy bent on her destruction since her birth. The right believes that taxation is a species of "legalized larceny" without a compelling public interest.  Instead of gender guiding the entire opinion, the conservative asks when the moral obligation to protect the unborn child comes into being.  Refusing to stand up to evil or with perceived justice is far more ignoble than any particular set of pre-packaged group-based insults.

This is not all-extensive list, more examples could be given if more issues were examined closely. Granted, this is merely my proposition, but it's also a thought experiment I challenge you to take. Listen to the debates of our day and see if you can find examples constantly, on your own, that too neatly fall into this left-Marxist, right-Morality dichotomy.

Tweet

The Facetious Argument That A Congressional Invitation To Israeli PM Netanyahu To Speak Before Congress Without White House Permission Is "Unconstitutional"

An argument has been circulating among law professors, posted on various legal blogs and picked up by more popular political blogs, declaring House Speaker John Boehner's invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress "unconstitutional."  My immediate reaction was one of surprise to see this argument even surfacing and seriously making the rounds.  While I have long known not to take the ramblings of law professors on constitutional issues too seriously, I failed to heed my own admonition. This was so facetious that even I didn't see it coming. Yet what I found most disturbing was its emanating with certain academics claiming to root their argument in textual and originalist constitutionalism.

The rather absurd contention seems to have originated on Opinio Juris with Temple University law professor Peter Spiro arguing that Congress has violated the "the logic of presidential control" in diplomatic relations. Even the White House, where an official told reporters that Netanyahu had "spat in our face" by accepting the invitation, has only called the Boehner invitation a mere "breach of protocol".  Spiro writes, "If this were happening beyond the political anomalies of the Middle East, I wonder if it might be using some stronger language."  Oh really? Had John Boehner invited one of the Castro brothers without White House permission to address Congress upon Obama's normalizing relations with communist Cuba, would the White House have even complained about a so-called "breach of protocol"?  This question answers itself.

Even the Volokh Conspiracy's reliably pro-Israel George Mason University law professor David Bernstein joined Spiro's ranks.  "Since I give Obama a hard time when he acts unconstitutionally and contrary to the separation of powers, I hereby give Boehner a hard time for inviting Netanyahu despite the absence of any apparent constitutional authority to do so," Bernstein writes.  Perhaps he has shared his hand right there, attempting to increase his constitutional bona fides at the expense of his well known unassailable pro-Israel views, with very little downside.  If that's the case, he has chosen the wrong issue to use for such a demonstration.  I am not attacking motives, but rather commenting on the professor's own statement.  Me thinks though doth protest too much.

Bernstein does little but rehash Originalism Blog's University of San Diego law professor Michael Ramsey's post and write that they "do strike me as likely being right." Ramsey's argument is all the more distressing given that it claims the mantle of originalist interpretation of the Constitution.  Ramsey's argument amounts to the following:  "First, Congress has no Article I, Section 8 to host a foreign leader... Second, reception of foreign leaders is an exclusive power of the President.  Article II, Section 3, provides that 'he [the President] shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers.'... The President’s power here is properly understood as exclusive."  He then goes on to cite a historical affair involving the Presidency of George Washington as evidence of original meaning. 

While it is true that Congress has no such power explicitly listed in Article I, Section 8, it is also true that pointing that out is utterly irrelevant.  Congress is not exercising a legislative power, but merely hosting a speaker.  No law is being passed, no vote is being taken. A close ally is addressing Congress, and Congressmen clearly have the ability to listen to speeches. The Weekly Standard's legal blogger Adam White further rebuts both the points made by Ramsey rather convincingly, and is worth excerpting at length:

True, Congress does not have a specific, explicit constitutional authorization to meet with foreign leaders, but then again the same could be said of Congress's convening of hearings, oversight inquiries, public events, or other receptions undertaken to support Congress's ultimate lawmaking and appointment-confirming actions. Congress does, after all, have constitutional powers to make appropriations in support of foreign policy, to confirm the appointment of diplomatic personnel, and to ratify treaties. Hearing from foreign leaders -- merely hearing from them -- can support those constitutional objectives, just as congressional hearings support Congress's legislative actions...  Ramsey attempts to analogize this to the "Citizen Genet Affair," the 1793 episode in which the French government directed communications to Congress, rather than to President Washington, in the hopes of finding an audience more receptive than the Washington administration, given its neutrality between Britain and France... The administration, through Secretary of State Jefferson, asserted that the president alone was "the only channel of communication between this country and foreign nations," and Congress acquiesced to that assertion of power. But this analogy loses all sense of proportion: France's efforts in 1793 -- commissioning privateers, planning land-based expeditions in the United States, and establishing French prize courts in the United States -- went well beyond the mere speech that Netanyahu would make to Congress. Indeed, one wonders how far such arguments against Congress cut. Would Professor Spiro argue that members of Congress cannot travel abroad to meet foreign officials -- such as Nancy Pelosi's 2007 visit to Syria? Would Professor Ramsey prohibit Republican presidential candidates, including members of Congress, from traveling abroad to meet with foreign audiences and leaders, as President Obama did in 2008 -- including a meeting with Netanyahu, and then-Prime Minister Olmert -- and Governor Romney did in 2012?... Nothing Congress does, pursuant to its longstanding constitutional powers affecting foreign policy, will confuse anyone as to the official position of the United States, under President Obama, with respect to Israel... Finally, speaking of the Supreme Court, Professor Spiro's aggressive criticism of Congress's relations with foreign leaders conveniently leaves aside the third branch of government: the Supreme Court. Would Spiro, or other law professors critical of Congress and Netanyahu, impose similar constraints on the Court's communications with foreign nations and leaders? The Court often receives "amicus briefs" from foreign nations and leaders, urging the Court to adopt various constitutional interpretations -- not just in the small subset of cases "affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls" (over which the Court has constitutional jurisdiction), or even in cases affecting foreign policy more broadly (e.g., Guantanamo and immigration), but also those involving purely domestic issues of constitutional law, such as the death penalty. Would Spiro and others prohibit the Supreme Court from accepting any such briefs, except the briefs authorized by the president? Or is Congress the only branch of government that must be walled off from foreign voices?

While White authored a highly persuasive rebuttal to the silliness circulating among some in legal academia, he also made a fundamental error.  He conceded "that the president's authority to 'receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers' is surely a broad grant of power," and launched his counterargument after agreeing to that faulty foundation. The "Father of the Constitution" James Madison wrote in 1824, "I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution." Alexander Hamilton in March 1788 said in Federalist no. 69 during the ratification debates:

The President is also to be authorized to receive ambassadors and other public ministers. This, though it has been a rich theme of declamation, is more a matter of dignity than of authority. It is a circumstance which will be without consequence in the administration of the government; and it was far more convenient that it should be arranged in this manner, than that there should be a necessity of convening the legislature, or one of its branches, upon every arrival of a foreign minister, though it were merely to take the place of a departed predecessor.

The idea that this very clause provided a "broad power" over foreign affairs was the "declamation" of those who opposed ratifying the U.S. Constitution. It is precisely an argument of those who argued against the Constitution becoming the supreme law of the land in the first place, warning against an overpowering executive. In turn, Hamilton made clear during the debate over ratification that it contained no such authority, but was merely a formalism allowing the President to receive ambassadors without the legislature convening.  This is precisely the opposite of the conventional wisdom espoused by even the rebuttal to the frivolous arguments advanced by those arguing Boehner violated the Constitution.  

Justice Joseph Story wrote in his "Commentaries on the Constitution" in 1833, "From the nature and duties of the executive department, he must possess more extensive sources of information, as well in regard to domestic as foreign affairs, than can belong to congress."  This is in no way precludes the Congress inviting the leader of a close ally to address a joint session.  

Despite protestations from some legal scholars,  the House Speaker does not have to "consult" the President before issuing an invitation to a close ally to address Congress. Congress is not a subservient branch of government to King Obama, and nothing in the Constitution suggests as much. Lawless Obama's spokespeople whined about Boehner breaching "protocol" in issuing the invitation to one of our closest allies. I shed no tears. This coming from the President who has repeatedly threatened to act without Congress (i.e., to act with his his phone and pen), having made good on those threats. Yet now he has the gall to protest a "breach of protocol"?  Netanyahu was wise to accept the invitation to sway the American people and U.S. Congress away from a delusional foreign policy. As of today he is scheduled to address a joint session on March 3, primarily on the threat posed by that Islamic Republic gaining nuclear weapons.   

The White House has announced they will arrange no meeting between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu during the Israeli leader's visit to Washington. While this is revealing in and of itself regarding the President's relationship with the State of Israel, it is indeed his Constitutional prerogative.  Tweet

Responding to Atheist Scientist In the New York Times: Unabashedly Publishing "The Talk" an Evolutionary Biology Professor Gives His Students

University of Washington evolutionary biology professor unabashedly pens a column in the NYT about how he evangelizes for atheism to college students taking biology classes. Would a scientist who let his classroom know about scientific arguments for intelligent design, or books that made those arguments, be able to give a converse "Talk" in most public university science classrooms with no repercussions? Let alone a religious scientist advocating for theism in what he called "The Talk" at the start of his biology class? Oh please. In fact, his arguments are facile, foolish, and pompous all at the same time. His arguments and my brief rebuttals boil down to:

1. "We have come to understand that an entirely natural and undirected process, namely random variation plus natural selection, contains all that is needed to generate extraordinary levels of non-randomness." Unfortunately for him, the scientific literature is not filled with the detailed explanations for the origin of ("irreducibly") complex structures (let alone DNA) explained in terms of random variation plus natural selection. And all this does not even address the origin of life or the universe itself, or the laws or constants that allow life to exist in our universe at all.

2. "A few of my students shift uncomfortably in their seats. I go on... [N]o literally supernatural trait has ever been found in Homo sapiens; we are perfectly good animals." He says humans have no "literally supernatural traits." What does that even mean? Even the most literal creationist would expect humans to have "literal" natural traits, with blood flowing and organs pumping. I don't think anyone expects scientists to find a soul under a microscope. Regardless, no animal comprehends right and wrong, good and evil, or fashions moral codes. Let alone music, art, etc. I await the great works of St. Barkustine and Meowmonides.

3. "Biological insight makes it clear that...the natural world... is filled with ethical horrors: predation, parasitism, fratricide, infanticide, disease, pain, old age and death -- and that suffering (like joy) is built into the nature of things." These are not "ethical horrors," as ethics revolve around human agency. I think what the foolhardy professor actually refers to is a sort of "natural evil." On that point, the only reason a proselytizing atheist professor seems to describe these natural occurrences as "unethical" is precisely because of the very human uniqueness he denies in his previous point. After all, he give no explanation for why it is "unethical" when it is purely "natural"? The real issue of natural evil itself is why innocent humans should suffer, not why there are parasitic flowering plants. Though given his previous point, maybe he can't see the distinction. The question of innocent suffering is a question so old the Bible presents it as an issue in the Book of Job (as the professor is aware, given his dismissive characterization). In every particular, or even every grand historical event, it is not a question that has a simple and identifiable answer. What is clear is that this is all a far cry from teaching a biology class to college students, and the professor has a very muddled or confused idea of the questions he himself is posing. 

The professor believes in atheistic Scientism, and he believes his science background automatically turns him into an amateur philosopher. It doesn't, or at least not a very good one. But even if he believes that false belief as well, he should not turn his classroom into a forum for indoctrination.

Tweet

Obama vs. The Constitution's Original Meaning: Presidential War Powers and Congress' Power "To Declare War"

President Barack Obama has to date launched two wars without congressional authorization.  One was against Libya ousting Moammar Ghaddafi allowing an Islamist takeover and murder of an American Ambassador and three others in Benghazi. He now has announced halfhearted aerial assaults on the Islamic State whose failure top generals are already openly predicting due to Obama's announcing to the enemy that ground troops are a priori off the table. In neither case did the President even pretend he required congressional authorization.  I intend to explain the Constitutional requirements surrounding the initiation and execution of war.  By doing so, it will become obvious that President Obama has failed to follow the Constitution. 

One power that belongs to the Congress is in Article I, Section 8, Clause 12:  The enumerated power "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." The next clause allows Congress "[t]o provide and maintain a Navy."  If Congress truly wanted to end a war that the President started without authorization it could do so by defunding it. Congress always controls the power of the purse. The political implications of voting against funding for troops in harm's way is an obvious drawback to this power in this context.  Nonetheless, it is worth noting at the outset.

However, most issues surrounding war powers deal with two basic, sometimes seen as competing, provisions.  Congress' power "to declare war" in Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 with with the President's designated role in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 which states "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States."

While some legal or historical scholars (most prominently Professor John Yoo) have attempted to minimize Congress's power to declare war as pro forma and not an actual requirement, this does not bear the weight of the original historical record.  The Constitution's clauses must be interpreted in light of their original meaning. Looking to what those who ratified the Constitution said about its meaning makes it much easier to interpret.

At the Constitutional Convention on May 29, 1787, this clause was debated.  The draft language first proposed gave Congress the power to "make war."  After an objection, James Madison, often labeled the Father of the Constitution, changed the wording to "declare." His notes state the purpose of the change was "leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks."  With this change, the motion was agreed to. 

During the debate over the Constitution's ratification, the Federalist proponents of establishing the new Constitution discussed this power.  In Federalist No. 4, John Jay, who would become the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court,  noted:  "[A]bsolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people." Therefore, Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 69, that the president's Commander-in-Chief authority "would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the constitution under consideration would appertain to the Legislature."  During the Pennsylvania Convention to ratify the Constitution, James Wilson, a future Justice of the United States Supreme Court, stated clearly:  "This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large: this declaration must be made with the concurrence of the House of Representatives: from this circumstance we may draw a certain conclusion that nothing but our national interest can draw us into a war."

During the Constitutional Convention, and expressly stated during the ratification debates, the original meaning was made clear.  The "declare war" power of Congress was no formality.  It was an important check against monarchical tyranny.  Congressional authorization was needed to start a war, with the caveat that the President need not wait for Congress if there is a time-sensitive need to eliminate an imminent attack on the nation.  Once the war is declared by the House and Senate, the President then acts as Executive, which in this context translates into being the leading commander.

 In 1793, President George Washington, who presided over the Federal Convention, wrote to South Carolina Governor William Moultrie in regards to a prospective counter-offensive against the American Indian Creek Nation: "The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress, therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure." Notice the use of the word "offensive."  This is contrast to "defensive" action thus paralleling the debate that took place in Philadelphia where the Constitution's language was changed to allow the President to "repel sudden attacks." Also in 1793, James Madison wrote letters to Alexander Hamilton under the psuedonym "Helvedius." In these letters he is explicit in delineating the original meaning of the Constitutional phrases in question.  He wrote:

In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture to heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man; not such as nature may offer as the prodigy of many centuries, but such as may be expected in the ordinary successions of magistracy. War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honours and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered, and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honourable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.

He also wrote, "Every just view that can be taken of this subject, admonishes the public of the necessity of a rigid adherence to the simple, the received, and the fundamental doctrine of the constitution, that the power to declare war, including the power of judging of the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature." In a letter dated April 4, 1798, James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson:  "The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature."

Often those who argue against an expansive role for Congress in having the full power to initiate war will cite President Thomas Jefferson's actions against the Barbary Pirates in Tripoli.  But President Thomas Jefferson, who served as Secretary of State under President Washington, himself said in a statement before Congress specifically regarding Tripoli and the Barbary Pirates, that he was “unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense." Congress did eventually authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed American vessels to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify." In a message to Congress in December, 1805 regarding potential military action to resolve a border dispute with Spain, President Thomas Jefferson acknowledged that "Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war, I have thought it my duty to await their authority for using force.”

Of course, Alexander Hamilton in 1801 had an interesting minority perspective: "That instrument has only provided affirmatively, that, 'The Congress shall have power to declare War;' the plain meaning of which is that, it is the peculiar and exclusive province of Congress, when the nation is at peace, to change that state into a state of war; whether from calculations of policy or from provocations or injuries received: in other words, it belongs to Congress only, to go to War. But when a foreign nation declares, or openly and avowedly makes war upon the United States, they are then by the very fact, already at war, and any declaration on the part of Congress is nugatory: it is at least unnecessary." Firstly, Hamilton is known for later arguing for broader interpretation than he himself may have assured in the Federalist Papers, and it is his assurances made during the ratification debate that are the greater evidence of the true original meaning of any Constitutional passage.  Secondly, even this interpretation is a check on Presidential authority.  For "provocations or injuries received" still require Congressional approval for the use of force.  It is only when the homeland or American forces are thrust into a state of war that it would render Congressional approval a formality rather than a requirement.  Nonetheless, the mainstream view in the early years of our Republic was stated by Justice Joseph Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution in 1833: "The only practical question upon this subject would seem to be, to what department of the national government it would be most wise and safe to confide this high prerogative, emphatically called the last resort of sovereigns, ultima ratio regum. In Great Britain it is the exclusive prerogative of the crown... [But] the power to declare war [under the Constitution] may be exercised by congress, not only by authorizing general hostilities, in which case the general laws of war apply to our situation; or by partial hostilities, in which case the laws of war, so far as they actually apply to our situation, are to be observed."

In his War Message to Congress on June 1, 1812, President James Madison was convinced war was necessary against Britain, and he laid out that case.  But he went to Congress for approval for this reason:  

"Whether the United States shall continue passive under these progressive usurpations and these accumulating wrongs, or, opposing force to force in defense of their national rights, shall commit a just cause into the hands of the Almighty Disposer of Events, avoiding all connections which might entangle it in the contest or views of other powers, and preserving a constant readiness to concur in an honorable re-establishment of peace and friendship, is a solemn question which the Constitution wisely confides to the legislative department of the Government."

At the Virginia Ratification debates in June 1788 the great orator Patrick Henry, arguing against ratifying the Constitution, said, "If your American chief be a man of ambition and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute! The army is in his hands, and if he be a man of address, it will be attached to him, and it will be the subject of long meditation with him to seize the first auspicious moment to accomplish his design."  Federalist Virginia Governor Edmund Randolph replied: "In England, the king declares war. In America, Congress must be consulted. In England, Parliament gives money. In America, Congress does it. There are consequently more powers in the hands of the people, and greater checks upon the executive here, than in England."

When President Obama initiated military action against Libya toppling its leader and changing its government, soon falling into the hands of Islamists, all without Congressional approval, he clearly violated the Constitution even taking the most Hamiltonian view of Presidential war powers.  With the Islamic State, he once again has refused to seek Congressional authorization for his air strikes.  It is a pattern.  Even if both actions are justified as a matter of policy, not consulting Congress is unjustified as a matter of the Constitution.  Before President George W. Bush initiated the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he received the requisite approval from Congress.  In contrast, the current occupant of the White House is in violation of the Constitution, and therefore is acting, once again, as a usurper of power. Tweet

"Separation Of Church And State": John Eastman Provides The Real History

Tweet

Dennis Prager And Jonah Goldberg Discuss Liberal vs. Conservative Messaging

Tweet

Senator Ted Cruz Responds To "Schoolyard Bully" Charge From Majority Leader Harry Reid

Tweet

God Or Atheism: Which Is More Rational?

From Prager University: Tweet

Bill Maher vs. Cal State Professor On Radical Islamic Terrorism

Tweet

Reading The Boston Bomber His Miranda Rights

The reading of the Miranda warnings to the Boston jihadist by a magistrate who waltzed into the hospital with a public defender during the interrogation led the bomber to immediately lawyer and clam up. FBI sources indicate they were still in the midst of questioning that was yielding valuable intelligence. They were surprised when their interrogation was called off. I would remind anyone engaging in histrionics over Miranda being delayed that the Miranda rights have no significant support in the history of the privilege or in the language of the Fifth Amendment. That which was devised in the Miranda v. Arizona ruling has a judicially created "public safety exception" allowing for questioning without the reading of rights. The precise contours of that exemption remain undefined. If this contrived exception to a now sacrosanct yet originally concocted rule is to exist, and the Boston atrocity demonstrates that it should, the circumstances to which it applies must be more clearly defined. There is no reason the DOJ should be invoking it and then suddenly removing it while the FBI is under the impression they are allowed more time to delay the made up privilege.

Formally watering down an invented right in cases such as mass and potentially international Islamist terrorism is not scandalous. It is common sense. Tweet

The Boston Bombings: Deadly Political Correctness

Three innocents were killed in the terrorist attack on Boston, including an eight-year-old child. Blood and body parts spattered the streets of one of America's greatest cities, with tens facing injuries such as severe amputations and worse, and countless more severely injured. This death toll is worth taking seriously. The attack happened in the same city where an incident occurred that helped inspire a revolution. In 1770 British troops had fired on Americans, killing five men and wounding six. The enemy were the British, and it was taken as a sign of their imposition of unjust rule over the colonies. The confrontation is still referred to as the "Boston Massacre" to this day, making its way into every high school American history lesson. The assault was not forgotten when the same State began fighting at Lexington and Concord in 1776. Are today's Americans taking the contemporary attack on Boston seriously? Will we even remember it six years from now, let alone six months from now? The answer is straightforward. Not if we do not know or recognize the enemy, and the character of the forces America is battling. Not if we leave it to the forces of political correctness. 

Let's be clear. Jihad came to Boston. Will those in the media (MSNBC, NPR, CNN, etc.), that speculated time and time again without any hard evidence that an anti-government right-winger had committed the Boston atrocity, now take the time to reflect upon their own biases? Don't hold your breath. The mainstream media must deal with ratings, a 24-hour news cycle, and their agendas. They at least have poor excuses, and no sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. The bigger problem lies with the fact that the highest levels of the American government refuse to name the enemy or the ideology that attacked Boston. Was it "jihad"? Was it "Islamism"? Was it "Islamofascism"? Not according to President Barack Obama. 

The press conference President Obama held after the FBI killed or captured the Boston jihadists was seriously defective. Analyzing his key statements is important. President Obama stated, "Obviously, tonight there are still many unanswered questions. Among them, why did young men who grew up and studied here, as part of our communities and our country, resort to such violence?" I would point out that not long after the FBI released the photos of the bombers, and long before this press conference, everyone knew the bombers were radical Islamic terrorists. That already had gone quite a long way in answering that question. 

The President said, "One thing we do know is that whatever hateful agenda drove these men to such heinous acts will not — cannot — prevail.” Why must the President feign ignorance of their agenda? The President continued, "Whatever they thought they could ultimately achieve, they’ve already failed. They failed because the people of Boston refused to be intimidated. They failed because, as Americans, we refused to be terrorized." Did they really fail? Contrast the reaction of Israel to terrorism, with that of the United States. If a Palestinian blows up Bus #14, after the streets are literally cleaned of body parts, Israelis will board Bus #15. That's not being intimidated or terrorized. In Boston, a manhunt for one 19-year-old terrorist sent a major American city into a lockdown, with the New York Times reporting "this raucous, sports-loving, patriotic old city became a ghost town," and with military-style swat teams making their way through civilian neighborhoods. 

Finally, the President concluded with, "After all, one of the things that makes America the greatest nation on Earth, but also, one of the things that makes Boston such a great city, is that we welcome people from all around the world — people of every faith, every ethnicity, from every corner of the globe. So as we continue to learn more about why and how this tragedy happened, let’s make sure that we sustain that spirit." Please explain, Mr. President, why, if nothing was known about the motives or hateful agenda of the terrorists at this point, did you find it necessary in this statement to specifically state that "people of every faith" are welcome in America? 

 Let's be honest. This press conference was nothing more than the High Priest himself coming out to present an offering before the altar of political correctness. The only problem is that it is utterly unworthy of those who were sacrificed. Vice President Joe Biden called the bombers "knock-off jihadis," and proceeded to ask, "why do they do what they do?” What needs be realized is that once you understand that they are jihadis, the mystery begins to unravel. 

This is part of a disturbing trend. When President Obama delivered a speech to students in Jerusalem over a month ago he spoke of "the rise of nonsecular parties" in the Middle East. As Charles Krauthammer recently noted in the Washington Post: "Non-secular? Isn’t that a euphemism for 'religious,' i.e., Islamist? Yet Obama couldn’t say the word. This is no linguistic triviality. He wouldn’t be tripping over himself to avoid any reference to Islam if it was insignificant." He explained that the Obama "administration obsessively adopts language that extirpates any possible connection between Islam and terrorism. It insists on calling jihadists 'violent extremists' without ever telling us what they’re extreme about." 

Far more than just insulting the intelligence of the American people, the culture of political correctness appears to pervade law enforcement to the point of endangering American lives. Russia warned our country about Tamerlan Tsarneav, yet the federal law enforcement community allowed him to construct his pressure cooker bombs, to post his jihadist propaganda online, and to travel back and forth freely between the U.S. and Russia (all while receiving welfare from the Massachusetts taxpayer). Even the most obvious warnings and red flags were missed. That these went ignored even after the 2009 attack on Fort Hood by Major Nidal Malik Hasan is inexcusable. The Associated Press reported in November 2009 that federal "law enforcement officials say the suspected Fort Hood, Texas, shooter had come to their attention at least six months" prior to his attack "because of Internet postings that discussed suicide bombings and other threats, including posts that equated suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades." In the aftermath of the Fort Hood Massacre, information poured in about the "red flags" and "warning signs" of Nadil Malik Hasan's Islamist extremism going ignored by the FBI, the Defense Department, and the U.S. Army. No action was taken. 13 soldiers now lie dead in the graveyard of political correctness. Unfortunately, nothing has changed. A deadly refusal to confront the enemy, for fear of being falsely labeled a bigot, or even worse an "Islamophobe," is crippling the ability of law enforcement to protect the homeland. 

When a pattern emerges, sheer incompetence becomes a less credible excuse. The refusal to condemn outright the evil ideology of the Boston bombers is a sign of fecklessness. Despite screaming “Allahu Akbar!" when killing fellow soldiers, despite having communicated with Al Qaeda terrorist Anwar Al-Awlaki, and more, the Obama administration still labels the attack on Fort Hood an incident of "workplace violence." When the first Ambassador to be killed since 1979 is murdered in Benghazi with other innocent Americans, emphasis is placed on blaming an irrelevant youtube video in the immediate aftermath. 

It's time for political correctness to end, and for counterterrrorism to operate without willful blindness. It goes without saying that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not terrorists. That caveats like this, stating the obvious, are even viewed to be necessary, is itself a product of political correctness. While it is true that not every Muslim is a terrorist, it is equally evident that the threat of international jihad needs to be exposed, especially after lethal terrorist acts, if only in order to prevent them in the future. Failure to learn this lesson will only lead, G-d forbid, to further otherwise avoidable devastation. Tweet