Friday, December 30, 2011
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Absurd Reasoning Of A Federal Appellate Court In Not Protecting Adult Incest As A Constitutional Right, Like The Supreme Court Has Regarding Sodomy
In Lawrence v. Texas (2003) the Supreme Court invalidated Texas’s sodomy law as violating the United States Constitution. The case involved “two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle.” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for a majority of the Court that “there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.” The Supreme Court therefore ruled that “[t]heir right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.” That Lawrence v. Texas serves only, regardless of the merits of its outcome, to utterly abuse the original meaning of the Constitution is beyond doubt.
But more importantly, Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out in his dissent that the logical extension of Lawrence v. Texas should be the elimination of laws against adultery, incest, polygamy, bestiality, and more once morality alone can no longer serve as the basis for legislation. “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are…sustainable only in light of…validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision,” Scalia warned.
Scalia's logic is quite sound, and federal courts have since had to face just such arguments. Now exactly these sorts of cases testing Scalia’s prediction have indeed appeared before the federal appellate courts with Lawrence v. Texas as the argument of the criminal defendant as to the unconstitutionality of their conviction. On December 8, 2011 the Sixth Circuited Court of Appeals decided the case of Lowe v. Stark County Sherriff. Paul Lowe was criminally convicted of incest in the State of Ohio for “engaging in sexual conduct by means of sexual intercourse with his 22-year old stepdaughter.” Lowe argued in part “that the Ohio Supreme Court unreasonably applied federal law as clearly established by the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas” because that Court framed “the issue as `whether [Mr.] Lowe is guaranteed a fundamental right to engage in sexual intercourse with his consenting adult stepdaughter,’ rather than framing the issue more broadly as ‘the recognition of the right, as between consenting adults, to engage in private sexual conduct.’” In other words, just as the Supreme Court protected homosexual sodomy by clearly stating there is a broad right to sexual autonomy and privacy, the sex in this case should also be protected given that it is between consenting adults. The argument is impeccably logical (resulting directly from the Supreme Court decision being inherently absurd).
So how did the Sixth Circuit respond, not wanting to set a precedent that would be the first step in Constitutionalizing incest? As to the substance of Lowe’s claim, the Court responded, “assuming that Lawrence clearly established a fundamental right and/or a higher standard of [judicial] review, we hold that neither the right nor standard is implicated in the present case.” But how can that be? Are these not “two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices” in accord with freedom beyond "spatial bounds" and liberty's "spatial and more transcended dimensions"? What happened to the Supreme Court’s hallowed and sanctified “autonomy of self”?
The Court in Lowe then stated that “[i]n this regard, we agree with the Seventh Circuit's decision in Muth v. Frank [(2005)]… concluding that ‘[g]iven . . . the specific focus in Lawrence on homosexual sodomy, the absence from the Court's opinion of its own `established method' for resolving a claim that a particular practice implicates a fundamental liberty interest, and the absence of strict scrutiny review,’ there was no clearly established federal law ‘that supports [the defendant's] claim that he has a fundamental right to engage in incest free from government proscription.’” This is a shameful cop out by two federal appellate courts. To simply state that the Supreme Court case is limited to its facts is to pretend that no overarching constitutional principle was in fact announced by the Supreme Court. Supreme Court cases are “precedent” because the legal principles therein must be applied to new facts in new cases that will arise in the lower courts. The facts must otherwise be logically distinguished, or else any case could be decided by a mere announcement saying “these facts are not identical to the one the Supreme Court decided.”
After this blanket and nonsensical quote from a sister appellate court, the Sixth Circuit then attempts to engage in distinguishing this case on its facts. It argues that the “stepparent-stepchild relationship is the kind of relationship in which a person might be injured or coerced or where consent might not easily be refused, regardless of age, because of the inherent influence of the stepparent over the stepchild.” But in the case of consenting adults in Lowe, by the very fact that they are “consenting” and legally able to do so as adults, on what basis can the government interfere with sexual “autonomy of self”? What about, in the words of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, the supposed “respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices”? In fact, the charge in this case was not rape! Rape by definition is the crime involving sexual “coercion” or lack of consent. Incest by definition is the crime involving sexual contact between relatives (as defined by State statute). Incest has nothing to do with coercion or lack of consent as a matter of application in law. If there was evidence that the stepfather had coerced the aged 22 stepdaughter into having sex, or that the 22 year old lacked the ability to consent, a rape charge would be more than sufficient to confront that in the same way it does in other cases of rape.
Next, the Sixth Circuit declares that “the State of Ohio's interest in criminalizing incest is far greater and much different than the interest of the State of Texas in prosecuting homosexual sodomy” because “Ohio's paramount concern is protecting the family from the destructive influence of intra-family, extra-marital sexual contact.” Why does the government have the right to “protect the family” in the case of consenting adults in line with Lawrence? This cannot mean protect the stepdaughter, because she consented as did the two homosexual partners in Texas. And protected against what? I guess the family needs to be protected against a certain type of “[f]reedom [that] extends beyond spatial bounds” in all its "transcendent dimensions." The fact is that the Supreme Court was so broad in its ruling in Lawrence that the distinctions are bound to be based on this kind of nonsense.
In fact, the Sixth Circuit rules that “Ohio has an interest in protecting all families against destructive sexual contacts irrespective of the particular factual family dynamic.” So immediately after making a feeble argument that is large on unexplained categorical statements and little on actual reasoning or explanatory power, in reliance on a factual distinction, the Court then says that we can now ignore certain other facts in this case by making a categorical statement that they do not matter. This is the kind of judiciary the Supreme Court with its unconstitutional decisions has bequeathed us.
The fact is that the Supreme Court was so broad in its ruling in Lawrence in its flowery language surrounding sexual “autonomy of self” that the distinctions that the lower courts are forced to make are bound to be nonsensical. To avoid Scalia’s foreshadowed logical outcome to the Supreme Court’s sodomy ruling also resulting in constitutionalizing incest and every other form of private sex between consenting adults, the appellate courts have been coerced to engage in legal acrobatics to factually distinguish one form of sexual contact from another, without even very insightful reasoning. As if the job of a federal judge is in accord with the 14th Amendment to arbitrarily determine what type of sex is worthy of Constitutional protection (and search for reasons why one form of sex happens to be different than gay sex that the Supreme Court has arbitrarily held to be protected acts).
Let me be clear, I am not advocating that incest be constitutionally protected. I am pointing out the absurdity of the Supreme Court’s sodomy ruling forcing these distinctions be made regarding incest in the first place in order to somehow still maintain the supremacy of the Supreme Court. All I can therefore say is that these decisions seem to indicate a stepparent-stepdaughter relationship between the lower federal courts and the Supreme Court of the United States. They are certainly in the kind of relationship in which a judge might be coerced or where consent to absurd higher rulings cannot easily be refused, regardless of their devotion to common sense and original meaning, because of the inherent influence of the Supreme Court over the lower courts in forcing agreement with their illogical rulings.
John Yoo On The Iranian Threat And Why Now Is The Time To Make The Case For Military Action Against Iran
John Yoo's must read article, December 29, 2011, "An unavoidable challenge: Now is the time to make the case for military action against Iran": http://www.aei.org/article/foreign-and-defense-policy/regional/middle-east-and-north-africa/an-unavoidable-challenge-now-is-the-time-to-make-the-case-for-military-action-against-iran/ Tweet
State Of Israel: America Must Take The Iranian Threat As Seriously As Israel, Or Israel Will Have To Unilaterally Attack
"We don't need unnecessary wars. But we definitely might be put to the test. The non-diplomatic point is a last resort. The fact that all options are on the table is agreed upon by everybody." - Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, December 1, 2011 http://www.google.com/
The Daily Beast also reports on the discussions between the U.S. and Israel on what would trigger a military attack on Iran:
"The stakes are immensely high, and the distrust that Israelis feel toward the president remains a complicating factor. Those sentiments were laid bare in a speech Netanyahu’s minister of strategic affairs, Moshe Ya’alon, gave on Christmas Eve in Jerusalem, in which he used Panetta’s remarks to cast doubt on the U.S.’s willingness to launch its own military strike... Three U.S. military officials confirm to The Daily Beast that analysts attached to the Office of the Secretary of Defense are often revising estimates trying to predict what events in Iran would trigger Prime Minister Netanyahu to authorize a military attack on the country’s nuclear infrastructure. Despite repeated requests going back to 2009, Netanyahu’s government has not agreed to ask the United States for permission or give significant advanced warning of any pending strike... The new diplomacy has prompted new conversations between the United States and Israel over what the triggers—called 'red lines' in diplomatic parlance—would be to justify a pre-emptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities." http://
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Another Reason To Never Vote For Ron Paul: Add The Racist Newsletters To The List
Right now I'm leaning toward Newt Gingrich (and I obviously don't care terribly for Romney), but the one Republican I will never vote for is Ron Paul who I hope will fail in Iowa next week. His views of America's role in the world are foolhardy, his stating that a nuclear Iran is of no concern is dangerous, his libertarian purism in saying heroin should be legalized goes far beyond the mainstream of the American electorate, and his certainly questionable statements about Israel are quite troubling. Now add the racist newsletters for which he offers the unbelievable and lame excuse that he did not read or edit his own newsletter. Though obviously a dubious response, I would posit that if the man cannot run a newsletter, filled with nutcase nonsense, he certainly is unfit to run our country. See http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98883/ron-paul-incendiary-newsletters-exclusive for the evidence regarding the newsletter. Tweet
Democrat Senator Ben "Cornhusker Kickback" Nelson Will Not Run For Reelection
TweetDemocratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska will announce today that he is retiring after two terms, a serious blow to Democratic efforts to hold onto their majority in the chamber next November.
Nelson is scheduled to hold a press conference back home in Nebraska as early as today to make his decision official, said several Democratic insiders close to the leadership. …
The White House and top Senate Democrats, including Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), had quietly mounted a pressure campaign to keep Nelson from retiring. Nelson has more than $3 million in his campaign war chest, and his approval rating solidified after falling over the last several years.
But with Nelson stepping down, the Democrats’ hold on the Senate is in serious doubt, although Democratic leaders believe they can still do so. Republicans are expected to pick up control of the Cornhusker State seat, although popular former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D) has been talking to top Democrats about possibly running again.
Islamist Terrorist Christmas Bombing Of Nigeria Churches Kills 39 People
The Washington Post reports 39 deaths: Boko Haram has carried out increasingly sophisticated and bloody attacks in its campaign to implement strict Shariah law across Nigeria, a multiethnic nation of more than 160 million people. The group, whose name means “Western education is sacrilege” in the local Hausa language, is responsible for at least 504 killings this year alone, according to an Associated Press count.
Tweet
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Friday, December 23, 2011
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Jimmy Carter Sends Condolences To Kim Jong Un
Business Insider reports:
TweetIn the message Jimmy Carter extended condolences to Kim Jong Un and the Korean people over the demise of leader Kim Jong Il.
He wished Kim Jong Un every success as he assumes his new responsibility of leadership, looking forward to another visit to the DPRK in the future.
Newt Gingrich To Gay Voter: If Redefining Marriage Is Your Singular Issue, Support Obama
Despite the above, the Des Moines Register presented the above exchange like this:
Scott Arnold, an associate professor of writing at William Penn University, approached the former Speaker of the House and “asked him if he’s elected, how does he plan to engage gay Americans. How are we to support him?” “He told me to support Obama,” said Arnold.Tweet
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Monday, December 19, 2011
Hanukah In The New Testament
A major theological divide between celebrators of Chanukah and Christmas, to this day, as found in the Christian Bible:
"Then came the Festival of Dedication [Chanukah] at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was in the temple courts walking in Solomon’s Colonnade... Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, 'I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?' 'We [Pharisees] are not stoning you for any good work,' they replied, 'but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.'" - John 10:22, 31-33 (NIV)
Jews still celebrating Chanukah today stand by this fundamental reasoning said to have been provided by the Judaic rejecters of Jesus and continue marking the Festival of Dedication, while followers of Jesus will celebrate the birth of their deity on Christmas this winter. Either way, enjoy whatever holiday you choose to celebrate!
Tweet
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Christopher Hitchens Dies
His last article on his struggle against cancer was published in the January issue. An excerpt:
Hitchens was an honest and intelligent guy until the end, and always entertaining whether you agreed with him or not. He was often the guy you would want to see go up against a debate opponent, regardless of whether you agreed with him. In his religious debates my sympathies were not with him, but yet in others regarding foreign policy they sometimes were with him. Despite my disagreements with him about a lot of things, I think his participation in our civil discourse was in many ways constructive. I am most sorry to hear he will no longer be a part of it. TweetI do remember lying there and looking down at my naked torso, which was covered almost from throat to navel by a vivid red radiation rash. This was the product of a month-long bombardment with protons which had burned away all of the cancer in my clavicular and paratracheal nodes, as well as the original tumor in the esophagus. This put me in a rare class of patients who could claim to have received the highly advanced expertise uniquely available at the stellar Zip Code of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. To say that the rash hurt would be pointless. The struggle is to convey the way that it hurt on the inside. I lay for days on end, trying in vain to postpone the moment when I would have to swallow. Every time I did swallow, a hellish tide of pain would flow up my throat, culminating in what felt like a mule kick in the small of my back. I wondered if things looked as red and inflamed within as they did without. And then I had an unprompted rogue thought: If I had been told about all this in advance, would I have opted for the treatment? There were several moments as I bucked and writhed and gasped and cursed when I seriously doubted it.
It’s probably a merciful thing that pain is impossible to describe from memory. It’s also impossible to warn against. If my proton doctors had tried to tell me up front, they might perhaps have spoken of “grave discomfort” or perhaps of a burning sensation. I only know that nothing at all could have readied or steadied me for this thing that seemed to scorn painkillers and to attack me in my core. I now seem to have run out of radiation options in those spots (35 straight days being considered as much as anyone can take), and while this isn’t in any way good news, it spares me from having to wonder if I would willingly endure the same course of treatment again.
But mercifully, too, I now can’t summon the memory of how I felt during those lacerating days and nights. And I’ve since had some intervals of relative robustness. So as a rational actor, taking the radiation together with the reaction and the recovery, I have to agree that if I had declined the first stage, thus avoiding the second and the third, I would already be dead. And this has no appeal…
I am typing this having just had an injection to try to reduce the pain in my arms, hands, and fingers. The chief side effect of this pain is numbness in the extremities, filling me with the not irrational fear that I shall lose the ability to write. Without that ability, I feel sure in advance, my “will to live” would be hugely attenuated. I often grandly say that writing is not just my living and my livelihood but my very life, and it’s true. Almost like the threatened loss of my voice, which is currently being alleviated by some temporary injections into my vocal folds, I feel my personality and identity dissolving as I contemplate dead hands and the loss of the transmission belts that connect me to writing and thinking.
Vodka Ad Insults Jews And Is Pulled: "Christmas Quality, Hannukkah Pricing"
"Christmas quality, Hanukkah pricing"? What I don't like is not being honest about it not playing on a stereotype and having a spokesman lie through his teeth saying according to CNN it was "a ballad to Hanukkah's simplicity." An actual "ballad," mind you, not even just a reference. Please, we know the ad is about Jews being cheap (in America's most heavily populated Jewish city, no less), and that's exactly why you removed it after the complaints came rolling in.
Tweet
Elena Kagan's Supreme Court Recusal Games: Why Pulling Out Of Arizona Immigration Case, And Not Obamacare, Is All About The Potential Outcome
A federal statute requires that any “justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Federal law also requires that a judge recuse herself if the judge previously served in governmental employment “and in that capacity participated as a ... counsel, adviser, or material witness concerning the proceeding or has expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.”
It is clear that there is plenty of evidence that Elena Kagan deciding the Obamacare case is a violation of the federal statutes above. As but a few examples, it is known that Kagan while Solicitor General for the Obama administration wrote an e-mail to Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe in which she said, “I hear they have the votes [to pass Obamacare], Larry!! Simply amazing.” The email's subject line was "fingers and toes crossed today!" But even more than that, CNS news reported that "[i]nternal Justice Department email communications made just days before the House of Representatives passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act show that then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan was brought into the loop as the DOJ began preparing to respond to an anticipated legal complaint that Mark Levin and the Landmark Legal Foundation were planning to file against the act if the House used a procedural rule to 'deem' the bill passed even if members never directly voted on it." It is beyond doubt that Kagan should in line with federal law not play any part in the Obamacare ruling. In fact, she may even have perjured herself as she had asserted during her confirmation hearing that she was not involved in the administration’s legal strategies for the law.
On the other hand, she did announce this week upon the Supreme Court's deciding to rule on Arizona's (as I have pointed out, constitutional) anti-illegal immigration law that she would play no role in that decision. Immediately, liberal Kagan supporters jumped at the opportunity to prove that Kagan was principled and clearly is willing to recuse herself even in highly controversial and hot button cases where the court is potentially going to be closely divided. The liberals at Think Progress argued along these lines specifically saying that people should now ignore demands that Kagan recuse herself in the ObamaCare case:
Sounds compelling, does it not? The fact of the matter is that only a slightly deeper understanding of how the Supreme Court works and the members who make it up reveals that Kagan has gamed the recusal process, probably expecting the exact sorts of defenses coming from Think Progress for her refusal to recuse in the Obamacare decision.One thing today’s order should put to rest, however, is the ridiculous suggestion that Justice Kagan needs to recuse from the Affordable Care Act litigation. Since joining the Court, Justice Kagan has scrupulously avoided sitting on any case she worked on while Solicitor General — even though this took her off of dozens of cases. Today’s order shows that Kagan is no less attentive to her ethical obligations even when they arise in high profile cases that carry a great deal of political baggage for the president that appointed her.
These two cases are no doubt the most publicly noticed cases to reach the Supreme Court's docket since Kagan has assumed her position on the high bench. The question that needs to first be asked is what happens if the Supreme Court is in an even tie, based on a Kagan recusal, where 4 Justices vote one way and 4 another. Well, "[a]lthough rare, 4-4 ties are hardly unheard-of—justices do recuse themselves from time to time. A split decision effectively upholds the ruling of the lower court." The traditional practice of the Supreme Court of the United States is that "no affirmative action can be had in a cause where the judges are equally divided in opinion as to the judgment to be rendered or order to be made" (See Durant v. Essex Co., 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 107, 111 (1868)). There is therefore generally a rule of affirmance by an equally divided Court.
Once this is understood one need only look to the makeup of the court itself. Let us assume that in both cases there is a reliable 4 conservative Justices (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas) that will vote to strike down Obamacare and uphold Arizona's law. All that needs to be looked at is the lower court rulings. In the Arizona case, if unprincipled Supreme Court swing vote King Anthony Kennedy will move toward the liberal wing of the Court even without Kagan, that would make a 4-4 tie (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kennedy vs. Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas). This would result in Arizona's law being overturned as a result of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling declaring the law unconstitutional not being struck down. But now look to Obamacare, which reached the Supreme Court after a petition by the Department of Justice to review the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision declaring the law unconstitutional. If Kennedy swings toward finding Obamacare violative of the Constitution, even with Kagan recused, this would mean that the Court would have a 4-4 tie (again, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kennedy vs. Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas). Given that the lower appeals court had in this Obamacare case declared Obamacare unconstitutional, that would now be the legal ruling. And of course in either case, if Kennedy sides with the conservatives then Kagan's presence is moot since that would be a majority of 5 Justices rendering an opinion.
And so it should now be obvious to you that Kagan's recusal decisions have nothing to do with her integrity in following federal law as it relates to her duties as a jurist. It is a pure calculation as it relates to the potential outcomes without her presence. In fact, it is pretty clear that she is violating federal law in partaking in the Obamacare decision. And it is this apparent calculation, far more than the drivel from Think Progress, that is evidenced by a Supreme Court Justice unwilling to recuse herself despite mounting evidence that she should do so in the Obamacare case.
One has to be extremely gullible to believe that she had no involvement in the legal discussions and strategies regarding Obamacare, the current administration's signature piece of legislation, but yet had more involvement worthy of recusal in a lawsuit to oveturn the State of Arizona's law regarding illegal immigrants. That she has recused herself from one and not the other, proves nothing. Tweet
N.Y. Teens Suspended For "Tebowing" In School Hallway
Just when everyone thought the trend of "Tebowing" had reached its zenith in the greater cultural Zeitgeist, it finds a way to completely jump the shark: On Wednesday, a group of high school athletes at a Long Island school were suspended for staging a spontaneous bout of Tebowing in their high school's hallway.Tweet
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Monday, December 12, 2011
Immigration, Concurrent Powers, And Original Meaning: Why The Supreme Court Must Rule That Arizona's Law Is Constitutional
The United States Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on July 6, 2010, asking that the law be declared invalid since it interferes with the immigration regulations "exclusively vested in the federal government." The Supreme Court has just announced that they will decide the Constitutionality of Arizona's anti-illegal immigration law S.B. 1070. The measure was lawfully passed by the Arizona legislature and signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer. Instead of recognizing the federal inability to enforce its own laws alone, the Justice Department's lawyers referenced the notion of federal preemption and stated that, "The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country." The fact of the matter is that Arizona's law should be seen as in line with Supreme Court doctrine and with the early original understanding of Congress's power over naturalization.
BASIC ORIGINAL MEANING
Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power "[t]o establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States" (emphasis added). This power was described by James Madison in Federalist No. 42 as one of those powers "which provide for the harmony and proper intercourse among the States" as "[t]he dissimilarity in the rules of naturalization has long been remarked as a fault in our system." The specific problem with having each State determine who was a citizen and who was an alien rather than a uniform federal system:
"[If] certain descriptions of aliens, who had rendered themselves obnoxious, were laid under interdicts inconsistent not only with the rights of citizenship but with the privilege of residence. What would have been the consequence, if such persons, by residence or otherwise, had acquired the character of citizens under the laws of another State, and then asserted their rights as such, both to residence and citizenship, within the State proscribing them? Whatever the legal consequences might have been, other consequences would probably have resulted, of too serious a nature not to be provided against. The new Constitution has accordingly, with great propriety, made provision against them, and all others proceeding from the defect of the Confederation on this head, by authorizing the general government to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States."Quite simply, the most obvious and original meaning of this clause was that the question of who is an American citizen had to be determined at the federal level so that there could be uniformity among the States in this important matter. However, this did not itself preclude laws at the State level regarding those that Congress have determined are not citizens. Early Constitutional scholar William Rawle, in his 1829 "A View of the Constitution," reiterated the point made by Madison writing that the purpose of this power was that "an alien...might...become a citizen of a state [and not another]...and thus in fact, the laws of one state become paramount to that of another [in regards to citizenship]. The evil could not be better remedied than by vesting the exclusive power in congress." However, Rawle importantly writes:
"Until these [citizenship] rights are [federally] attained, the alien resident is under some disadvantages which are not exactly the same throughout the Union. The United States do not intermeddle with the local regulations of the states in those respects. Thus an alien may be admitted to hold lands in some states, and be incapable of doing so in others. On the other hand, there are certain incidents to the character of a citizen of the United States, with which the separate states cannot interfere. The nature, extent, and duration of the allegiance due to the United States, the right to the general protection and to commercial benefits at home and abroad, derived either from treaties or from the acts of congress, are beyond the control of the states, nor can they increase or diminish the disadvantages to which aliens may, by such measures on the part of the general government, be subjected."What is evident from Rawle is that laws regarding those that federal law has determined are aliens can be applied at both the federal and State level. During the debate about the Rules of Naturalization in 1790 in the House of Representatives, Congressman Sherman explained in line with the above that he "presumed it was intended by the Convention, who framed the Constitution, that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order to prevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner." This was the original purpose of the federal power. Representative White further stated that he “doubted whether the constitution authorized Congress to say on what terms aliens or citizens should hold lands in the respective States; the power vested by the Constitution in Congress, respecting the subject now before the House, extend to nothing more than making a uniform rule of naturalization. After a person has once become a citizen, the power of congress ceases to operate upon him; the rights and privileges of citizens in the several States belong to those States; but a citizen of one State is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States. All, therefore, that the House have to do on this subject, is to confine themselves to an uniform rule of naturalization and not to a general definition of what constitutes the rights of citizenship in the several States." In the same debate still another representative, Representative Stone, concluded that the “laws and constitutions of the States, and the constitution of the United States; would trace out the steps by which they should acquire certain degrees of citizenship.” He also said “Congress may point out a uniform rule of naturalization; but cannot say what shall be the effect of that naturalization, as it respects the particular States. Congress cannot say that foreigners, naturalized, under a general law, shall be entitled to privileges which the States withhold from native citizens.”
The narrow meaning of this enumerated power is evident from pronouncements by those who supported the Constitution's ratification, by those that later said the same when debating rules over naturalization in Congress, and by the works of early Constitutional scholars. The Constitution therefore clearly does not prohibit State laws in the area of immigration, especially with a law like Arizona's which does nothing more than enforce existing federal law.
FEDERAL PREEMPTION
With this backdrop we can now discuss whether "federal preemption" prevents a State from enacting a law like that in Arizona. The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) makes Constitutional federal laws the "supreme law of the land," and therefore constitutional federal laws trump or preempt state laws. There are two main types of preemption seen in Supreme Court precedent: (1) Express Preemption and (2) Implied Preemption. Express preemption would be where Congress expressly declares their intent to not allow the States to be involved. This is simply not the case in the area of immigration. Congress has not expressly precluded the States from involvement in the area.
We then have to move to implied preemption which itself carries two possibilities: (1) Conflict Preemption and (2) Field Preemption. Because Arizona's law was specifically drafted in such a manner that it enforces, and never contradicts, federal law, it cannot be considered conflict preemption where State law conflicts with federal law and must therefore be voided. That is why the federal government would next rely on the logic of field preemption to say that they have so regulated in the field of immigration such as to exclude the States from involvement. In Rice v. Sante Fe Elevator (1947) the Supreme Court declared that the opponent of State law carries the burden of establishing that State police powers cannot “constitutionally coexist with federal regulation.” Law Professor Kris Kobach, the primary author of Arizona's law, points out that it is clear in this case that the federal government cannot bear that burden:
While it is true that Washington holds primary authority in immigration, the Supreme Court since 1976 has recognized that states may enact laws to discourage illegal immigration without being pre-empted by federal law. As long as Congress hasn’t expressly forbidden the state law in question, the statute doesn’t conflict with federal law and Congress has not displaced all state laws from the field, it is permitted. That’s why Arizona’s 2007 law making it illegal to knowingly employ unauthorized aliens was sustained by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.The fact is that S.B. 1070 falls squarely within the well established doctrine of concurrent powers, which are those powers of a federal system of government that are shared by both the state and the federal governments. As Alexander Hamilton clearly explained in Federalist No. 32, "the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States." That this applies to immigration should actually be obvious. The very same clause that provides Congress with power over naturalization provides Congress with power over bankruptcy. The ability to make bankruptcy laws has long been understood to be a primary example of concurrent powers between the federal and state governments, and there is little reason the power over naturalization that precedes this by only a comma should be any different.
Under judicial precedent, and based on the most basic principles as seen in the original meaning of the Constitution, the Arizona immigration law must be declared Constitutional by the Supreme Court. Like too many questions this may well come down to the whim of Supreme Court swing vote King Anthony Kennedy. There is one clear course of action, and Kennedy should certainly follow it. Tweet
Obama Actually Asks Teheran To Return Surveillance Drone CIA Landed In Iran
And the Iranian response is a big "go screw yourself."
Tweet
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Gunman In Hollywood Shooting At Drivers And Pedestrians While Shouting "Allahu Akbar"
http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=6003295427350706797 Tweet
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich Hit With 14 Years In Federal Slammer
Blagojevich with a 14-year sentence: Disgraced former Gov. Rod Blagojevich was sentenced Wednesday to 14 years in prison after making a final plea for leniency, acknowledging his guilt and saying, “I am unbelievably sorry.” “I believe he did, in fact, accept [responsibility],” U.S. District Judge James Zagel said in announcing how long Blagojevich should spend in prison after being convicted of 18 corruption charges that included attempting to sell or trade an appointment to fill the U.S. Senate seat left vacant by the election of President Barack Obama.
I will say that I do have some problems with the case against him. First, why were portions of the tapes declared off limits? Blago's lawyers have long wanted, including as of last week, all the tapes in totality released, the prosecutor and the judge won't allow it. What's up with that? See http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Blagojevich-Blago-Attorneys-Tapes-134487403.html as an example. I'm surprised Blago's defense that he was not trying to sell the Obama Senate seat, but rather get political exchanges such as commitments regarding passing certain legislation in exchange for his appointment, didn't go anywhere in court. I've only heard a few snippets of audio that the prosecutor released, but it would seem that defense might be plausible, especially when it's the Blago side that wants the tapes released in full and some of his allegedly most incriminating statements can be read in that light.
I also have suspicions about the special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald being a grandstanding press conference holding political witch-hunting hack, because after all he is the same guy that after years could only put Scooter Libby away (though his sentence was commuted) for having a different story than Tim Russert, but could nail no one on any underlying crime in the Valerie Plame affair. It was known, and it has been admitted, that dovish Undersecretary of State Richard Armitage was the first to release Plame's name, Fitzgerald knew this and instead kept his case in the media where there was constant talk of indicting Dick Cheney or Karl Rove which of course never happened. No charges were ever brought against Armitage.
Tweet
ATF Officials Discussed Using Fast & Furious To Push Gun Control
TweetATF officials didn’t intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called “Demand Letter 3″. That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or “long guns.” Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.
On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF’s Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:
“Bill – can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks.”
On Jan. 4, 2011, as ATF prepared a press conference to announce arrests in Fast and Furious, Newell saw it as “(A)nother time to address Multiple Sale on Long Guns issue.” And a day after the press conference, Chait emailed Newell: “Bill–well done yesterday… (I)n light of our request for Demand letter 3, this case could be a strong supporting factor if we can determine how many multiple sales of long guns occurred during the course of this case.”
Food Stamps Buy Starbucks Frappuccinos In Oregon
Fox 12 in Oregon reports:
TweetWith the help of Jackie Fowler, who has a “supplemental nutrition card” or Oregon Trail Card, Fox 12 visited an in-store Starbucks within a Safeway in the town of Salem. Fowler purchased a tall Frappuccino and a slice of pumpkin bread — and paid for both using her Oregon Trail card.
“It’s crazy,” Fowler told Fox 12, showing off the receipt for $5.25.
“They’re overpriced as it is,” said Fowler of the specialty drink. “That’s money that somebody could be eating with — a loaf of bread, a gallon of milk.” Fowler, who made the purchase only for the purpose of Fox 12′s story, says she thinks it’s a huge misuse of the food assistance program.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Anti-Israel Remarks By Three Senior U.S. Officials: Hillary Clinton, Leon Pannetta, And Ambassador To Belguim Bash Israel
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports:
The Obama administration is reaping a whirlwind of criticism in the wake of pointed remarks about Israel by several U.S. officials over three days.Tweet
The U.S. ambassador to Belgium, Howard Gutman, caused an uproar when he suggested on Dec. 1 that hostility among European Arabs and Muslims toward Jews was rooted in anger over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and should be distinguished from traditional forms of anti-Semitism. Jewish groups condemned his remarks, which drew calls for his dismissal from Republican presidential front-runners Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.
The following day, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta stirred controversy when he told an audience at the Saban Forum, an annual Washington conclave for American and Israeli policymakers, that Israel needs to “get to the damn table” to negotiate with the Palestinians and “mend fences” with its neighbors. The Anti-Defamation League expressed “surprise and dismay” at a speech that it said “disproportionately put the onus on Israel to overcome its isolation.”
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made waves a day later at the Saban Forum when she reportedly expressed some concerns about the state of Israeli democracy.
The confluence of controversies has added up to a headache for the Obama administration’s Jewish supporters and given fodder to its critics.
“This is the worst weekend we’ve had in a while,” said a Jewish Democratic activist, who spoke on condition of anonymity, referring to the outcry over the remarks.
Each set of remarks share a common theme, said the ADL’s national director, Abraham Foxman.
They’re “putting all of the onus on Israel, and that’s with Panetta, with Hillary and with the ambassador," he said. "It’s something that we’ve had a problem with this administration.”
In his wide-ranging speech on U.S.-Israel relations, Panetta said that Israel needed to take steps to alleviate its isolation.
“For example, Israel can reach out and mend fences with those who share an interest in regional stability -- countries like Turkey and Egypt, as well as Jordan,” Panetta said. “This is an important time to be able to develop and restore those key relationships in this crucial area. This is not impossible. If gestures are rebuked, the world will see those rebukes for what they are. That is exactly why Israel should pursue them.”
After the speech, the Saban Center’s Kenneth Pollack asked Panetta what steps Israel should take to advance peace. Panetta replied, “Just get to the damn table. Just get to the table. The problem right now is we can’t get them to the damn table to at least sit down and begin to discuss their differences -- you know, we all know what the pieces are here for a potential agreement.”
Gingrich issued a statement condemning Panetta’s remarks.
“Barack Obama must tell the American people today whether he condemns or condones the deeply wrong statements by his Secretary of Defense and Ambassador to Belgium,” Gingrich said.
The Zionist Organization of America and the Emergency Committee for Israel -- both consistent critics of the Obama administration -- also blasted Panetta’s remarks. The ADL, however, was the main centrist Jewish group to take public umbrage.
“The Defense Secretary emphasized the shared U.S. and Israeli interest in deepened strategic cooperation and in countering the Iranian threat,” the ADL said in its statement. “But he undermined the sense of assurance that this could have projected by using a prestigious public platform to focus disproportionate responsibility on Israel for the campaign of hostility against her.”
Obama Urges For Softening Of Sanctions Against Iran's Central Bank That the Senate Approved By Only 100-0
The Obama administration is urging US lawmakers to soften proposed sanctions targehttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifting Iran's central bank, Senator Mark Kirk said on Tuesday.Tweet
Kirk, a Republican, is the co-author along with Democratic Senator Robert Menendez of a proposal to penalize foreign financial institutions that do business with Iran's central bank, the main conduit for its oil revenues.
The Senate approved the proposal last week 100-0 despite lobbying against it by Obama administration officials, who argued that threatening US allies might not be the best way to get cooperation in action against Iran.
A similar measure is pending in the House of Representatives; both chambers must agree on the same version before it can become law.
Kirk said on Tuesday that the administration had written to some lawmakers' offices and "proposed what they describe as technical fixes" to the Kirk-Menendez amendment.
But Kirk complained: "They are not technical fixes at all. They are meant to undermine the amendment." He and Menendez have written to fellow lawmakers as well, urging them to "stick with" the Senate-passed proposal, Kirk said at an event on Iran's nuclear program, sponsored by the conservative American Enterprise Institute think tank...
The Kirk-Menendez proposal would dissuade foreign banks from dealing with Iran's central bank by threatening to cut them off from the US financial system. The United States already bars its own banks from dealing with the Iranian central bank.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Newt Gingrich Responds To Nancy Pelosi's Threat To Release Dirt Gained Ethics Investigation
Visit http://www.therightscoop.com/newt-fires-back-at-pelsoi-bring-it-on/ to see the full clip for yourself. Tweet
Iran's Revolutionary Guard Now On "War Footing"
Recent explosions have added to the growing sense of paranoia within Iran, with the regime fearing it will be the target of a surprise military strike by Israel or the US. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s spiritual leader, issued a directive to the heads of all the country’s military, intelligence and security organisations to take all necessary measures to protect the regime. Gen Jaafari responded to this directive by ordering Revolutionary Guards units to redistribute Iran’s arsenal of long-range Shahab missiles to secret sites around the country where they would be safe from enemy attack and could be used to launch retaliatory attacks.
In addition, the Iranian air force has formed a number of “rapid reaction units”, which have been carrying out extensive exercises to practice a response to an enemy air attack.
This comes on the heels of a mysterious explosion in Iran:
The huge explosion that destroyed a major missile-testing site near Tehran three weeks ago was a major setback for Iran’s most advanced long-range missile program, according to American and Israeli intelligence officials and missile technology experts.Tweet
In interviews, current and former officials said surveillance photos showed that the Iranian base was a central testing center for advanced solid-fuel missiles, an assessment backed by outside experts who have examined satellite photos showing that the base was almost completely leveled in the blast. Such missiles can be launched almost instantly, making them useful to Iran as a potential deterrent against pre-emptive attacks by Israel or the United States, and they are also better suited than older liquid-fuel designs for carrying warheads long distances.
Ex-Saudi Spy Chief: "Saudi Arabia May Join Nuclear Arms Race'"
Saudi Arabia may consider acquiring nuclear weapons to match regional rivals Israel and Iran, its former intelligence chief Prince Turki al-Faisal said on Monday.http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifTweet
"Our efforts and those of the world have failed to convince Israel to abandon its weapons of mass destruction, as well as Iran... therefore it is our duty towards our nation and people to consider all possible options, including the possession of these weapons," Faisal told a security forum in Riyadh.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Kansas Gay Activists Move To Have Unenforceable (Due To Supreme Court Ruling) Sodomy Law Repealed
A Kansas based gay activist organization is calling on their State to repeal a law criminalizing "unnatural" sexual activities. Among such activities is homosexual sex, but the law in Kansas is not limited to gay sex. In fact, oral and anal sex generally are classified as "unnatural" under the legislation. The U.S. Supreme Court's misguided Lawrence v. Texas ruling in 2003 rendered the law essentially unenforceable by declaring sodomy laws unconstitutional. That decision was foolhardy in its reasoning and in the level of abuse of the Constitution required to reach the outcome desired by a majority of the justices. In fact, it has already led to lawsuits persuasively, though of course equally absurdly, arguing under this precedent that laws criminalizing polygamy must also be thrown out.
In fact, 18 states still have sodomy laws on the books. Some legislators have argued that since the statute cannot be enforced due to a foolhardy Supreme Court ruling, the legislation is therefore not infringing upon anybody's rights. The fact of the matter is that this is a perfectly acceptable position for the legislature and governor of Kansas to take, should they so decide. Given that socially conservative Sam Brownback is the current governor, it is unlikely the law will be repealed. The fact is that if the State of Kansas wishes to retain the law, unenforced, so as to represent the moral views of that State while not impeding on the activity that is Constitutionally protected according to the Supreme Court, this would be perfectly constitutional. There is also clearly no standing to challenge an unenforceable law and therefore this law can certainly remain on the books in this fashion.
Indeed the Supreme Court in declaring Texas's sodomy law unconstitutional made note of the fact that “[l]aws prohibiting sodomy do not seem to have been enforced against consenting adults acting in private." The fact that it was rarely enforced did not stop Justice Antonin Scalia from responding in his persuasive dissent arguing the law did not violate the Constitution. Should the State wipe it from the books, that is of course their prerogative. But should they decide to leave the last symbolic vestige intact despite its substance being destroyed by a high court ruling, there is little reason they should not.
Tweet
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Single-Sex Dorms Don’t Violate Federal or D.C. Law
So holds the D.C. Office of Human Rights in Banzhaf v. Garvey (Nov. 29, 2011). Tweet
Arizona Educators Clash Over Mexican-American Studies
Benjamin Franklin is a racist. Che Guevara is a hero. Hispanics are oppressed victims. Portions of the United States are "occupied." An activist coming to a school to tell students "Republicans hate Latinos." The State of Arizona ought to be applauded for trying to put an end to this sort of shameful crap making its way into the public school system under the banner of "Mexican American Studies." See http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ethnic-studies-20111120,0,5116540.story?page=1 for a recent article on the issue.
For more information on the issue and an important op-ed visit:
This shameful racial separatism in victimhood classes is being taught in public high schools in Arizona and it ought to be put to an end.
Tweet
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Islamists, And Even More Radical Islamists, Dominate In Egyptian Elections
Both the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), which is backed by the Muslim Brotherhood, and its rivals agreed that it was leading the count in the first tranche of nine out of Egypt's 27 governorates, including its two most important cities, Cairo and Alexandria.Tweet
More unexpected was the apparent success of the FJP's radical rival, Nour, which represents a movement of Salafis inspired by the puritanical political Islam of Saudi Arabia.
Its lack of previous involvement in political campaigning had been viewed as a handicap. But it may have won as much as ten per cent of the vote, according to some estimates, challenging the main liberal coalition for second place.
The result suggests the various Islamist parties could form an overall majority in the parliament.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Monday, November 28, 2011
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Judge Andrew Napolitano: Why Taxation Is Theft, Abortion Is Murder, And Gov't is Dangerous
I don't agree with Napolitano on Ron Paul, but still worth watching:
Tweet
The Real Dangers Of The Successful War With Libya
There are many things that have made the bombing campaign in Libya that helped oust Moammar Gaddafi questionable at best. Among these questions are the fact that there was no congressional approval for the campaign, and more. I myself asked this question as well as other important inquiries while the bombings were taking place. But all these questions were the sorts of queries that were more relevant while the war was being waged, but once Gaddaffi was at long last toppled and even violently lynched, many of the questions regarding the action have since subsided. Now that even Gaddafi's son Saif Al-Islam has been captured, there is reason to look back at this action and understand what strategic value it served, and what dangers it may have actually paved for the future.
The first issue that must be addressed is the looming possibility of an Islamist takeover of Libya. Admiral James Stavridis, Nato's Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, said in March that "we have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al Qaeda, Hizbollah, we've seen different things" regarding the Libya rebels. In August, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said that Iran "discreetly" provided humanitarian aid to Libyan rebels before the fall of Tripoli. "The heroic Libyan nation rose up against the oppressor leaders of their own volition and proved that in the era of the awakening of nations, there is no room for tyranny and that the demands of the people must be respected," said Iranian parliament speaker Ali Larijani. Iran is hoping the Libya domino will fall towards Islamism and expand her sphere of extremist Islamic revivalist influence.
Further troubling signs are worthy of viewing with worry now that Gaddafi is in the dustbin of history. Libya's interim leader said that Sharia law will be used as the basis for new legislation. The new Libyan Constitution even declares that “Islam is the Religion of the State, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).” In fact, all of this raises the larger questions about this so-called "Arab Spring" in general. Islamists are to win most votes in Tunisia's first "Arab Spring" election, yet Obama calls it "an important step forward." The Head of Libya's National Transitional Council Mustafa Abdul-Jalil says Islamic Sharia law would be the “basic source” of legislation, and that existing laws that contradict the teachings of Islam would be nullified. Yet Obama calls this a "a new era of promise." Is it just me, or is the war on Islamofascism over under President Obama? Have we entered the "new era" in which the rise of Islamists is to be aided and praised by the President of the United States?
The rise of Islamism in Libya, helping raise a possible Islamic extremist State in place of the regime America toppled while, as an anonymous Obama administration official put it, "leading from behind," is of course problematic. But all of the above, while worrying, is really not the most pressing issue that arises from the Libya action. The real issue is that the intervention in Libya not only served no national interest, it was in fact counterproductive in serving a useful national purpose. Let me be clear, Gaddafi was a megalomaniac tyrant and his death is not worthy of a moment of mourning. Of course, as just mentioned, I am not sure that what will replace him will be better for world security, which is what is obviously worrying about the entire "Arab Spring." But even more than that, and most importantly, Gaddafi actually abandoned his Weapons of Mass Destruction program after he saw the U.S. invade Iraq. In fact, Libya's abandonment of its own WMD program is a lesser known most positive consequence of targeting Saddam Hussein. On Dec. 19, 2003, only six days after American soldiers found Hussein in a spider hole, Gaddafi announced he would abandon Libya's WMD programs and accept international inspectors. As former Vice President Dick Cheney put it, Libya’s abandonment of its WMD program was “one of the great byproducts … of what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan.” Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also said, “I think what we did was to eliminate his weapons of mass destruction, or the most dangerous ones.”
In fact, most are unaware that the CIA reportedly worked closely with Moammar Gaddafi's intelligence services in the rendition of terror suspects to Libya for interrogation. Most do not even know that in 2004 the United States airlifted out of Libya components of the nuclear weapons program that country agreed to give up. On January 27 of that year the U.S. transport plane landed in the State of Tennessee carrying some 25 metric tons of Libyan weapons program components including centrifuge parts, uranium, and sensitive documentation.
All this should demonstrate the strategic folly of intervening in Libya. The point that is really worrying is the message America has now sent to rogue regimes everywhere. That message is that if you abandon your weapons programs, if you turn toward cooperation with America and the West, you risk soon thereafter being bombed into oblivion and overthrown. In other words, this action encouraged a country like Iran to continue to defy America, the West, and get the nuclear bomb as soon as possible. Why? Because abandoning the program like Gaddafi is nothing short of assigning yourself to the easy future attack and toppling of the U.S. It is unfortunately a very perverse incentive that was starkly created by this action. In contrast, regardless of what one thought of President Bush's military action, those wars simply could not create the dangerous incentives of this bombing campaign waged by Obama. At the very least with Bush his wars showed that if you mess with America you may very well have it coming. And this actually worked in the case of Gaddafi, who took the invasion of Iraq into account and in part because of that very lesson abandoned his own WMD program. Gaddafi would have not been as easy to topple had he had the WMD that he abandoned in favor of the now clearly false safety of cooperating with the West
This is the simple truth, no other anti-American dictator will make Gaddafi's mistake, which is to abandon their WMD programs or cooperate with the West, because soon enough they could be bombed and toppled by the U.S. Not only is there evidence of Iran and other Islamists backing and being part of the Libyan rebel movement, there is the perilous lesson that a regime like Iran must have learned from what Gaddafi faced. Iran, as an enemy of the United States, would be mad to abandon its nuclear program and cooperate with the West. Given the precedent of Gaddafi's topple, Iran would be crazy to abandon its quest for the world's most dangerous weapon. The greatest danger today is the nuclear armed Iranian fanatics thirsting for wiping Israel off the map and destroying the United States. Given this, the troubling incentive created is the most, and least recognized, danger of America's intervention in Libya.
Tweet
RSS Feed (xml)