Trump trade war starts tomorrow

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced that the US will impose tariffs on steel and aluminum products from Canada, Mexico and the European Union starting on Friday. The close US allies had previously been given exemptions from the tariffs that the president imposed on other countries last March.  

All three trading partners vowed to impose retaliatory tariffs on the US in return. The Wall Street Journal reports that the European Union has prepared a list of $7.5 billion worth of US exports that could begin to be subject to increased tariffs on June 20. Mexico said that it will target US products “up to an amount comparable to the level of damage” that US tariffs inflict on Mexican exports. Canada did not make a specific statement, but had previously vowed to retaliate if the Trump Administration imposed new tariffs.

Canada and Mexico are parties to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with the US, which eliminated tariffs on much trade between the three countries. They were exempted from the earlier tariffs as negotiations to revise NAFTA proceeded. It is uncertain how the new tariffs will affect the trade pact.

“Those talks have been taking longer than we had hoped,” Secretary Ross told reporters.

The EU also had a temporary exemption as trade representatives tried to reach a permanent agreement. “We continue to be quite willing and indeed eager to have further discussions with all of those parties,” Ross said.

Additional tariffs on China are slated to go into effect next month. The Trump Administration called a truce to the Chinese trade war in May, but then announced it would proceed with the tariffs. The Chinese government has also vowed to retaliate.

The new tariffs on Canada, Mexico and Europe have the potential to be much more damaging to the US economy than the previous round of tariffs. Canada and Mexico rank first and third respectively in steel exports to the US. The two countries send more steel to the US than the rest of the top five countries combined.

Canada and Mexico also rank second and third, just behind China, as America’s top trading partners. Four European countries, Germany, the United Kingdom, France and Italy, are also among the top ten trading partners.

The trade war is already expanding beyond the steel and aluminum industries that Trump originally set out to protect. The Washington Post reports that European retaliatory tariffs include products as varied as Kentucky bourbon and Harley Davidson motorcycles. Mexican duties will be imposed US pork bellies, blueberries, apples, grapes, cheeses and steel.

If the tariffs go into effect, the result could be a slowing economy in the months prior to the midterm elections. This could give Democrats a desperately needed issue with which to attack Republicans. If trade becomes an issue in the election with Democrats embracing free trade and Republicans defending big government tariffs, politics will have officially turned upside-down.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Why Trump did not need Congressional approval to strike Syria

After President Trump ordered the US military to launch a strike on the Syrian airbase where this week’s sarin gas attack originated, many on the internet are claiming that he violated his constitutional authority as president. Only Congress can declare war, they say, so President Trump should have obtained a congressional authorization to launch his punitive attack.

This argument is based on a misunderstanding of the Constitution. While it is true that Article I Section 8 says that “The Congress shall have Power… To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water,” the focus should be on what the Constitution does not say.

For example, the Constitution does not say that the president, who it names as the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,” shall obtain the permission of Congress before deploying the army and navy in combat. The Constitution also does not say that a declaration of war is required before ordering the military to attack.

That the president has the power to order the military into combat unilaterally is not a recent interpretation of the original intent of the Framers. In his excellent book, “The Savage Wars of Peace,” Max Boot details the numerous small, undeclared wars and military actions that the United States has been involved in during our short time on earth.

Proponents of declarations of war might be surprised to learn that America’s first undeclared war occurred in 1801, a scant 14 years after the Constitution was ratified. Although Congress authorized action against Tripoli in 1802, a formal declaration of war against the pirate kingdoms did not come until 1815 under James Madison. Yet if President Jefferson overstepped his constitutional authority in ordering the US Navy and Marines to go to war against the kingdoms of the Barbary coast in what is now Libya, there would have been opposition from the still-living Framers of the Constitution and authors of the Federalist Papers. Jefferson’s opponents criticized his Louisiana Purchase as exceeding his authority instead.

Although the US has been involved in many conflicts, only five wars have been formally declared. These include the War of 1812, The Mexican War, The Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II. That does not mean that all other conflicts were unconstitutional, however.

Congress has authorized the use of military force at least 13 times without declaring war. The first such authorization occurred even before the Barbary wars when Congress authorized John Adams to use military force against France during the Quasi War of 1798-1800. Congress has authorized the president to use military force many times in recent years including in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and twice in Iraq. These authorizations could be construed to fill the constitutional role of a declaration of war.

Many conflicts never had congressional approval at all. One of the largest undeclared wars, The Korean War, was never authorized by Congress. Neither was George H. W. Bush’s deployment of troops to Somalia or Bill Clinton’s deployments to Bosnia and Haiti. President Bush’s invasion of Panama received congressional approval only after the fact. President Obama never went to Congress for approval of his intervention in the Libyan civil war.

An opinion memorandum from the Deputy Counsel to the President from September 2001 quotes the Supreme Court in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), “[t]he United States frequently employs Armed Forces outside this country—over 200 times in our history—for the protection of American citizens or national security” and goes on to note, “On at least 125 such occasions, the President acted without prior express authorization from Congress.”

The military actions in Korea, Bosnia and Libya were authorized by the United Nations even though Congress never signed off on them. In some cases, such as the Persian Gulf War, military force was authorized by both Congress and the UN.

In 1973, Congress was concerned enough about the possibility of abuse of presidential war-making authority that it passed the War Powers Act to clarify the constitutional roles of the president and Congress. The WPA requires the president to “consult” with Congress before introducing US troops into hostile or potentially hostile situations. It also requires the president to withdraw American forces after 60 days unless Congress grants approval for continued action.

The requirement to consult with Congress sets a low bar. It allows the president to act quickly and for a short time without a congressional approval. Under both the Constitution and the WPA, there is no specific requirement for the president to seek approval from Congress for a single military strike.

If a sustained campaign against a hostile foe is required, the rules are different. The War Powers Act, but not the Constitution, sets a 60-day time limit for unilateral actions by the president. Even then, neither law requires the president to ask for a formal declaration of war.

Why is Congress granted the power to declare war if such a declaration is not required under the Constitution? A declaration of war has legal implications that an authorization for use of force does not.

“In contrast to an authorization, a declaration of war in itself creates a state of war under international law and legitimates the killing of enemy combatants, the seizure of its property, and the apprehension of enemy aliens,” says the Congressional Research Service. “With respect to domestic law, a declaration of war automatically triggers many standby statutory authorities conferring special powers on the President with respect to the military, foreign trade, transportation, communications, manufacturing, alien enemies, etc.”

Undeclared and unauthorized military actions are still subject to international law. “Perhaps most important,” notes the CRS, “neither a declaration nor an authorization is necessary to trigger application of the laws of war, such as The Hague and Geneva Conventions; for that, the fact of armed conflict is the controlling circumstance.”

The lack of a declaration or authorization does not mean that the president’s actions are illegal under international or domestic law. President Trump’s strike against Syria was well within his role as commander-in-chief of the US military and his power to set foreign policy. A ground invasion and occupation of Syria would trigger different rules, but would still not require a formal declaration of war.

 Originally published by The Resurgent

US military rated 'marginal' to 'weak'

Wikimedia Commons

The Heritage Foundation has released its 2017 Index of US Military Strength, an objective survey of US military infrastructure, its ability to operate in different regions of the world and an assessment of threats currently faced by the US. This year Heritage found that threats to the US were high while the ability of the US to meet them was “marginal” to “weak.”

Heritage notes that the military is assessed on the basis of being able to accomplish three core missions: Defense of the homeland, successful conclusion of a major regional war and protection of freedom of movement through areas in sea, air, space and cyberspace in which the world conducts business. Since WWII, US leaders have consistently worked to maintain a military size that could fight two major regional contingencies (MRCs) at the same time.

The different branches of the US military were rated on capability, capacity and readiness. The Navy, Air Force, Marines and nuclear forces were rated as “marginal” by Heritage while the Army was rated as “weak.” Heritage notes that the Navy is deferring maintenance and facing delays in modernization. The Air Force has a fleet of 1,159 tactical fighters, but lacks the ability to fly all of them due to shortages of pilots and experienced maintenance personnel. Current operations and shortage of funds for the Marine Corps mean that the USMC has only two-thirds of the units that it needs. US nuclear forces depend on older weapons systems while competitor countries are upgrading and expanding.

The Army’s weak rating is the result of trading strength and modernization for the current readiness. Even so, Heritage says that only one-third of army units are at acceptable readiness levels. Budget cuts have forced the Army to increase its reliance on contract maintenance. Brigade combat teams and combat aviation brigades have been reduced by about a third due to budget shortfalls. Heritage says, “The Army is smaller, older, and weaker, a condition that is unlikely to change in the near future.”

In the index, Heritage also rates the threats that the US military is likely to face.  There are six threats that Heritage considers “high” risks. Russia and China are both expanding their militaries and acting aggressively. North Korea reportedly has a missile that can deliver a nuclear warhead to the US and is also working on submarine-launched missile technology that would allow it to park missiles off the shores of American cities. Iran is another potential nuclear threat in spite of President Obama’s deal. Terrorism in the Middle East and in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region round out the largest potential threats.

The bright spot in the Heritage assessment is America’s ability to operate around the world. A strong network of allies in Europe and Asia bolsters US capabilities. These regions are rated as “favorable” to US operations. The Middle East is rated as “moderate” where US advantages are being offset by unstable governments and a reduced presence due to the withdrawal from Iraq.

The change of course signaled by the recent presidential elections may provide a boost to US military budgets. Nevertheless, National Defense Magazine notes that, because of the debt crisis, any increase in military spending will likely be small without entitlement reforms. Such reforms would be fought by the Democrats and possibly by Donald Trump as well. As a candidate, Trump opposed conservative plans to restructure entitlement programs.

In summary, the world is a dangerous place with maturing threats from a number of different countries and terrorist groups. Budget cuts have forced the US military to trade modernization to meet future threats for the ability to maintain current readiness. The Republican victories this year may provide an opportunity to get military readiness back on track.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Details of the Malaysia airline shootdown

For the second time in less than a year, the previously little known Malaysia Airlines is the subject of intense scrutiny after a mysterious crash. In March, Malaysia Flight 370 disappeared and has never been found. On July 17, Malaysia Flight 17 was shot down over a disputed area of the Ukraine. At this point, who shot the airliner down and why is not known.

According to Flight Aware, MH 17, another Boeing 777, departed from Amsterdam at 12:19 p.m. local time and was bound for Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The 11.5 hour flight was estimated to arrive at 6:00 a.m. Malaysia time. Instead, Flight Aware’s tracking map shows the flight abruptly terminating over eastern Ukraine near the Black Sea.

According to early reports from NBC News, the plane, which was carrying 298 people, was cruising at 33,000 when it was attacked. Many of the passengers were Dutch nationals since the flight was operated under a code share with Royal Dutch Airlines. Malaysia was originally colonized by Holland in the 1600s. The International Business Times reports that the victims include 23 Americans.

The wreckage from the plane came to rest in several fields about 31 miles from the Russian border. Photos posted online show that the plane broke into a large number of small pieces. Yahoo reported that debris fields were reported to be at least six miles apart, indicating that the plane broke up in flight. There were no reports of survivors.

A miner who witnessed the crash told NBC that he saw a surface-to-air-missile strike the plane. Andrey Tarasenko said, “You know how you see a trail from a plane — it was the same, but it was a missile launched from the ground.” Tarasenko said he heard an explosion in the air seconds after he saw the missile’s smoke trail and then heard a larger explosion on the ground several seconds later.

Ukraine has been at war since February when Russian soldiers invaded the Crimea region in support of ethnic Russian separatists. On national television, Ukraine’s president, Petro Poroshenko, said, “I would like to draw your attention that we do not call it an incident, not a disaster, but we call it a terrorist act” according to NBC.

Russian president Vladimir Putin blamed Ukraine for the tragedy saying that it “would not have happened if there were peace on this land, if the military actions had not been renewed in southeast Ukraine. And, certainly, the state over whose territory this occurred bears responsibility for this awful tragedy” according to Yahoo.

Mounting evidence points to either Russia or the separatist militants supported by Russia being responsible for the attack. Ukraine released audio clips of intercepted communications between Russian and rebel commanders in which the rebels tell their Russian allies that “We have just shot down a plane.” Over the course of several calls, the rebels report that the airplane was civilian and unarmed.

Two days earlier, there were reports of another aircraft being shot down. According to Al Jazeera, on July 15, a Ukrainian Antonov 26 cargo plane was shot down in eastern Ukraine. All eight people on board survived. The An-26 was flying at about 20,000 feet when it was shot down by either a missile or a Russian fighter plane according to a Ukraine Security Council spokesman.

Two more Ukrainian attack jets were also attacked by missiles from Russia on Wednesday according to the Ukraine. One Sukhoi Su-25 was shot down and another was damaged, but both pilots survived according to ABC News.

According to Defense Tech, the most likely weapon to be used in the attack was the M-2 Buck surface-to-air missile (SAM) system. Called the SA-11”Gadfly” by NATO, the Buk was developed in 1979 by the Soviet Union. The Buk has a range of up to 19 miles and can engage targets at altitudes up to 46,000 feet. It is not known for certain whether the Russians have supplied the rebels with Buk missile systems, which are mounted on tracked vehicles, but the Voice of Russia claimed in June that the Donetsk militia had taken control of Ukraine air defense base equipped with the missiles.

Several of the plane’s “black boxes” have already been recovered. Yahoo reports that most of the black boxes had been found by the rebels. Indications were that at least some of the boxes had been turned over to Russia.

Following the shootdown, Business Insider noted that Ukrainian airspace was largely empty. Much of the air traffic between Europe and Asia normally flies over the country, but most civilian traffic seemed to be staying clear of the disputed area.

Read the full article on Aviation Examiner

Kermit Gosnell may change national conversation on abortion

The trial of Kermit Gosnell may represent a turning point in the American discussion of abortion. The story is not merely the heinous crimes committed by Gosnell and his staff; the other half of the story is the left’s almost total lack of outrage. As James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal wrote in his excellent summary of the case, the mainstream media almost totally ignored the entire case and trial until an outpouring of interest on the internet all but forced coverage of the trial onto television and into newspapers.

Bill Clinton made famous the line that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.” Under modern Democrats, the attempt to make abortion rare, if there ever was a real attempt, has fallen by the wayside. Obamacare’s contraception mandate also forces insurance companies to include coverage for abortifacient drugs and President Obama’s budget increased federal funding for mega-provider of abortion Planned Parenthood. While Gosnell was on trial, President Obama became the first president to speak to Planned Parenthood, telling the group “as long as we've got to fight to protect a woman's right to make her own choices about her own health, I want you to know that you've also got a President who's going to be right there with you fighting every step of the way” and “God bless you” according to Politico.

As the grisly details of Kermit Gosnell’s practice come to light, it is becoming apparent that the left is far more concerned with keeping abortion legal than in keeping it safe. (Clinton apparently meant safe for the mother; abortion is almost always fatal for the baby.) A major point that pro-abortion activists frequently make is that legal abortion is needed to avoid keep women from being maimed in “back alley” abortions. It is apparent now that these back alley abortions continue in the offices of people like Kermit Gosnell.

Among the dead from Gosnell’s Philadelphia office was a 41-year-old woman who had come to Gosnell for an abortion. According to the grand jury report, Karnamya Mongar, a Nepalese immigrant, was given repeated doses of Demerol while waiting for Gosnell to perform her abortion. After several hours of waiting in a drug-induced sleep, Mongar stopped breathing. It is not certain how long Mongar lay there dying before the clinic’s employees noticed. It is known that when she was discovered Gosnell half-heartedly performed CPR, but did not administer drugs that could have restarted her heart. The clinic had a defibrillator, but it was broken. Ms. Mongar was probably brain dead before paramedics were even called. The report states that before paramedics arrived, the clinic staff hooked up equipment and rearranged the body to make it appear as if Ms. Mongar died in the midst of a procedure. Any chance of reviving her was lost as paramedics were unable to get her out of the building for 20 minutes due to cluttered hallways and padlocked emergency door.

Gosnell came close to killing other women as well. The report details several other instances in which Gosnell’s medical incompetence and negligence resulted in serious illness and near fatal complications for his patients. Many clinic employees were not trained or licensed. One employee who commonly dosed out medications was an untrained high school student. Gosnell inadvertently implicated himself by recording hundreds of late term abortions as 24. 5 weeks, when the Pennsylvania law limited abortions to earlier than 24 weeks.

Gosnell’s record of abusing women goes back 40 years ago to 1972. On Mother’s Day, Gosnell offered to perform abortions on 15 poor women from Chicago who were bused to his clinic. Gosnell did not tell the women that they would be guinea pigs for a new abortion device, a ball of gel-coated plastic razors to be inserted in their uteruses. Their body heat was supposed to melt the gel, loosening the razors and cutting up the unborn babies. In reality, the device, called the “super coil,” caused serious complications for nine of the 15 women. One required a hysterectomy. The incident became known as the Mother’s Day Massacre.

There were many more recent reports of problems at Gosnell’s clinic. It is apparent that he flouted numerous laws and nearly killed an unknown number of women due to poor sanitary methods and negligence, yet Pennsylvania’s medical regulators did not investigate. There were a multitude of complaints including a doctor who noticed that many of his patients who went to Gosnell contracted the same venereal disease. The medical examiner of Delaware County informed the Pennsylvania Department of Health that Gosnell had illegally performed an abortion on a 14-year-old mother with an unborn baby at 30 weeks. In one case, Gosnell refused to halt an abortion for a woman who changed her mind. Then, on November 18, 2009, Karnamaya Mongar died of a drug overdose in Gosnell’s office.

The report notes that none of this triggered state inspections of the clinic. In fact, in 1993 Pennsylvania had completely stopped inspecting abortion clinics for political reasons under the administration of pro-abortion Republican Tom Ridge.

Even pro-choice Americans should be concerned about the abysmal conditions that Gosnell’s patients endured. There were many reports of infections and life threatening complications before Gosnell and his staff actually killed Ms. Mongar. It is readily apparent that Gosnell did not operate a “safe” abortion clinic and was actually a threat to the health and wellbeing of women. Any doubts to this effect should be dispelled after reading testimony about how Gosnell drugged patients who were upset or slapped them.

Gosnell was part of a black market for abortionists who will circumvent the meager restrictions on abortions that the courts permit states to enact. Gosnell was aided and abetted not only by his clinic staff, but by numerous referrers, many of whom must have known that Gosnell was performing abortions at much later stages than the law allowed. It seems that the patient’s ability to pay was Gosnell’s only concern. In the end, the raid on Gosnell’s clinic was not due to his many violations of the law, Mongar’s death, or complaints by other women or doctors. The 2010 raid was based on suspected illegal drug trafficking.

In many respects, Gosnell’s clinic was not unique. The undercover filmmakers at Live Action have made a several short films showing abortion clinic workers helping patients to break laws limiting abortions. The practice of circumventing abortion restrictions appears to be widespread enough to warrant further investigation.

There is also evidence that other abortion clinics are substandard when it comes to keeping clean and sanitary facilities. A clinic in Ohio was ordered closed last month after failing a state health inspection. A second Ohio clinic in Toledo may be closed as well. A Planned Parenthood clinic in Delaware is charged with using unsterile instruments and rushing patients through procedures on bloody tables. Police investigating a break-in at a Muskegon, Mich. clinic found similar unsanitary conditions. A Lexington, Ky. abortionist’s medical license was suspended amid charges of fraud and unsanitary conditions. A Wilmington, Del. Clinic was closed in March 2013 after four women were rushed to the hospital with complications within a month. In Atlantic City, N.J. an abortion clinic was closed in for a series of health code violations.

USA Today reported that abortion clinics in Delaware are not required to undergo routine inspections. Maryland does not inspect for cleanliness and New Jersey only inspects surgery centers. In Virginia, the cleanliness and safety of abortion clinics has become a political issue after the state’s clinics were issued 80 violations according to Breitbart. Inspections of clinics vary from state to state with several states apparently choosing not to inspect at all even though the potential for infection and disease is high.

The Gosnell case explodes several myths about abortion in America. Abortion is not the safe, sterile procedure that advocates make it out to be. Many clinics are apparently unsanitary even by basic standards. Many abortion clinic workers seem eager to help clients break the law and often avoid fulfilling even basic obligations for counseling.

Statistics show that other promises of abortion proponents have also been unfulfilled as well. Abortion proponents claimed that abortion would reduce out of wedlock births and child abuse. In reality, a Bowling Green State University study from 2005 showed that women who have had abortions are 144 percent more likely to abuse their children. A study by Edward Lenoski of the University of Southern California found that 91 percent of abusive parents had wanted their children.

The trend toward unwed motherhood has been accelerated since Roe v. Wade. A report released in March 2013 by the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy and the RELATE Institute indicated that almost half of U.S. births are now out of wedlock. The average age when a woman first gives birth is now 25.7. The average age when a woman gets married has increased to 26.5.

Originally published on Examiner.com:
http://www.examiner.com/article/kermit-gosnell-case-may-break-deadlock-on-abortion-1

Democratic politicians desert Obama

In what may be the first of many similar stories this election year, a Democratic governor and U.S. senator have announced that they will not endorse President Barack Obama for re-election. In an Associated Press report this week, West Virginia Governor Earl Ray Tomblin and Senator Joe Manchin both decline to support the president due to his energy policies. Manchin announced his decision not to endorse Obama last month.

Tomblin told the AP, “President Obama has apparently made it his mission to drive the backbone of West Virginia's economy, coal and the energy industry, out of business. That will not only hurt thousands of West Virginia families, it will destroy the economic fabric of our state."

Neither Tomblin nor Manchin said that they would support Republican Mitt Romney against Obama. Tomblin criticized Romney for “supporting policies that will end Medicare and Social Security as we know it,” a reference to the Republican budget plan crafted by Rep. Paul Ryan that would reform Medicare, which is rapidly approaching insolvency.

There are indications that other Democrats are deserting the president as well. In many campaign stops prior to the 2010 elections and since, Democratic politicians have been conspicuously absent from Obama’s visits. When President Obama visited Atlanta in August 2010, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Roy Barnes was a hundred miles away in Monroe County near Macon according to 11 Alive. Few Democratic politicians have opposed the president as overtly as Tomblin and Manchin, although Rep. Jim Marshall (Ga. – 8), who lost to Republican Austin Scott in 2010, was singled out as one of the “top ten Democrats opposing Obama” by Newsmax.com.

Many Democrats are opposed to the president’s policies. A report and video of interviews with protesters at Occupy Wall Street on May Day by the Washington Free Beacon revealed that many members of the left feel betrayed and angry by the president’s foreign policy, saying that little has changed since President Bush left office. Others are unhappy with what they see as the president’s assault on civil liberties. President Obama’s corporate bailouts have also earned him the ire of some in the Democratic base.

Anecdotal data indicates that some disaffected Democrats are crossing party lines to support Ron Paul. A number of groups such as Democrats for Ron Paul and the Blue Republicans are comprised of Democrats who have dumped the president for Ron Paul’s anti-war, anti-bailout philosophy. At Occupy Atlanta last year, more protesters told Examiner.com that they supported Ron Paul than President Obama.

Natural News listed ten reasons why “Democrats, liberals and progressives are choosing Ron Paul over Obama.” The list ranges from his support for legal marijuana and opposition to war to Paul’s desire to end the Federal Reserve and stop the bailouts of “wealthy banksters [sic].” The article also cites the belief that Obama will use the NDAA to put Americans “in secret military prisons, interrogate them and even kill them with no due process.” The ACLU agrees that Ron Paul is more progressive than Obama on a host of civil liberties and anti-war issues.

The Democratic opposition to Obama is reflected in an April 2012 CBS News poll. Thirteen percent of Democrats disapproved of the president’s job performance and more than a third of Democrats believed that the country was headed in the wrong direction. In comparison, in a February 2009 CBS poll, “nearly all” Democrats approved of the president. According to New Hampshire’s official Democratic primary results, Ron Paul finished second behind Barack Obama with almost five percent of the vote.

Although many of the Democrats who are dissatisfied with Obama will vote for him anyway, if even a small number write in Ron Paul or vote for Ron Paul on a third party ticket, it could be enough to cost Obama several important swing states. In the absence of a Ron Paul candidacy, many Democrats might simply stay home rather than go to the polls for Obama. With the election in a statistical dead heat, even a small number of disaffected voters could sway the outcome.

 

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/democratic-governor-and-senator-refuse-to-endorse-obama

Questions for Ron Paul

Last year, the Atlanta Conservative Examiner published an article that asked several questions of supporters of Barack Obama. While well-intentioned and honestly seeking the liberal perspective on a number of issues, the response was underwhelming. Perhaps this was because there are no good answers to the questions asked.

In a similar vein, here are several questions for Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul and his supporters. Judging from the large response that typically comes from any article mentioning Ron Paul (especially when it mentions him critically), the Paul supporters are likely to have more to say in his defense than the Obama supporters did.

First, Ron Paul makes a point of saying that the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional on the grounds that the Constitution gives only Congress the power to “coin Money, [and] regulate the Value thereof….” (Article I Section 8). If this interpretation is correct, then why is it that Congress established the first private central bank, the Bank of the United States, within a few years of the ratification of the Constitution? At that point, many of the framers of the Constitution were still in Congress.

The Bank of the United States was a private company. The bill establishing it was signed into law in 1791 by none other than George Washington. After the bank’s charter expired in 1811, Congress created the Second Bank of the United States in 1816. This bank existed until 1841. At 99 years old, the Federal Reserve is the longest lasting central bank in U.S. history, but it was far from the first.

Also along economic lines, Ron Paul advocates a gold standard, which leads to another question. Paul blames fiat money and the Federal Reserve for the current economic unpleasantness, but even when the U.S. was on a gold standard the business cycle led to periods of economic depression. In fact the Federal Reserve and the gold standard coexisted for decades. The gold standard did not prevent the Great Depression, the worst economic crisis in U.S. history.

The Federal Reserve was created in 1913 and the United States stayed on the gold standard until 1973. In 1933, President Roosevelt made it illegal for Americans to own gold and required them to sell their gold to the Federal Reserve at a price set by the government, but technically the dollar was still linked to gold. Roosevelt’s executive order remained in effect until the 1960s and 1970s when it was repealed piecemeal.

In the past, linking the value of the dollar to the value of gold did not prevent the boom and bust cycle. A federal gold standard did not prevent the government from manipulating the value of the dollar. Why does Paul believe that a new gold standard would be any different? Further, U.S. production of gold is declining. Would a gold standard remove the influence of unelected bureaucrats at the Federal Reserve only to replace it with a dependency on gold miners, bankers, and bureaucrats in countries like China and Russia for economic growth?

A third question involves Paul’s assertions that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war (Article I Section 8), but stops short of requiring a declaration of war. The same section gives Congress the power to “define and punish… offences against the law of nations,” arguably the power to intervene on behalf of victims of crimes against humanity, and to “provide for the common defense,” a general term that could be construed to include pre-emptive war against a hostile nation believed to be developing WMDs.

As Max Boot notes in his book, “The Savage Wars of Peace,” declared wars have been the exception rather than the rule in American history. One of the first undeclared wars occurred during the administration of none other than Thomas Jefferson against the Barbary pirates. This conflict is memorialized in the line of the Marine hymn that references the “shores of Tripoli.”

In the 20^th century, U.S. forces, almost always the Marines, essentially invaded and governed several Central American and Caribbean nations. For almost 20 years prior to WWII, the Marines ruled Haiti. Long undeclared interventions also occurred in Mexico, the Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua, not to mention Panama. After the U.S.S Greer, an American destroyer, was fired upon by a German U-boat, President Roosevelt essentially launched an undeclared war against the Germans in the Atlantic more than a year before the attack on Pearl Harbor.

While the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan did not begin with a formal declaration of war, President Bush did seek and receive the approval of Congress (President Obama’s intervention in Libya is another matter). How can Paul really consider the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan illegal when both interventions were approved by Congress with Paul himself having voted to approve military action in Afghanistan?

Finally, why does Ron Paul oppose the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)? Did Paul not read Section 1021 paragraph (e) which reads “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States?” Similarly, Section 1022 paragraph (b) (1) says, “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”

Since the law plainly does not allow the indefinite detention of Americans but Paul opposes it anyway, does this mean that Paul opposes indefinite detention of foreign terrorists captured abroad? These are the people who the law allows the military to detain indefinitely. There are Americans who believe that these foreign-born, foreign-captured, non-U.S. citizens should be entitled to a day in American courts. Is Paul among this group?

If Paul thinks that foreign terrorists should have habeas corpus rights and access to U.S. courts, it would be the first time that prisoners of war (actually unlawful combatants under the Geneva Conventions) captured in combat outside the country have been granted access to the judicial system. Even German POWs housed in prison camps within the United States itself during WWII were not accorded constitutional rights due to American citizens. No one would have dreamed of allowing captured Nazis to challenge their detention in American courts.

Hopefully, Rep. Paul or his supporters will answer these questions and help to clear up some of the apparent inconsistencies in Ron Paul’s political platform.

This article was originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/questions-for-ron-paul

Roe v. Wade and the global war on girls

In the 39 years since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade, abortion has resulted in a holocaust of unborn babies, not just in the United States, but around the world. One of the great ironies of the abortion debate is that what its proponents tout as “a woman’s right to choose” has resulted in a genocide against baby girls in many countries.

The root of the problem is that abortion is being coupled with sex determination techniques in many parts of the world. In many countries, it is considered more desirable to have a boy than a girl. In some cases, they are patriarchal societies with a bias against women. In other cases, the reasons are more practical. Boys can help work the fields and will be better able to care for parents in their old age than a girl who will likely marry and move away from home. Boys are also needed to maintain the family lineage.

Demographer Nicholas Eberstadt wrote in his report, “The Global War Against Baby Girls,” that normal sex ratios favor boys slightly. Typically boys outnumber girls by about 105 to 100. An early German statistician and priest, Johann Peter Sussmilch, speculated that “the Creator’s reasons for ensuring four to five percent more boys than girls are born lie in the fact that it compensates for the higher male losses due to the recklessness of boys, to exhaustion, to dangerous occupations, to war, to seafaring and immigration, thus maintaining the balance between the two sexes so that everyone can find a spouse at the appropriate time for marriage.”

However, in the last Chinese mini-census of one percent of the population, taken in 2005, the sex ratio at birth was 119 to 100. The sex ratio for children up to four years old was even higher, almost 123 to 100. The ratios for rural areas are markedly higher than for towns and cities, which are still elevated above normal levels. The sex ratios tend to decrease as the location becomes more urban.

Although China is well known for its pro-abortion culture and rigid laws preventing large families, the problem extends around the world. Eberstadt notes that abnormal and impossible-under-nature sex ratios are found in many countries around the world. The nations represent all major religious and cultural traditions and almost every continent. Although the United States has a statistically normal sex ratio of 105 according to the Census Bureau, even certain demographic groups within the United States exhibit higher than natural sex ratios. In almost all cases, sex ratios have increased markedly since the 1990s when abortion and sex determination became widely available.

An exact sex ratio at birth statistic for Georgia could not be located, but census data shows that males under five years old outnumber females. There were 346,660 males and 335,654 females under five in Georgia in 2010. This can be extrapolated to determine a sex ratio under five of 103 for Georgia. This is well within the normal range.

Further, Eberstadt cites the World Health Organization’s 2009 Life Tables which reveal that over 60 countries have mortality rates that are higher for age 1-4 girls than for boys. The higher mortality rates are often the result of discrimination and maltreatment of girls and may indicate more areas where the skewed sex ratio is likely to result.

In human terms, the unnatural sex ratio means that millions of baby girls who should have been born never were. Eberstadt estimates that the “girl deficit,” the shortage of females under age 20, can be conservatively estimated at roughly 33 million never-born girls. He also estimates that over 95 percent of these girls were Chinese and Indian.

Tragically, the United States is helping to fuel the diverging birth rates of boys and girls. In 2009, in one of his first acts as president, Barack Obama eliminated the Mexico City Rule prohibiting the U.S. from funding groups that provide abortion services in other countries. The policy was created by President Reagan and reinstituted by George W. Bush after being revoked by Bill Clinton. Under President Obama, American taxpayers are funding abortion, both at home and abroad.

The consequences of the worldwide shortage of girls cannot be stated with certainty. Some believe that since unmarried men are generally less healthy than their married counterparts, larger numbers of unmarried men may not bode well for the health of their societies. Similarly, in countries without adequate pension systems, the rising number of men with no children to support them as they age may lead to increasing instances of poverty. Some economists even believe that as women become more scarce their value will increase, leading to more instances of prostitution, kidnapping, and slavery. A large number of frustrated and single males may also lead to more crime, violence and social instability.

Eberstadt notes that one country, South Korea, has shown elevated sex ratios in the past, but stepped back from the brink. He says that no government policy reversed this trend. Instead, it was “the spontaneous and largely uncoordinated congealing of a mass movement for honoring, protecting, and prizing daughters. In effect, this movement — drawing largely but by no means exclusively on the faith-based community — sparked a national conversation of conscience about the practice of female feticide.”

South Korea’s example illustrates the need for ethics and morality to guide the use of science. When left unchecked, the amoral use of technologies like sex determination and abortion can change the demographics of entire nations and possibly lead to social unrest. Laws are not enough. Eberstadt notes that the Chinese sex ratios are increasingly skewed in spite of the fact that the Chinese government outlawed prenatal sex determination in 1989 and sex selective abortion in 2004.

In the U.S., over 35 million babies have been killed since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. This includes more than 815,000 abortions in Georgia. As in South Korea and China, simply changing the law will not provide a solution. What is needed is a change in our thinking and morality that will help parents to realize that a baby in the womb is a living human and then encourage them to love, honor, and protect the life that they have created.

This article was first published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/roe-wade-and-the-global-war-on-girls

The Iraq War is not ending

Contrary to most news accounts, the Iraq War is not ending. It is presumptuous and a bit America-centric to believe that the war will end just because U.S. troops are being withdrawn. There are other warring parties who will in all likelihood continue to fight for long after the last American soldier has left the country. There are only two ways to end a war: One side can be effectively beaten or the warring factions can negotiate a peace. Neither has happened in Iraq.

The situation bears an eerie resemblance to the end of the Vietnam War. By the early 1970s, using General Creighton Abrams’ “clear and hold” strategy, U.S. and ARVN troops had pacified much of South Vietnam and broke the back of the Viet Cong insurgency. The situation allowed President Richard Nixon to negotiate “peace with honor” in the Treaty of Paris with North Vietnam. The Vietnam War officially ended on January 27, 1973 and U.S. combat troops were withdrawn in March of that year.

Unfortunately, the war did not end for the Vietnamese. Two years later, the North Vietnam launched a massive invasion of South Vietnam. Because congress, including several members who continue to serve today, cut off funding for the combat operations in Southeast Asia, the United States could not honor its treaty obligation to help defend South Vietnam or even resupply the beleaguered South Vietnamese troops. South Vietnam fell in 55 days.

Many civilians died fleeing the invading communist army. The History Learning Site estimates that as many as 1.5 million more South Vietnamese became “boat people” and fled the country by sea. As many as 200,000 boat people died before reaching safety. Of those who stayed, about 65,000 were executed by the liberating “People’s Army” and another million were imprisoned in reeducation camps. Some 165,000 South Vietnamese died in these camps.

In the Iraq War, Iran plays the role of North Vietnam. Iran borders Iraq and the two nations have a history of hostility. During the 1980s, the two nations fought a long and bitter war. There is little doubt that Iran has aided and funded the Iraqi insurgents. The only question is to what extent Iran was involved.

According to a Federation of American Scientists report to Congress from 2007, Iran is widely believed to be responsible for training Iraqi insurgents in IED techniques and training them in advanced bomb-making techniques, such as how to create an explosively formed projectile (EFP), an IED that is capable of destroying American armored vehicles. Iran is also believed to have supplied insurgents with advanced technology such as passive infrared sensors for triggering IEDs.

Further, weapons of Iranian origin have been captured in Iraq. ABC News reported in 2006 that IEDs and anti-tank weapons had been recovered that were manufactured in Iranian factories in that same year, suggesting that Iran was funneling weapons directly to the insurgents without even routing them through the black market. Coalition forces have captured at least 20 Iranian agents smuggling arms into Iraq according to the Washington Post. In December 2009, a skirmish erupted after Iranian troops seized several oil wells in a disputed oil field along the Iraq-Iran border north of Basra. The standoff ended several days later. A New York Times report notes that several of Moqtada al Sadr’s Mahdi army fighters are believed to have trained with the Revolutionary Guards in Iran and Iranian-supported Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon.

There is also a question of how much control Iran holds over the Iraqi insurgents. Many of the insurgents are Sunni while Iran is predominantly Shia. The Sunni insurgents, many of whom are former Baathists and backers of Saddam Hussein, are arguably more autonomous than the Shiite militias.

Many of the Shiites are led by Moqtada al Sadr. In the first years after the fall of Saddam, Sadr’s Mahdi army fought the coalition forces and provisional government for control of the country. Sadr has since lived for long periods in Iran where he has studied towards becoming an ayatollah. His followers have been a major political force in Iraqi elections and have gained seats in the Iraqi cabinet.

Reportedly, during President Bush’s troop surge in 2007, Sadr went to Iran and instructed his followers to avoid confrontation, although fighting continued later that year and in 2008. In August 2008, Sadr ordered a halt to combat operations. Similarly, in the fall of 2007, Iran pledged to stop the flow the weapons and support to Iraqi insurgents. Coinciding with the surge, Iran’s pledge came shortly before attacks in Iraq dropped off sharply. Sadr issued another such order in September 2011. The implication is that Iran and Sadr may have been intentionally avoiding conflict with U.S. troops in the hopes that President Obama would withdraw American forces.

An American withdrawal will almost certainly embolden the Iranians. Its leaders, who believe in the apocalyptic Twelver sect of Islam, will view the unilateral departure of U.S. troops as a gift from on high. President Ahmadinejad, exemplified the view of Iran when he told CNN last week that “The United States has become weaker and weaker. Now they are hated in the region.” The absence of American forces in the region will almost certainly make the Iranians become more aggressive. The question is what form their aggression will take.

The worst case scenario would be a full-scale conventional invasion of Iraq by the Iranian military. This is the same scenario that played out in Vietnam after the U.S. withdrawal there. The picture of an American helicopter perched atop a Saigon apartment building while refugees clamber up a wooden ladder to escape the invading North Vietnamese army is an enduring image that has shaped U.S. foreign policy for four decades.

Although the Iraqis fought the Iranians to a standstill in the brutal war of attrition in the 1980s, it is unlikely that the newly reformed Iraqi army could stand up to an Iranian onslaught. To prevent the country’s fall, American assistance would undoubtedly be needed, but it is doubtful whether it could be expected. Bipartisan opposition in congress would make it difficult for President Obama to redeploy troops to Iraq in an emergency, assuming he even wanted to.

More likely though, Iran will try to bring Iraq into its sphere of influence through threats, diplomacy and coercion. It is possible that Iran will rekindle the sectarian violence that plagued Iraq before the surge in order to undermine the Iraqi government. Supporters of Moqtada al Sadr, a stalwart Iranian ally, can be counted upon to look out for Iranian interests.

The absence of American power in the Middle East will create a power vacuum that the Iranians will try to fill. Saudi Arabia and Turkey will be their principal competition. Both nations have formidable militaries, but cannot compete with a nuclear armed Iran. With the apparent resignation of the west to a nuclear Iran, both Turkey and Saudi Arabia are reported to be developing nuclear weapons. A nuclear arms race in the Middle East among Islamic nations seeking to counterbalance Iranian influence appears increasingly likely.

As America’s influence in Iraq wanes, the Iraqis already appear to be moving closer to Tehran. The Wall Street Journal reports that Iraq, Iran and Syria, an Iranian client state, recently agreed to build an oil pipeline through the three countries. Iraq has also been on e of the few nations to support Syria’s beleaguered President Assad, who is the target of an Arab Spring uprising.

Iran and Iraq together control 18 percent of the world’s oil reserves according to an estimate by Finance Manila. The two countries rank third and fourth in the world respectively, trailing only Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. If Iran could gain control or influence over Iraqi oil, the world’s economy would be threatened. The interruption of Libyan oil, which constitutes only three percent of world reserves, threatened to crash the world economy once again and forced NATO to go to war.

The Iraq War is not over just because U.S. troops are leaving. Rather, it is entering a new and perhaps even more dangerous phase. In a disturbing replay of events, the U.S. is once again ignoring an enemy that is already at war… and has been since 1979.

 

As published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/the-iraq-war-is-not-ending

9/11: The good, the bad and the evil

September 11 marks the dividing line between the carefree prosperity of the ‘90s and the 2000’s, a decade plagued by war, fear, and financial hardship. While the date, September 11, 2001, will be remembered as a day of infamy, there were many aspects and reactions to the attacks.

When most Americans think of the good of 9/11, they think of the courageous police and firefighters and their self sacrifice. In all, 343 firefighters and 72 police officers from across New York died in the World Trade Center collapse. Many of them were helping injured and frightened people escape the towers and died when the towers collapsed around them. One of the first casualties of the attack was FDNY Chaplain Mychal Judge. Father Mike was hit by falling debris and killed while administering last rites to victim. The picture of four firefighters carrying Father Mike’s body is an iconic image of 9/11. John wrote in the Bible, “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends” (John 15:13).

More good was done in the days after the attacks. Americans across the country turned out to give blood to help the survivors of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. Volunteers and fire crews from all across America came to New York to help in the recovery operation at Ground Zero. For a few brief moments, America was more united in the wake of the attacks than it had been since World War II. The story of the heroic resistance of the passengers on United Flight 93 inspired the whole country.

There was no shortage of badness on 9/11. Indeed, that is why the day is remembered. The hijackers subscribed a religious belief that it is more honorable to kill, destroy, and die than to live and create. To the hijackers and their murderous leaders in al Qaeda, killing thousands of innocent people without provocation or warning was as acceptable as killing animals.

Osama bin Laden railed against America, largely without being noticed, for years before 9/11. He likened the U.S. military to latter day “crusaders” in a 1996 fatwa. Bin Laden believed that the American withdrawals in the wake of terror attacks in Beirut, Yemen, and Somalia meant that “the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear.” Bin Laden believed that his hijackers could exploit that weakness on American home soil and drive westerners from Muslim countries. To that end, he indoctrinated his followers with promises of paradise as a reward for killing Americans: “Those youths know that their rewards in fighting you, the USA, is double than their rewards in fighting someone else not from the people of the book. They have no intention except to enter paradise by killing you.”

When the hijackers took control of the four airliners, it was with the belief that murder was their path to heaven. When they slit the throat of the flight attendants to gain access to the cockpits, it was in a vain attempt to save their own souls. When they crashed the planes into their targets, shouting “Allahu Akbar,” it was an attempt to secure their own salvation. In a sense, the 2,996 victims of Osama bin Laden and his men were paying for the sins of the hijackers. Their deaths were celebrated by much of the Muslim world. In the Quran, Surat al Maideh 32 says, “if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind.”

The victims included six Georgians. Maynard Spence of Douglasville, Harshad Thatte of Norcross, Adam White of Atlanta, and Claude Michael Gann of Roswell died in the World Trade Center.  Leslie Whittington of Atlanta died when American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.  U.S. Army Maj. Steve Long of Georgia died in the Pentagon.

The 9/11 attacks are symbolic of the evil in the hearts of men. They remind us that even though mankind is civilized, we are still a savage, cruel and brutal race. They erase any doubt about the existence of pure, unadulterated evil. The presence of a demonic figure in smoke billowing from the World Trade Center may or may not have been a literal demon, but it was certainly symbolic of the evil act just committed.

Why is man so evil? It isn’t because God willed it. It was never God’s intention for the world to be this way.

Man is evil because we choose to be that way. Paul wrote that the truth of God is plain to everyone and that truth is only suppressed by the

wickedness of our hearts (Romans 1:18-23). The fundamental truth that it is wrong to murder your fellow human beings was suppressed by bin Laden’s promises of paradise. While most of us don’t go out and murder thousands of people, we do suppress God’s fundamental moral truths in order to lie, cheat, and steal on a regular basis.

What hope do we have? Spiritually, our hope is in Christ, who died for us. Even though our sins seem to pale in comparison to those of bin Laden and the terrorists, we still fall short of the requirement (Romans 3:10, Romans 6:23). Our only hope for salvation and forgiveness is to accept Christ’s sacrifice (Romans 10:9-10). There is no need to wage a holy war.

Physically, our hope is that “we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28). This doesn’t mean that only good things happen to believers. It does mean that God has the ability to turn evil into blessings. Notably, this hope is not given to those who do not love God. The cross-shaped debris found in the rubble of the World Trade Center is symbolic of God’s presence, even in the fiery hell of the collapsing towers.

What blessings have come from the 9/11 attacks? We may never know fully. We do know that the attacks resulted in the liberation of two countries. The uprisings of the Arab Spring that are toppling dictators across the Muslim world may be the result of events set in motion by the attacks. Thanks to increased American involvement in the Arab world, Muslims have gotten a glimpse of compassion and forgiveness as American military doctors save the lives of their former enemies, people who would happily torture them to death if the situation were reversed. Two of the most heartwarming stories of the war on terror are those of Hannan and Razia, girls from Iraq and Afghanistan who were horribly burned during combat. Americans cared for the girls and provided them with much more assistance than they would have gotten at home.

Less visible, but no less important are the spiritual results. We will never know how many hearts were opened to God by the events on 9/11. God’s comfort and strength were all that enabled the families of some survivors to go on. Perhaps some of the victims would tell us how God comforted them in their final moments as “I was there” suggests. God calls us all, as evidenced by the reports of supernatural dreams and visions directing thousands of Muslims to Christ.

The 9/11 attacks can be viewed as a warning. They remind us that nothing is assured. Our comfortable lives can be snuffed out at a moment’s notice, whether by a terrorist attack, a car accident, or some natural cause. We are reminded to pay attention to what is important, to serve God, to love our families, and to help others. We know what we’re supposed to do.

Let’s roll.

[Thanks to Debi Thornton for the inspiring for this article.]

 

Read the rest of this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/9-11-the-good-the-bad-and-the-evil

Ten years after 9/11, US is winning war on terror

Ten years after the September 11 attacks, the U.S. is winning the war on terror. In the fevered days after the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, most Americans were holding their breath, waiting for the next explosions. They never came.

It was not because al Qaeda did not try. Al Qaeda was successful in launching attacks in other countries. The 2002 bombing of a nightclub in Bali killed 180 people. In 2003, al Qaeda bombs killed 58 and wounded 750 in Istanbul. In 2004, a series of bombs on commuter trains in Madrid killed 190 and wounded 2,000. The 2005 attack on the London subway killed 56.

There have been numerous terror plots disrupted by U.S. and allied intelligence agencies. By one count, 39 al Qaeda plots have been foiled in the United States since September 11. Some of these plots were high profile such as the “shoe bomber,” Richard Reid, in December 2001 or the “underwear bomber,” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, in December 2009. Most frequent fliers will recall the liquid bomb plot against airliners from August 2006 since it marked the beginning of the ban on all but the smallest liquids for airline travelers.

Fewer will remember the cargo bomb plot disrupted less than a year ago in October 2010 in which terrorists tried to ship bomb-laden packages on cargo planes. There were also plots to attack soldiers at Fort Dix, N.J. in May 2007, to blow up fuel tanks at Kennedy airport in June 2007, and attempted car bombings in Times Square in May 2010 and at a Portland, Ore. Christmas tree lighting in November 2010. Miraculously all of these attempted terror attacks were thwarted.

The fact that the terrorists have not struck America again is largely due the valor and sacrifice of American and allied soldiers, sailors, airmen, and intelligence officers. In addition to freeing two countries, they have decimated al Qaeda’s leadership beginning with beginning with Mohammed Atef, an al Qaeda lieutenant killed in Afghanistan in November 2001. September 11 plotters Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were captured in Pakistan. Attacks on al Qaeda’s command and control culminated in the death of Osama bin Laden himself in Pakistan on May 1, 2011.

All of this was accomplished without the loss of civil liberties that many feared. The much maligned PATRIOT Act was reauthorized in 2005 and 2011 with bipartisan votes. The act was amended to assuage concerns about civil liberties. There have been no pogroms or harassment of American Muslims. The omnipresent and rabid criticism of President Bush is evidence that dissent was not crushed. Newspaper coverage of classified programs shows the lack of censorship. Unlike during the Civil War, habeas corpus was not suspended. With the exception of increased screenings at airports, there has been little change for most Americans. Even the soldiers armed with automatic weapons that were present at airports after the September 11 attacks are long gone.

President Bush deserves credit for bringing the nation together in the days after September 11. President Bush’s steadfastness in the darkest days of the war, when even members of his own party were calling for a withdrawal from Iraq, eventually led to the surge that pacified the country. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq removed Saddam Hussein, a mass murderer and sponsor of terrorism, and may have ultimately helped to fuel the Arab Spring uprisings.

President Obama also deserves credit for his part in the war on terror. Obama ordered the attack on Osama bin Laden and ordered his own surge in Afghanistan and stepped up drone attacks on fighters in Pakistan. Obama also deserves credit for reneging on his campaign promise for a precipitous pullout from Iraq.

The new face of terror is the homegrown terrorist. Several recent terror attacks have been carried out or attempted by local Muslims who became radicalized over the internet without planning or direction by al Qaeda leaders. Although several al Qaeda agents and cells had been discovered earlier, Abu Nidal Hasan’s Fort Hood rampage in November 2009 was the first high-profile terror attack by a homegrown radical. Earlier that year, members of a terror cell in North Carolina were accused of plotting attacks.

Georgia is not without radicals. In 2009, two Georgia Tech students, Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee were convicted of making videos to scout locations for terror attacks. Sadequee had been previously arrested in Sarajevo in 2005 with plastic explosives and bomb making materials as part of “al Qaeda in Europe.” Earlier this year, a Marietta woman admitted mailing a bloody pig foot and anti-Semitic ramblings to New York congressman Peter King.

The Augusta Chronicle recently reported that in the ten years since September 11, $460 million has been spent protecting Georgia from terrorists. Half of this money has been spent in Atlanta where the state capitol and the international airport make inviting targets. This amount, spent over ten years, represents less than six percent of the amount that President Obama and the Democrats spent in one year on their stimulus bill. It was only 42 percent of Georgia’s $1.08 billion share of the stimulus money. The homeland security money was arguably a much better investment.

Although the war on terror will likely continue for the foreseeable future, it is evident that the United States is winning. In spite of numerous attempts, al Qaeda has not been able to attack America in ten years and most of al Qaeda’s senior leadership is either dead or imprisoned. American freedoms and civil liberties have been preserved.

The constantly changing face of terrorism means that there are constant new threats, from car bombs to sniper attacks to nuclear weapons. Threats come of lone wolves hiding in American society as well as state sponsored terror groups. Perhaps the biggest danger – and irony - is that the war on terror has been so successful that most Americans no longer feel threatened.

 

Read the rest of this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/ten-years-after-9-11-us-is-winning-war-on-terror

Meet the candidates: Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum is a native of Virginia, who grew up in West Virginia and Pennsylvania. In school, he was nicknamed “Rooster” because of his hair’s tendency to stick up and the fact that he did not back down. After his parents, who worked for the VA hospital system, were transferred to Illinois, Santorum graduated from high school there. His father was an Italian immigrant and his mother was half Italian, half Irish.

After high school, Santorum returned to Pennsylvania to attend Penn State. He graduated with a degree in Political Science and then went to the University of Pittsburgh for an MBA. Santorum then returned to Penn State to attend the Dickinson School of Law. He graduated with a Juris Doctor in 1986.

While in graduate school, Santorum became administrative assistant to a state senator, and then served as director of the Pennsylvania Senate’s local government and transportation committees. In 1986, Santorum entered private legal practice with a Pittsburgh firm. While at the firm, Santorum represented the World Wrestling Federation and argued that the WWF should be exempt from federal steroid rules since it was not a sport.

While he was practicing law, Santorum met his future wife, Karen, who was living with a cofounder of Pittsburgh’s first abortion clinic. According to the Philadelphia City Paper, at this point in his life, Santorum was pro-choice and not religious. Santorum married Karen and was first elected to public office in 1990 as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. In 1992, he was a member of the “Gang of Seven” that exposed the House banking scandal.

In 1994, he was elected to the U.S. Senate. The City Paper details how, at the same time that Santorum was leading the fight to override President Clinton’s veto of the partial birth abortion ban, Karen was pregnant with a child that was revealed to have a birth defect that would be fatal after birth. Karen became ill with a 105 degree fever and doctors warned that she could die unless they induced labor. Since this would undoubtedly kill the 20 week unborn baby, the Santorums considered inducing labor equivalent to an abortion. Before they made a decision, Karen went into labor. The baby, Gabriel Michael Santorum, died two hours after his birth.

Gabriel’s short life changed the Santorums. Karen later published a book of letters to her unborn child. In one, she exhorts the senator to “proclaim God's message for life with even more strength and devotion to the cause.” For his part, Rick wrote that “after Gabriel, being a husband, being a father was different, being a legislator was different. I was different" (as quoted by the City Paper). Santorum keeps a photo of newborn Gabriel on his desk.

Santorum was re-elected to the senate in 2000, but lost in the Democratic landslide of 2006. Because of his outspokenness on socially conservative issues, Santorum was a prime target for Democrats. With Santorum’s loss, the senate tradition of the candy desk, a stockpile of sweets maintained by Pennsylvania Republicans, came to an end.

After leaving Washington, Santorum returned to practicing law with a different firm in Pittsburgh. In 2008, he campaigned for John McCain. Santorum also became a member of the Board of Directors of Universal Health Services and a member of the Ethics and Policy Center, a conservative think tank. He has also been a contributor to Fox News.

Santorum is a stalwart supporter of the pro-life cause. He believes that life begins at conception and that abortion should be banned, even in cases of rape and incest. Even though most Americans now consider themselves pro-life, most also support some exceptions to an abortion ban according to Gallup.

He is also an opponent of homosexual activism. He is an outspoken opponent of gay marriage and supported the right of states to enact sodomy laws (which have since been struck down by the Supreme Court) in a 2003 USA Today interview. Santorum correctly pointed out that the right to privacy is not found in the Constitution.

Santorum’s outspokenness has earned him the ire of homosexual and pro-choice activists. For the past eight years they have engaged in a campaign to name a deviant sex act for him. By driving up “clicks,” the activists have placed their definition of his name near the top of the Google search list according to ABC News. Santorum is a target for mainstream Democrats as well. The Georgia Young Democrats tweeted in June “Rick Santorum, an attorney, thinks he knows more abt [sic] science than scientists?” in reference to his skepticism of global warming.

Further, Santorum has also been a vocal opponent of Islamic terror. In 2006, he was one of only two votes against the confirmation of Robert Gates as secretary of defense, citing Gates’ belief in diplomatic engagement with Iran and Syria. He strongly supported the War on Terror and has spoken out against “Islamic fascism.”

Most recently, Santorum was reportedly peripherally involved in the sex scandal and resignation of Republican Senator John Ensign. Santorum was sent an email from Doug Hampton, Ensign’s former chief of staff and husband of the woman with whom Ensign had an affair. Santorum allegedly forwarded the email to Ensign as a warning of the impending scandal. Georgia Senator Johnny Isakson was one of the senate investigators who found that Ensign probably violated federal law in an attempt to cover up the scandal. Santorum faces no charges.

Nationally, Santorum placed last in the most recent Real Clear Politics average of polls. His average rating was only 1.8 percent. In an August poll of Georgians by Insider Advantage, Santorum did not rate at all. His support was counted among the four percent of Georgians favoring “other.”

Georgians have much to like about Rick Santorum. The former senator’s social conservatism and religious beliefs are something that most Georgians agree with and his history of government reform and fiscal restraint should endear him to the Tea Party. Conversely, Santorum’s long history as a political insider and his landslide loss to Bob Casey in the 2006 senate re-election campaign may lead many conservative voters to look for new faces.

 

Read this article on Examiner.com

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/meet-the-candidates-rick-santorum