The President Shouts "Squirrel"; NYT Hails Modern Day Kellogg Briand Pact (Updated)

Between the IRS, Benghazi, AP & Fox scandals, it is safe to surmise that the Obama administration felt that it had lost control of the media cycle. So it is no surprise that team Obama would make a highly touted, short notice speech on _____________ (insert non-scandal related topic here). In this case, they opted to make the topic "counterterrorism." The underlying theme was "LOOK, A SQUIRREL." You can read the speech here.

There was virtually nothing new in this speech beyond the gloss. Obama used a lot of words to cover ground he has covered before - for example, close Guantanamo, how to authorize drone strikes, treating counterterrorism as a legal matter rather than one of war, change the AUMF, and foreign aid for unfriendly governments.

The most troubling part of the speech was when Obama restated his intent to unilaterally end the "War on Terror." We may of course end our side of it, but somehow I doubt that al Qaeda or Iran will respond in kind. Obama asked for Congress to withdraw the Authorization For Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed after 9-11, both on grounds that it was no longer necessary and because, he intimated, future governments could not be trusted with such an open ended authorization.

What Obama succeeded in doing in his speech was to highlight just how utterly naive and dangerous his foreign policy truly is. Obama ignored Iran and the nuclear threat it poses. He ignored all of the dangers of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. He almost wholly ignored the role of al Qaeda in Syria and how the Syrian civil war is destabilizing the entire Middle East. He almost wholly ignored the extensive gains by al Qaeda across North Africa - including in Libya and Benghazi, as well as ignoring the attack on our diplomats in Benghazi but for an embrace of the Accountability Review Board recommendations.

After jaw droppingly asserting that we now face only the same dangers as we faced pre 9-11, Obama explained the threat as: ,

Most, though not all, of the terrorism we faced is fueled by a common ideology -- a belief by some extremists that Islam is in conflict with the United States and the West, and that violence against Western targets, including civilians, is justified in pursuit of a larger cause. Of course, this ideology is based on a lie, for the United States is not at war with Islam. And this ideology is rejected by the vast majority of Muslims, who are the most frequent victims of terrorist attacks.

If you were to drill down to the single greatest problem with Obama's foreign policy, it is shown in the above paragraph. The terrorism we face is not "fueled by a common ideology," it is fueled by a common strand of a religion - Wahhabi Salafi Islam. It is not "rejected" by the "vast majority of Muslims," it is the mainstream of teaching coming out of Saudi Arabia and Saudi influenced mosques and madrassas around the world. Indeed, it is an interpretation of Islam that is spreading around the world, overtaking all other forms of Islam. Bottom line, so long as Obama and the left around the world try to whitewash Islam - and in particular, Wahhabism - and shield it from sunlight and responsibility, we will hemorrhage blood and gold dealing with the threat.

One other issue of note was Obama's attempt to deflect blame on the AP and Fox investigation scandals by calling for a media shield law to protect journalists. In other words, 'stop me before I do it again.

So this was Obama's attempt to reset the media narrative. Its effect won't last, but that won't be because the far left in the media fail to talk up this ridiculous speech as something substantive rather than the bit of refried misdirection that it actually is. The NYT editorial board is a case in point. It claims to be in thrall with the Obama speech, and in particular, his decision to unilaterally end war:

President Obama’s speech on Thursday was the most important statement on counterterrorism policy since the 2001 attacks, a momentous turning point in post-9/11 America. For the first time, a president stated clearly and unequivocally that the state of perpetual warfare that began nearly 12 years ago is unsustainable for a democracy and must come to an end in the not-too-distant future.

If this were not so deadly serious, one would have to laugh at this bit of insanity. It is the NYT cheering a modern day Kellogg-Briand Pact, the 1928 declaration outlawing war and signed by, among others Germany, Italy, Japan and the Soviet Union.

Update: MSNBC joins the NYT in labeling Obama's speech as "historic." One wonders whether between the NYT and MSNBC there is an ounce of intellectual honesty.



Update: Andrew McCarthy at NRO makes precisely the same points I raised above about Obama's speech. Michael Ledeen at PJM is left bewildered that Obama could make a speech on counterterrorism and not mention the world's biggest source of terrorism, Iran.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Another Anti-Democratic Court Outrage - The Ninth Circuit Upholds A Constitutional "Right" To Gay Marriage

Everything that is wrong with our of control court system is on display today in the Ninth Circuit Court's decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, upholding a lower court ruling that the will of over 7 million Californians who voted for Prop. 8 doesn't matter. Morality based on ancient Christian moral precepts doesn't matter. Gay marriage is a "constitutional right" in California.

You can find the entire opinion at Legal Insurrection.

 There is no question that at the time of the drafting of the Constitution and, 70 years later, the 14th Amendment, homosexuality was a legally proscribed practice across our nation.  Thus, using the originalist theory of Constitutional interpretation, gay marriage cannot today be recast as a Constitutional right absent an Amendment to the Constitution.  And indeed, this finding of gay marriage as a Constitutional right by the 9th Circuit is pure judicial activism, creating new rights out of whole cloth.  This is in almost every respect a replay of Roe v. Wade.

Gay marriage is a social issue raised to the fore today on the basis of changing social mores. Since it was not a right envisioned by the drafters of our Constitution and 14th Amendment, gay marriage is an issue that should be solely reserved to the states - and very much more specifically, the states' ballot boxes. This is not an issue for the Courts.

What we see in the Ninth Circuit opinion is just one more group of unelected judges who deem themselves the final arbiters of what U.S. social policy should be and who have no problem with unilaterally amending our Constitution. This despite the fact that the Constitution provides two different methods for amendment, neither of which provides for the unilateral decision of a gay district court judge or two left wing judges on the 9th Circuit Court to depart from the original intent of the drafters.

This is also one more attack on religion in this country - with the left seeking to delegitimize it and raise in its stead their own "anything goes - as long is it doesn't disagree with what we want" morality and mentality. We have seen that morality at work in just the past weeks, with the Obama administration decision to force Catholic institutions to pay for health insurance covering contraception and Plan-B abortion, and we have seen that mentality at work in the left's utterly vociferous reaction to the Komen charity's decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood.

Professor Jacobsen at Legal Insurrection summarizes the Perry court holding thusly: "since there was a prior right to samesex marriage (based on a California Supreme Court decision which gave rise to Prop. 8 ) — the taking away of that right without justification violated the 14th Amendment." So yes, the Ninth Circuit danced around affirmatively finding a right of gay marriage in the Equal Protection clause. That still does not change the fact that they should have dispensed with this case on the ground that the Equal Protection clause allows for no such right and that the will of Californians who voted for Prop 8 should be honored.

So why wasn't ancient morality derived from the Christian religion a sufficient "justification" to uphold Prop. 8. That is because, as a matter of law, Christian moral views are now deemed "irrational" and not afforded any weight.  That is a complete, judicialy imposed break with how our founding fathers saw the role of religion in America.  Compare and contrast this with the Northwest Ordinance, passed by the same people who voted to approve the First Amendment, that "Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged;” [and compare as well as with] early Congresses [that] proceeded to make grants of land to serve religious purposes and to fund sectarian education . . ."

At any rate, the Supreme Court led the way in severing Christian morality from our laws when they held in Lawrence v. Texas that morality is no longer a justifiable basis for our laws. If you read that case, you will see that the majority simply disagreed with the Christian morality enshrined in the Texas state law proscribing sodomy. Ironically, what they did instead was to substitute their own moral choices. It was another major marker in the advance of secularism in this country over the will of the people and another major attack on the role of Christianity in the public square.

And thus today do we have the 9th Circuit Court in Perry v. Schwarzenegger ruling that there is no rational basis for denying gays the right to marry in California.  Newt Gingrich and Andrew McCarthy have this one right.  Our courts are completely out of control.  Something must be done to restore the constitutional balance - and preferably, that something will include tar and feathers.

Read More...

Summary only...

Andrew McCarthy: Gingrich Has It Right On Our 'Imperial' Courts

This is the absurdity: The Constitution says it cannot be amended absent an elaborate process involving supermajorities of Congress and the states — but the courts have somehow convinced us that a 5–4 shakeout from nine unelected lawyers can do the trick.

Andrew McCarthy, Gingrich & The Courts, NRO, 21 Dec. 2011

Conservatives have been shaking their fists impotently at the Courts for their judicial activism - their Poliburo like unilateral amendments to the Constitution working fundamental changes to our nation - for the past fifty years. Heretofore, the only solution to the problem was thought to be electing Presidents who will appoint judges grounded in originalism. That has been less than successful. Enter Newt Gingrich, who has completely changed the paradigm on this critical issue. He wants to make a systemic fix that will permanently restore the Constitutional balance between the three branches of our government as such balance was envisioned by the Founders.

Noted lawyer and now columnist at NRO, Andrew McCarthy, reviews Newt Gingrich's plan to redress the balance. Mr. McCarthy first describes the underlying reasons that support Gingrich's focus on this critical issue. First up is a case that I previously described as "a vast expansion of the power of the Court" into the enumerated powers of Congress and the President, opining that it "may turn out to be the most costly decision ever to our nation." That case of judicial activism run amok was Boumediene v. Bush. This from Mr. McCarthy:

In a ruling that defied both logic and centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence, the Court [in Boumediene] held that aliens captured outside the United States — aliens whose only connection to our body politic was to wage a terrorist war against us — were somehow vested with a constitutional right of access to our courts to challenge their detention.

These rulings are not simply legal outrages. They deny the sovereign power of the American people to enforce their natural right of self-defense — all for the benefit of foreign jihadists who target civilians for mass murder. Nor are they singular excesses. In the last three-quarters of a century, there has been an explosion of juristocracy, of politically unaccountable judges’ nullifying the American people’s democratically enacted choices. The courts have not merely been an advocate for our wartime enemies but a partisan in the culture wars — inventing abortion rights; eroding the bedrock principle of equal protection before the law; cossetting heinous criminals; banning public expressions of religious reverence; protecting the publication of child pornography while curbing political speech; cherry-picking international law as needed to reverse popular self-determination; and so on.

Having enumerated the assaults on our Constitution by the Courts, McCarthy notes that both he and former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey embrace Gringrich's plan to right the Constituional balance, even though neither agrees with all of Gingrich's proposed fixes. This from Mr. McCarthy:

In the real world, there are many steps between the extreme we have now — sheep-like acquiescence to a continuing usurpation of power — and the extreme of making the offending judges disappear.

For example, the political branches may enact laws that deny the courts jurisdiction to hear certain kinds of cases. If the courts ignore these bars (as they did in the detainee cases), the political branches may enact laws reversing those decisions. If the courts persist in their obstinacy, theorizing that they are vested with the final power to divine the Constitution’s meaning (a power found nowhere in the Constitution), the political branches could enact a law, or propose a constitutional amendment, that explicitly empowers them to overturn decisions of the Supreme Court. Or they could simply refuse to enforce court rulings — the courts’ impotence in unilaterally imposing their judgments having been the principal reason Hamilton presumed the judiciary to be “the least dangerous” branch. Congress, moreover, could revisit the dubious tradition that judges can be impeached only for personal corruption, and not for persistently, egregiously overstepping their authority.

That last is a suggestion I raised in a post here. Mr. McCarthy concludes:

Gingrich deserves credit for forcing the vital issue beneath all of this, an issue that every GOP candidate ought to address. The Supreme Court has long purported to be the final authority on what the law is. It was one thing to take that position when the judges had a modest understanding of their role: namely, to resolve cases between litigants, without the grandiosity that would impose those rulings on every American. As Gingrich points out, however, for the last half-century, the Court has regarded itself as a permanent constitutional convention. This is the absurdity: The Constitution says it cannot be amended absent an elaborate process involving supermajorities of Congress and the states — but the courts have somehow convinced us that a 5–4 shakeout from nine unelected lawyers can do the trick. So the question for the candidates is, who is the sovereign? Who gets the final word on what the law is? Hint: The first three words of the Constitution are not, “We the Judges . . . ”

Mr. McCarthy's analysis tracks with my own on this issue. Correcting this vast overreach by our Courts over the past half century, restoring the balance to that envisioned by our Founders, is crucial for the future of our nation. That Gingrich has the courage to bring this up - against what will surely be withering attack from the left - is one of the primary reasons why I support him for President.

Read More...

Summary only...

The War Against Radical Islam & The Battlefield of Ideas

Andrew McCarthy, writing at NRO, is effuse in his praise for Newt Gingrich's remarks concerning our war against "radical Islam" in both its militaristic and 'fifth column' forms. Gingrich, he says, is that exceedingly rare combination of a politician who both understands the nature of the threat and is willing to speak out about it honestly. This from Mr. McCarthy:

. . . Gingrich grasps that there is an enemy here and that it is a mortal threat to freedom. He knows that if we are to remain a free people, it is an enemy we must defeat. That enemy is Islamism, and its operatives — whether they come as terrorists or stealth saboteurs — are the purveyors of sharia, Islam’s authoritarian legal and political system. . . .

The single purpose of this jihad is the imposition of sharia. On that score, Gingrich made two points of surpassing importance. First, some Islamists employ mass-murder attacks while others prefer a gradual march through our institutions — our legal, political, academic, and financial systems, as well as our broader culture; the goal of both, though, is the same. The stealth Islamists occasionally feign outrage at the terrorists, but their quarrel is over methodology and pace. Both camps covet the same outcome.

Second, that outcome is the death of freedom. In Islamist ideology, sharia is deemed to be the necessary precondition for Islamicizing a society — for Islam is not merely a religious doctrine, but a comprehensive socio-economic and political system. As the former speaker elaborated, sharia embodies principles and punishments that are abhorrent to Western values. Indeed, its foundational premise is anti-American, holding that we are not free people at liberty to govern ourselves irrespective of any theocratic code, that people are instead beholden to the Islamic state, which is divinely enjoined to impose Allah’s laws.

Sharia, moreover, is anti-equality. It subjugates women and brutally punishes transgressors, particularly homosexuals and apostates. While our law forbids cruel and unusual punishments, Gingrich observed that the brutality in sharia sanctions is not gratuitous, but intentional: It is meant to enforce Allah’s will by striking example.

On this last point, Gingrich offered a salient insight, one well worth internalizing in the Sun Tzu sense of knowing one’s enemy. Islamists, violent or not, have very good reasons for the wanting to destroy the West. Those reasons are not crazy or wanton — and they have nothing to do with Gitmo, Israel, cartoons, or any other excuse we conjure to explain the savagery away. Islamists devoutly believe, based on a well-founded interpretation of Islamic doctrine, that they have been commanded by Allah to kill, convert, or subdue all who do not adhere to sharia — because they regard Allah as their only master (“There is no God but Allah”). It is thus entirely rational (albeit frightening to us) that they accept the scriptural instruction that the very existence of those who resist sharia is offensive to Allah, and that a powerful example must be made of those resisters in order to induce the submission of all — “submission” being the meaning of Islam.

It makes no sense to dismiss our enemies as lunatics just because “secular socialist” elites, as Gingrich called them, cannot imagine a fervor that stems from religious devotion. We ought to respect our enemies, he said. Not “respect” in Obama-speak, which translates as “appease,” but in the sense of taking them seriously, understanding that they are absolutely determined to win, and realizing that they are implacable. There is no “moderate” sharia devotee, for sharia is not moderate. . . . Islamism is not a movement to be engaged, it is an enemy to be defeated.

Victory, Gingrich said, will be very long in coming — longer, perhaps, than the nearly half-century it took to win the Cold War. . . .

Debate over all of this is essential. The crucial point is that we must have the debate with eyes open. It is a debate about which Gingrich has put down impressive markers: The main front in the war is not Afghanistan or Iraq but the United States. The war is about the survival of Western civilization, and we should make no apologies for the fact that the West’s freedom culture is a Judeo-Christian culture — a fact that was unabashedly acknowledged, Gingrich reminded his audience, by FDR and Churchill. To ensure victory in the United States we must, once again, save Europe, where the enemy has advanced markedly. There is no separating our national security and our economic prosperity — they are interdependent. And while the Middle East poses challenges of immense complexity, Gingrich contended that addressing two of them — Iran, the chief backer of violent jihad, and Saudi Arabia, the chief backer of stealth jihad — would go a long way toward improving our prospects on the rest.

Most significant, there is sharia. By pressing the issue, Newt Gingrich accomplishes two things. First, he gives us a metric for determining whether those who would presume to lead us will fight or surrender. Second, at long last, someone is empowering truly moderate Muslims — assuming they exist in the numbers we’re constantly assured of. Our allies are the Muslims who embrace our freedom culture — those for whom sharia is a matter of private belief, not public mission. Our enemies are those who want sharia to supplant American law and Western culture. When we call out the latter, and marginalize them, we may finally energize the former. . . .

These are points that I have been making ad infinitum on this blog. For but one example, see National Security At The End Of Obama's First Year (its a long post - scroll half way through to get to the section on 'war of ideas'). The bottom line is that we have to engage in the war of ideas or the Islamist's war against the West will still be being fought by our grandchildren's grandchildren. Moreover, given the push of radicals for weapons of mass destruction, the far too widespread support for radicals throughout the Islamic world, and the continued push of Salafi Islam into the West on the back of Saudi petrodollars, the chances are very high that the war will likely become far more bloody and expensive as time goes on, as well as ever more threatening to the fundamental freedoms of Western civilization. This is a war that we could indeed lose if we fail to engage.

Step one in the war of ideas is to identify the enemy. We have to expose Wahhabi / Salafi Islam and shine a light on it in to engage the strongest force in any democracy - public opinion. Bush never did this. Obama is exponentially worse, pretending that there is no threat to the West originating out of Islam. It is not merely an incredibly dangerous falsehood, it is treasonous. Gingrich is the first major politician of either party to step up.

Dafydd ab Hugh at Big Lizards has done two recent posts on this topic, both of which should be required reading. In Brilliance At Midnight, Dafydd notes that the threat from radical Islam to Western society is really two fold:

The take-away from the massive dumping of leaked U.S. military documents on WikiLeaks, documents related to the conduct and progress of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, is this: The putative "rift" between Islamist terrorists on the one hand, and radical Islamists who "reject terrorism" (at specific times and places) on the other hand, has nothing to do with any ultimate goal of Islamism.

The rift reflects only a difference of opinion about the precise strategies and tactics for achieving that goal. Islamist victory conditions are the same in both groups: a pure, radical Islamism dominant across the globe, with sharia the final law in every country. . . .

Our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq are involved in the physical war against this threat, but in the long run, it is the war of ideas that matters more. In Brilliance at Midnight - the Dawn, Dafydd flushes out the tools available to us to engage in the war of ideas:

. . . The most important task before launching into a war of ideas is to fully arm and equip our "soldiers" -- in this case, our soldiers comprise all Americans willing and able to defend Western values of individual liberty, property and Capitalism, freedom of speech and religion (not merely freedom of worship, as Obama would have it), actual rule of law, and governance by the consent of the governed. Bluntly, I mean educating the masses about the Grand Jihad, its goals, its methods, and the existential danger it poses. . . .

Do read both of his posts. We fail to engage in the war of ideas at our own existential peril.

Lastly, as to Gingrich himself, I wrote recently that I consider him the best candidate for President the Republicans could field in 2012. His above remarks on the threat we face from Islamism merely increase my conviction exponentially.

Read More...

Summary only...

Andrew McCarthy's Clear Eyed Response To An Obama Invitation

Former U.S. attorney and author Andrew McCarthy has turned down an Obama administration request to participate in a discussion of policies concerning detainees in taken as part of our contingency operation on man-caused disasters. He has declined - and his letter to that Attorney General Holder to that effect is a must read:

This letter is respectfully submitted to inform you that I must decline the invitation to participate in the May 4 roundtable meeting the President’s Task Force on Detention Policy is convening . . .

The invitation email . . . indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants—or what the Department now calls “individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.” . . . [I]t is quite clear—most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany—that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States). Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people. Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.

Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government. . . .

. . . We have already released too many jihadists who, as night follows day, have resumed plotting to kill Americans. Indeed, according to recent reports, a released Guantanamo detainee is now leading Taliban combat operations in Afghanistan, where President Obama has just sent additional American forces.

The Obama campaign smeared Guantanamo Bay as a human rights blight. Consistent with that hyperbolic rhetoric, the President began his administration by promising to close the detention camp within a year. The President did this even though he and you (a) agree Gitmo is a top-flight prison facility, (b) acknowledge that our nation is still at war, and (c) concede that many Gitmo detainees are extremely dangerous terrorists who cannot be tried under civilian court rules. Patently, the commitment to close Guantanamo Bay within a year was made without a plan for what to do with these detainees who cannot be tried. Consequently, the Detention Policy Task Force is not an effort to arrive at the best policy. It is an effort to justify a bad policy that has already been adopted: to wit, the Obama administration policy to release trained terrorists outright if that’s what it takes to close Gitmo by January.

Obviously, I am powerless to stop the administration from releasing top al Qaeda operatives who planned mass-murder attacks against American cities—like Binyam Mohammed (the accomplice of “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla) whom the administration recently transferred to Britain, where he is now at liberty and living on public assistance. I am similarly powerless to stop the administration from admitting into the United States such alien jihadists as the 17 remaining Uighur detainees. According to National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, the Uighurs will apparently live freely, on American taxpayer assistance, despite the facts that they are affiliated with a terrorist organization and have received terrorist paramilitary training. Under federal immigration law (the 2005 REAL ID Act), those facts render them excludable from the United States. The Uighurs’ impending release is thus a remarkable development given the Obama administration’s propensity to deride its predecessor’s purported insensitivity to the rule of law.

I am, in addition, powerless to stop the President, as he takes these reckless steps, from touting his Detention Policy Task Force as a demonstration of his national security seriousness. But I can decline to participate in the charade. . . .

Read the entire letter. I think Mr. McCarthy covers all relevant bases above. As was immediatly apparent the moment Obama greenlighted the criminal investigation into the OLC attorney's, it was a decision that will have wide ranging impact. Consider McCarthy's decision the opening salvo. Further, McCarthy makes clear that he will not take part in Obama-style bipartisanship - i.e., Obama makes a decision that he will not alter, then reaches out to the opposing side to either have the decision bless or to at least give a patina of bipartisan effort on his part. At any rate, an excellent read from Mr. McCarthy.

Read More...

Summary only...