Propaganda? Hamas? You're Joking, Right?

Perhaps you've seen the two adjacent horrible pictures of a child wounded in Gaza over the weekend. Take a closer look, if you can stomach it. I'll bet it's the same little girl in each picture.

Now, why would anyone deliberately delay medical care for a hurt child long enough for her to appear in two distinct globally disseminated photographs? What could be possibly be the reason? I wonder...

Great Words and Not So Great Words

I thought this might clear up a few things (emphasis mine):

The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The Israeli Declaration of Independence
THE STATE OF ISRAEL...will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture.

Article Eight of the Hamas Charter: The Slogan of the Hamas
Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Qur’an its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief.

Good Job, 41!

Later this week, the United States Navy will bestow one of our nations highest honors on our 41st President, George H. W. Bush, the naming of a US Naval war ship in his honor, the USS George H. W. Bush (a nuclear powered aircraft carrier). I was not a huge fan of the policies of our 41st President, but I am a huge fan of the person. This honor is clearly deserved in recognition of a life spent serving others and the grace with which he did it.

He ascended the Presidency with, arguably, the best resume of any of the 42 men who have occupied the Oval Office. A naval officer, Congressman, ambassador, CIA Director, chairman of his party and Vice-President, were all positions of selfless service to our country prior to being elected to the highest office in the land.

When Mr. Bush enlisted in the US Navy in 1942, he was 18 years old. He was qualified as a naval aviator in 1943 just prior to his 19th birthday. That made him the youngest naval aviator ever, as of that date. On September 2, 1944, the future President was in command of VT-51 aircraft launched from the US aircraft carrier, USS San Jacinto. His plane was then shot down, but he was able to successfully complete his attack. This is all quite impressive for the son of a United States Senator and a child of privilege.

After successful business ventures in Texas, Mr. Bush was elected to the House of Representatives, where he served two terms. After failing to win a Texas Senate seat in 1970, President Richard Nixon appointed his as Ambassador to the United Nations. Then, in 1973 at the request of President Nixon, Mr. Bush resigned his position at the UN and became Chairman of the Republican National Committee, a somewhat thankless task in 1973.

In 1974, President Gerald Ford appointed Mr. Bush as head of the U.S. Liaison Office in the People's Republic of China (essentially, US Ambassador to China). Mr. Bush served in that post for 14 months until President Ford came calling again. At the end of 1975, Mr. Bush accepted the appointment as Director of Central Intelligence. At that time, the CIA was an agency in crisis as a result of the revelations of Watergate. Mr. Bush served as DCI for only about one year. He returned to private life after the election of Jimmy Carter in 1976.

In 1979, Mr. Bush heard the call to public service again by seeking the Republican nomination for President. Of course his first attempt at the Presidency was unsuccessful, but it led to Mr. Bush being elected the forty-third Vice-President of the United States. In that office, he served President Reagan with wisdom, dignity and grace. He was a part of the most successful administration of the 20th century.

As an integral part of the Reagan Administration, Mr. Bush was rewarded by the American people by being elected the forty-first President of the United States on November 8, 1988. Again, as you can see, he entered the Presidency with a resume like no other before him.

While some of his Presidential decisions left a lot of us on the right disappointed, we were never disappointed by the way he conducted himself or the trappings of his office. As a matter of fact, one of the most disappointing decisions of his Presidency was being too trusting of the other side. He agreed to raise taxes only in exchange for spending cuts. When it came time to cut the spending, the Democratic controlled Congress refused to hold up its end of the bargain. Mr. Bush made the mistake of thinking that since he would keep his word, others on the Hill would do so as well. But this is emblematic of the way he conducted his life – as an honest man who’s word was his bond.

Upon leaving office, President Bush let it be known that as a former President, he would not be publicly critical of those who followed him. Unlike the behavior of President Carter, who has actively attempted to subvert the foreign polices of at least three of his successors, or President Clinton, who was often publicly critical of the current President Bush, Mr. Bush - 41, kept a low profile and only took on missions when asked (like the tsunami relief efforts).

His long record of selfless service to our nation is something that very few of us will ever achieve. In addition, his dignity and grace should be an example to all of us. It is people like George H. W. Bush who made this nation as great as it is. So to you Mr. President, I salute you and say a job well done! The honor of having our newest and greatest weapon of war named after you is something that you have earned and it is only a small way for all of us to say thank you.

Those of us who were uncomfortable with the blank slate also known as Barack Obama’s record of accomplishment received innumerable assurances that all would be well because “he’s so smart”. Putting aside that Mr. He’s-So-Smart refused to make public his college record and claimed to have “lost” his senior thesis at Columbia, let’s agree that He’s So Smart. Let’s also remember that the President-elect held the position of Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School for eleven years, during which time he taught constitutional law. One more thing, in less than three weeks he will swear “to the best of [his] ability, [to] preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”.

So when the much reviled Governor of Illinois made the Burris appointment, did the President-Elect offer a measured view taking into account the relevant legal considerations as he saw them (bringing to bear his considerable expertise in the subject), consistent with the oath of office he is about to take – possibly in contradiction of popular sentiment and the fervent (make that desperate) desire of his party’s leaders to get Rod Blagojevich off Page 1 (i.e., demonstrate leadership)? Let’s take a look.

Here is Obama’s statement on the Burris appointment in pertinent part: “The Senate Democrats made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat. I agree with their decision, and it is extremely disappointing that Governor Blagojevich has chosen to ignore it. I believe the best resolution would be for the Governor to resign his office and allow a lawful and appropriate process of succession to take place.” Speaking of a “lawful process”:

1. The Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution enables a state's governor, authorized by that state's legislature, to appoint a Senator in the event of a vacancy, until an election is held to fill the vacancy. Illinois law provides: “When a vacancy shall occur in the office of United States Senator from this state, the Governor shall make a temporary appointment to fill such vacancy until the next election of representatives in Congress…” Thus, reading the Constitution together with Illinois law, it appears Governor Blagojevich’s authority to fill the Senate seat is unassailable.

2. Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White has indicated he will not certify any document as an official act of the State of Illinois which purports to be an appointment of a Senator by Governor Blagojevich. The Secretary of State is the official keeper of the Seal of the State of Illinois and is responsible for attaching the seal to official Illinois documents. The Secretary has no legal authority to approve or disapprove of the Blagojevich choice. Attaching the seal is analogous to the role of a notary in affirming a signature. The notary is simply authenticating the signature, not participating in the content of the document. If the lack of a seal were to be a stumbling block in seating Roland Burris in the United States Senate, it is likely the courts would order Secretary White to seal the document.

3. Article I, Section 5 of the US Constitution provides: “Each House shall be the judge of the … qualifications of its own members…” At first blush, this might appear to allow the Senate to deny a seat to a Blagojevich appointee. The Constitution sets forth three qualifications for a Senator in Article I, Section 3 as follows:

a) Be at least 30 years old,

b) Have been a U.S. citizen for at least nine years , and

c) Live in the State he/she is to represent.

In 1969, the United States Supreme Court interpreted those two clauses together in the case of Powell v. McCormack. The House of Representatives had denied a seat to Adam Clayton Powell because of legal problems surrounding Mr. Powell. The Court said that a House of Congress does not have the authority to deny a seat to a properly credentialed candidate who meets the qualifications outlined in the Constitution. Mr. Burris is 71 years of age, a lifelong citizen of the United States and lives in Illinois. He meets the constitutional qualifications.

Hence, despite the statements of Secretary White, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and 50 other United States Senators, they do not appear to have the authority to deny a Senate seat to a candidate duly appointed under the United States Constitution and the laws of the State of Illinois. If Barack Obama sees it otherwise perhaps he will get around to enlightening us – or perhaps he won’t.

The Wall Street Journal has helpfully weighed in (with a nice touch about Chris Dodd) -- http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123094461932550595.html#printMode.

Disproportionate Ridiculousness

As Israel’s inept and corrupt Kadima led government has finally decided to defend its citizens, I can’t help but be amused by the reaction of most of the so called “world community”, including the American left. Their principal talking point is that Israel’s reaction to daily Hamas rocket attacks against its civilian is a “disproportionate” response to these terrorist attacks. If the situation were not so dire, I would be doubled over in laughter.

What exactly is a disproportionate response to the daily attempted murder of civilians? How long would the United State government sit back and allow daily rocket attacks to be launched from British Columbia into Washington State? I don’t know, maybe one hour (I assume that’s the time it would take for our military to scramble the nearest Air Force F-15 fighter). Besides, when it comes to military action, proportion is irrelevant. The goal should always be outright victory. That was the lesson of the Viet Nam War. It was a lesson that the Bush Administration forgot during the first half of the Iraq War. Fortunately, they finally remembered it and launched the surge.

The talking points go on to site the civilians deaths in Judah (aka the Gaza Strip) by the Israeli military actions. While the loss of civilian life in any military conflict is unfortunate and sad, the blame for it in this case squarely lies on the shoulders of Hamas. It was Hamas that intentionally decided to place its security apparatus in the middle of civilian establishments, including schools and hospitals. Of course, they did it purposely so that when Israel finally decided to defend itself, they could claim that Israel was committing war crimes by killing civilians. In a rational world, everyone, including the useful idiots of the UN, would realize that Hamas is a terrorist organization and that it is 100% responsible for the deaths of the civilians it was suppose to protect.

Of course, there are a couple of world leaders who have not fallen for this terrorist canard. The Bush Administration is once again clearly indicating that Israel is acting properly and is engaging in this action in self-defense. Gordon Brown’s Labour government in the United Kingdom has also not been fooled by the Hamas terrorists (although the larger European Union, under the current French Presidency, has).

I’m also enjoying the almost universal line that Israel needs to negotiate with Hamas. As a general rule, negotiation is important, but no one has ever been able to explain to me how you can negotiate with someone who’s principal belief is that you have no right to exist. Until Hamas expressly recognizes Israel’s right to exist (in public statements made in Arabic), negotiation is impossible and the Israelis would be foolish to try. This would be like the United State attempting to negotiate with Al Qaeda. It would be a waste of time and it would lend legitimacy to the terrorists.

I am skeptical of the motives for the current Israeli offensive. It is obviously a domestic political ploy. It is being done because it currently appears that Benjamin Netanyahu will win the next Israeli general election, scheduled for February. Remember, it was Mr. Netanyahu who correctly predicated that an Israeli withdrawal from Judah would result in increased Palestinian attacks. Evidently, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert finally realized that the Israeli citizens have had enough of daily terrorist attacks originating from Hamas controlled territory and that because of his failure to act, his chosen successor, Tzipi Livni, was going to loose badly in the election to a leader who would use the military assets at his disposal to end the attacks.

However, every once and awhile political ploys result in proper policies. It is about time that Mr. Olmert acted to protect his citizens. Hopefully, unlike his unsuccessful incursion into Lebanon in 2006, the Prime Minister will take all actions necessary to rid the world of the cancer known as Hamas. If this happens, the so called world community can yell their talking points as loud as they want, to whomever will listen, but Israel in particular, and the world in general, will be safer than it is today.