Considerettes

Back in May, I passed on an article by Jim Lacey at the National Review suggesting that perhaps the reason we might not find WMDs in Iraq because, lacking the money to pay for them and knowing what Saddam did to people who failed, just told the boss they had those weapons, when in fact they didn’t. That article was interesting, but mostly conjecture.

Now comes an article in TIME magazine describing evidence that this might actually have been the case. It’s also possible, based on interviews with former Hussein regime officials, that many WMDs were, in fact, destroyed, out of sight of UN inspectors and without any documentation of their destruction.

Wierd. Yeah, this may still be a widespread ruse planned for a while by Hussein’s guys, but it’s no longer just conjecture. There’s now evidence that this might be the case, although one must certainly consider the source of this evidence; Hussein henchmen who may still be fearful of the long arm of the Ba’ath party.

Rep. Jim Marshall (D-GA) thinks the media is sabotaging our success in Iraq by overly hyping the specs of bad news in the midst of the torrent of good news they’re ignoring. “The falsely bleak picture weakens our national resolve, discourages Iraqi cooperation and emboldens our enemy.” It’s good to hear this from the other side of the aisle. Hope they’re listening over there, especially the allegegly unbiased news folks.

After a week of business travel and one of vacation on the beach, I’m back. 🙂

Dorothy Rabinowitz had a good article yesterday on OpinionJournal.com analyzing the left’s demonizing of John Ashcroft, and how the ACLU has been hijacked by the far left. It’s a good start at deconstruction of the allegations being thrown at him, especially when she points out that Janet Reno speaks out against him even with the Branch Davidian civil rights fiasco in her own past.

On a business trip this week, and on vacation next week, so blogging may be light.

President Bush spoke to the nation last weekend, and one of the things he said was that he was going to approach the international community to ask for help in the reconstruction of Iraq. Some folks are painting this situation as though Bush is going back, contrite, hat in hand, to the UN and ask for the help he didn’t ask for before. The problem is, he spent the better part of a year trying to get the UN to help remove the threat of Hussein, and for his work he got a UN resolution that most of those who passed it didn’t want to enforce. Those who refused to put any meaning behind the threat of force talked a good game about being concerned and wanting to help, blah blah blah.

Well, we, and a large number of countries, went in and did the job that the UN said it wanted done but wouldn’t lift a finger to do. Asking them to now put their money where their mouth is (or was) isn’t any sort of backing down on the part of Bush. It’s simply asking them to pony up for the cost of implementing their own resolution.

The US and the UK paid with the lives of their soldiers. The very least the rest of world can do is commit some money. And Dubya has nothing to hang his head about.

The Cybercast News Service has a good article today on how Democrat senators are instituting a de facto religious test in confirming federal judges. Oh, but they’re not saying it’s a religious test, only that…

“According to Senator Schumer, it’s the fact that they ‘seriously hold’ these beliefs that gives them concern,” [dean of the Ave Maria School of Law Bernard] Dobranski observed. “If you’re shallow or superficial in your grasp and beliefs that apparently makes you okay.”

If you’re not serious about your beliefs, then you’re OK, apparently. However, they’re facing a consistency problem.

“His beliefs are so well known, so deeply held that it’s very hard to believe, very hard to believe that they’re not going to deeply influence the way he comes about saying, ‘I will follow the law,’ and that would be true of anybody who had very, very deeply held views,” Senate Judiciary Committee member Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said of Pryor during his June 11 confirmation hearing.

Does this mean the Shumer will now lead the charge to confirm Pryor, now that Pryor (in spite of his deeply held beliefs) followed orders to remove the 10 Commandments monument from the Alabama courthouse? He proved he can and will follow law that he does not necessarily agree with:

Although I continue to believe that the Ten Commandments are the cornerstone of our legal heritage and can be displayed constitutionally as they are in the building of the Supreme Court of the United States, this controversy is no longer one involving a debate in the federal courts. The Supreme Court of Alabama has now spoken and ordered compliance with the federal injunction. Under our Constitution, federal and state courts must respect the orders of each other.

So will Chuck Shumer put his actions and his words in sync with each other? Hold not thy breath.

Looks like “Uncle Walter” has realized the error of his ways…maybe.

The about-face by Mr Cronkite, 86, acknowledged the charges of “Nimbyism” but also added new passion to the debate raging over the wind farm.
…
Mr Cronkite, who has a house on Martha’s Vineyard, stopped short of backing the wind farm outright. But he announced last week that he would wait for a government report before making up his mind.

“As an ardent environmentalist I have been uneasy about my strong statement that did not include my belief that wind power must be harnessed,” he said after meeting the head of the company behind the farm, Cape Wind Associates.

So Mr. Cronkite’s support for renewable energy is based on how close it is to him and the results of a government report. How reassuring for all those folks who believed his extolling of its virtues.

Alan Keyes wrote a rather lengthy article today regarding how the 1st, 10th and 14th amendments say with regard to Judge Moore’s 10 Commandments display. Boiling things down to main (and perhaps, too simplistic) points, I believe this is what he’s saying:

• The 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from doing anything regarding an establishment of religion. Therefore, the federal government cannot do anything in this regard, including prohibit religious expression of any sort, even by state judges.
• The 10th Amendment gives powers to the States and the people those not given to the feds. Therefore, the power to make (or not make) laws respecting an establishment of religion (a power specifically denied to the feds) is within the rights of the States or the people.
• The 14th Amendment does not transfer the Establishment Clause onto the States, because this amendment affects only “the privileges, immunities, legal rights and equal legal status of individual citizens and persons”. Instead, it shelters States and the people from any law respecting an establishment of religion as mentioned in the 1st Amendment.

  Additionally, Ambassador Keyes says, “Now, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as it applies the Bill of Rights to the states, lays an obligation upon state legislatures, officers and officials to refrain from actions that deprive the people of their rights. With respect to the First Amendment, therefore, it becomes their positive obligation to resist federal encroachments that take away the right of the people to decide how their state governments deal with matters of religion.”

• He distinguishes between the rights of individuals (e.g. to vote) and the rights of the people (e.g. to elect representatives) and makes the case that freedom of religion is a right of the people. Thus religious expression is not just an individual right, but one that the (collective) people are allowed to express.
• A choice of religious establishment is inevitable (since official indifference to religion is essentially establishing atheism), but this choice may not be made by the federal government according to the 1st Amendment. States, however, may, and since we have free movement between states, the religious pluralism we have in this country can be geographically expressed, while at the same time this does not happen at a national level (one size trying to fit all).
• Therefore, when federal judges force the issue of acknowledging religion or not (as in the Moore case), they are outside their constitutional boundaries. This is a state issue.

I’m not a Constitutional scholar at all, and this is, as I said, a rather long article (and I’m not doing it justice). However, this is well worth reading regardless of where you stand on this issue.

I’ve heard talk show hosts and read columnists that seek to criticize Judge Roy Moore’s stance on his 10 Commandments monument, but perhaps we should listen to Judge Moore himself to find out why he’s doing what he’s doing.

We must acknowledge God in the public sector because the state constitution explicitly requires us to do so. The Alabama Constitution specifically invokes “the favor and guidance of Almighty God” as the basis for our laws and justice system. As the chief justice of the state’s supreme court I am entrusted with the sacred duty to uphold the state’s constitution. I have taken an oath before God and man to do such, and I will not waver from that commitment.

By telling the state of Alabama that it may not acknowledge God, Judge Thompson effectively dismantled the justice system of the state. Judge Thompson never declared the Alabama Constitution unconstitutional, but the essence of his ruling was to prohibit judicial officers from obeying the very constitution they are sworn to uphold. In so doing, Judge Thompson and all who supported his order, violated the rule of law.

But what of the “separation of church and state”?

For half a century the fanciful tailors of revisionist jurisprudence have been working to strip the public sector naked of every vestige of God and morality. They have done so based on fake readings and inconsistent applications of the First Amendment. They have said it is all right for the U.S. Supreme Court to publicly place the Ten Commandments on its walls, for Congress to open in prayer and for state capitols to have chaplains–as long as the words and ideas communicated by such do not really mean what they purport to communicate. They have trotted out before the public using words never mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, like “separation of church and state,” to advocate, not the legitimate jurisdictional separation between the church and state, but the illegitimate separation of God and state.

(Free registration at the Wall Street Journal web site is required to read the whole article. I recommend doing so.)

Sure enough, as I thought might happen, Senator Charles Shumer is now suggesting we nationalize the nation’s power grid. Another knee-jerk reaction by a Democrat to nationalize something as a way to “fix” it.

Senator Edward Kennedy in the back pocket of the fishing and boating industries? Could it really be?

Opponents, including U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Walter Cronkite and historian David McCullough, say it would damage wildlife, destroy views and harm the fishing and boating industries.

Since when did liberals start caring so much for big business? I guess since there was something that would “destroy views” around their backyards.

Yup, this is the wind turbine issue on Nantucket Sound again. How about this new acronym for the group: D. A. R. E., “Democrats Against Renewable Energy”.

Supporters say the farm would produce no polluting greenhouse gases, and would supply nearly three-quarters of the electricity used on the cape and islands.

But not in my backyard, eh Walt?