Rightank

This week, Iran decided to remove the seals at an Iranium enrichment plant publicly defying the International Atomic Energy Agency or the United Nations to stop them. Iran’s position is confirmatory step to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s capricious claim that Iran has a legitimate right to acquire nuclear power.

Victor Davis Hanson outlines the Iranian threat:

With nukes and an earned reputation for madness, [Iran] can dictate to the surrounding Arab world the proper policy of petroleum exportation; it can shakedown Europeans whose capitals are in easy missile range; it can take out Israel with a nuke or two; or it can bully the nascent democracies of the Middle East while targeting tens of thousands of US soldiers based from Afghanistan to the Persian Gulf.

And Iran can threaten to do all this under the aegis of a crazed Islamist regime more eager for the paradise of the next world than for the material present so dear to the affluent and decadent West. If Iran can play brinkmanship now on just the promise of nuclear weapons, imagine its roguery to come when it is replete with them.

The Iranian threat should be treated very seriously within the halls of the State Department–but diplomacy is not going to stop Iran’s mad mullahs or Ahmadinejad. In this age of Islamic terrorism, diplomacy merely works as a means of international bureacratic pacification. For example, the United States went to the U.N. Security Council and obtained Resolution 1441 in which the Bush Adminstration used as part of their war calculus in justifying the decision to go to war with Iraq. However, it was not the main reason for going to war nor was it constitutionally necessary. Rather, the move was made to create a buffer between the European and other world elites who opposed U.S. intervention. Iran should be no different. Try diplomacy, and if it works, yell “Hurrah!” However, pressure by the EU-3 (Great Britain, France, and Germany) and the United States is not going to stultify the Iranian nuclear physicists, chemists, and engineers from building their developing nuclear material for their dream nuke.

As such, we must prepare our Nation for another engagement of military force. This is not desirable, but, the reality is Iran is either going to be stopped by Israel bombing Iranian reactors (which could be a bit complicated) or us. There isn’t an international organization–including one headed by a certain nobel-prize winning Egyptian–that possesses the moral will to stop them. President Bush must begin to make the case to the American people why we cannot afford to have a nuclear Iran. The terrorism that Iran sponsors (including Hezbollah and Hamas) needs to be repeated ad nauseam when talking about Iran.

This is a critical time in the War on Terror, not only in Iran but in Iraq. A nuclear Iran has the potential of destabilizing the Iraqi coalition and the newly elected government. As VDH laments:

[T]he public must be warned that dealing with a nuclear Iran is not a matter of a good versus a bad choice, but between a very bad one now and something far, far worse to come.

Either we act now, or we roll the dice on Iranian mullahs with mushroom clouds dancing in their heads. Mr. President, it’s time to act.

The past two days, Judge Samuel Alito has been forced to listen to pompous Democrats blister about race, homosexuals, and Senator Feinstein’s favorite word: abortion. Their unabashed aim has been to give mini-stump speeches about the liberal issues important and dear to their hearts–in order to placate the radical liberals at MoveOn.org and Daily Kos–then attempt to brandish Alito as racist, homophobic, and anti-abortion. During the Roberts hearings, Republicans and Democrats, behaved in a professional manner. The Alito hearings, however, as evinced by Alito’s wife tears, have been full of hate-filled hyperbole, mean-spirited, and bigoted yelling by the Democrats baldly (and in Biden’s case very baldly) accusing Alito after he repeatedly denies their absurd and demonstrably insane charges.

To his credit, Judge Alito has shown poise and professionalism during the hearings. It must be tiresome for him to have to repeatedly deny that he is a racist, sexist, etc. Alito comes across very credible and seems to possess a very independent mind when examining each case the comes before him. Coupled with his independence, his methods of statutory interpretation “I usually begin at the text of the statute and end up at the text” and constitutional interpretation “Foreign law is not helpful” should give conservatives confidence that he is the type of judge who takes his job very seriously and who decides cases based upon the law and not upon his own personal policy preferences. As a sidenote, I particularly admire him for his willingness to defend his views at Princeton regarding the ROTC and how he was upset that the Princeton administration had the nerve to kick them off campus.

The hearings should have been shortened to two rounds of questioning, particularly when the Democratic Senators take up all their time bloviating about themselves–or their how Bush is wiretapping innocent supporters of Al Qaeda–and not questioning the nominee. Furthermore, Senator Specter should have denied Senator Kennedy’s leprechaun hunt to find the Alito’s magic pot within the papers of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP), which evidently does not exist.

Alito has shown great class under fire.  He will be confirmed and the Democratic tirades, while filling their campaign coffers, won’t prevent Judge Alito from becoming Justice Alito who, along with Chief Justice Roberts, will help the Court return to its proper constitutional role.

I had a chance to listen to some of the hearing today. Geez, apparently the lefty Democrats just love Sandra Day O’Connor. According to them, she is a primordial example of what a Surpreme Court Justice (”SCJ”) is and should be, excluding of course that 2000 case between two presidential nominees (Bush v. Gore). As long as you vote to uphold Roe v. Wade, other nebulous privacy rights, and uphold racist admission guidelines for law schools (just for another 25 years though according to Justice O’Connor), you are a SCJ worthly of high praise and distinction. Molding the departing Justice O’Connor as a protector of the Left is one thing, but, it appears that the Dems are going to emphasize Sandra a little more than I thought they would.

Senator Leahy made a comment during his opening remarks that a SCJ should render decisions on behalf of “all the people.” Leahy implies that a SCJ who, for example, would rule in favor of the President spying on Americans who communicate with Al Qaeda or against upholding a law banning partial-birth abortion would not be ruling for “all the people.” Yet, it is not a judge’s nor a legislator’s obligation to make a decision based upon the will of all the people. Putting aside the virtual impossibility of every American agreeing, their constitutional obligation does not require it. Moreover, while a legislator should listen to the voice of his or her constituency, a judge’s consituency is the Constitution. That document is what binds citizens of 50 States together as one and is the foundational law of our democratic republic. Leahy’s grandiose utterance suggests that minorities not majorities are the “all” and that their voice–not the people’s voice–that should be heard. However, Leahy forgets himself. “We the People” was not all the people, it was a majority of people. Some Americans who fought for liberty in the Revolutionary War voted against ratifying the Constitution. In his haste to secure the rights of radical minorities, Leahy forgets himself.

Senator Durbin remarked that he intended to question Alito and scrutinize the judge’s comments from a women’s rights perspective because Alito is replacing O’Connor–a woman. Would Durbin exercise the same type of senatorial scrutiny for a Republican woman nominee who was replacing a man on the Court? I think not.

Senator Coburn, in his remarks, pointed out the selective hypocrisy of the Democrats. Pointedly, he remarked how the Democratic Senators emphasized the “weak” or “underprivileged”, yet, when the person that is weak is a 3 month old fetus, their desire to protect someone who is indefensible is replaced by a desire to protect a women’s “right” to choose.

Alito’s remarks started slowly, but, as his testimony progressed I feel he presented himself in a calm, effective manner. Alito might be more capable of a Robertsesque performance than his critics think.

Samuel Alito begins his adventure into Ego-Ego Land when he walks into the Senate Room where his confirmation hearings for the U.S. Supreme Court will take place.

The Democrats are already threatening to filibuster Alito. I can already hear Schumer, Biden, Kennedy, and Leahy speaking for maybe 2 minutes on Alito then morphing into separate diatribes against Bush, wiretaps, and executive power. Feinstein will talk endlessly about Roe v. Wade (along with her cohort Specter), and how it is a vital, important, and super-duper precedent. How you dare Judge Alito (I can hear Feinstein blather), disturb a woman’s right to choose?

The Republican senators will effectively counter the attacks of the Democrats, although Senator Lindsey Graham will attempt to showcase his talent for praising the nominee by praising himself. I hope the Republicans ask probing questions of Alito, which would reinforce any doubt as to his conservatism but would also allow the American people to understand whether his views the Constitution from an originalist or make-it-up-as-you-go perspective.

When Chief Justice Roberts was confirmed, conservatives really did not know where he stood on social issues, particularly gay marriage. Questions from the Republicans like “Do you believe that state legislators can set moral boundaries, codified in the criminal and civil codes, on behalf of the citizens?” and if so, “What is the appropriate level of deference that you as a Supreme Court Justice would give the state legislative decision?” By asking these types of questions, conservatives could peel away a little bit more of the mystery of Alito’s conservatism.

Alito’s decision-making on the Court will be crucial to returning the an orginalist, not activist focus. Of late, the Supreme Court has usurped the legislative function far too often (e.g., Lawrence v. Texas). The morality of nine lawyers should not be able to dictate the moral boundaries of state or federal government–that is the job of the People’s representatives.

May the madness begin.

Stephen Hayes reports that the Defense Department has discovered from documents seized during the conquest of Baghdad that Saddam’s thugish regime trained thousands, not 10 or 20, of radical Islamofacists to do what Allah called them to do–terrorize, kill, and murder infidels:

The secret training took place primarily at three camps–in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak–and was directed by elite Iraqi military units. Interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and military leaders corroborate the documentary evidence. Many of the fighters were drawn from terrorist groups in northern Africa with close ties to al Qaeda, chief among them Algeria’s GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army. Some 2,000 terrorists were trained at these Iraqi camps each year from 1999 to 2002, putting the total number at or above 8,000. Intelligence officials believe that some of these terrorists returned to Iraq and are responsible for attacks against Americans and Iraqis. According to three officials with knowledge of the intelligence on Iraqi training camps, White House and National Security Council officials were briefed on these findings in May 2005; senior Defense Department officials subsequently received the same briefing.

Malkin’s right–this is BIG NEWS. Part of our preemptive rationale for overthrowing Saddam Hussein was his proclivity to finance, harbor, or covertly aid terrorist organizations, including Osama’s Al Qaeda. Evidence that Saddam conducted terror camps, especially if he signed off on any expenses or directed the training, should silence Democrats (e.g., John Kerry) who incessantly claimed that Iraq posed no terrorist threat:

[John Kerry]: And if we’d used smart diplomacy, we could have saved $200 billion and an invasion of Iraq. And right now, Osama bin Laden might be in jail or dead. That’s the war against terror.

Kerry was wrong then and very wrong now. The WMD might have made their way to a weapons oasis in Syria, but, this hard evidence of Iraqi terror camps will surely dampen the spirits of Democrats and radical leftists who opposed the Iraqi war because Saddam they believed he didn’t pose any terrorist threat.

Mark Steyn on the problem European demography and its Islamic transformation:

Radical Islam is an opportunistic infection, like AIDS: It’s not the HIV that kills you, it’s the pneumonia you get when your body’s too weak to fight it off. When the jihadists engage with the U.S. military, they lose–as they did in Afghanistan and Iraq. If this were like World War I with those fellows in one trench and us in ours facing them over some boggy piece of terrain, it would be over very quickly. Which the smarter Islamists have figured out. They know they can never win on the battlefield, but they figure there’s an excellent chance they can drag things out until Western civilization collapses in on itself and Islam inherits by default.

The collapse Steyn writes about is not a military collaspe, but a volatile societal collapse beckoning for eruption:

What will Europe be like at the end of this process? Who knows? On the one hand, there’s something to be said for the notion that America will find an Islamified Europe more straightforward to deal with than M. Chirac, Herr Schroeder & Co. On the other hand, given Europe’s track record, getting there could be very bloody. But either way this is the real battlefield. The al Qaeda nutters can never find enough suicidal pilots to fly enough planes into enough skyscrapers to topple America. But unlike us, the Islamists think long-term, and, given their demographic advantage in Europe and the tone of the emerging Muslim lobby groups there, much of what they’re flying planes into buildings for they’re likely to wind up with just by waiting a few more years. The skyscrapers will be theirs; why knock ‘em over? . . .

To avoid collapse, European nations will need to take in immigrants at a rate no stable society has ever attempted. The CIA is predicting the EU will collapse by 2020. Given that the CIA’s got pretty much everything wrong for half a century, that would suggest the EU is a shoo-in to be the colossus of the new millennium. But even a flop spook is right twice a generation. If anything, the date of EU collapse is rather a cautious estimate. It seems more likely that within the next couple of European election cycles, the internal contradictions of the EU will manifest themselves in the usual way, and that by 2010 we’ll be watching burning buildings, street riots and assassinations on American network news every night. Even if they avoid that, the idea of a childless Europe ever rivaling America militarily or economically is laughable. Sometime this century there will be 500 million Americans, and what’s left in Europe will either be very old or very Muslim. Japan faces the same problem: Its population is already in absolute decline, the first gentle slope of a death spiral it will be unlikely ever to climb out of. Will Japan be an economic powerhouse if it’s populated by Koreans and Filipinos? Very possibly. Will Germany if it’s populated by Algerians? That’s a trickier proposition.

If you’re European, you have reason to fear. The amalgamation of “like-minded” states called the European Union won’t save you from the festering population deficiency and Muslim immigration boom influx are facing. The engendered socialism lauded and instilled by the Euro elite has sedated the masses from thinking about the future and what type of European (say Algerian Muslim) is supposed to be counted upon to provide welfare’s suckle thirty years down the road. More Steyn:

What does the Islamification of Europe heed for Americans, apart from the need to promote and reward stable families–two parent, male-female households–from raising children to sustain the American population?

What will London–or Paris, or Amsterdam–be like in the mid-’30s? If European politicians make no serious attempt this decade to wean the populace off their unsustainable 35-hour weeks, retirement at 60, etc., then to keep the present level of pensions and health benefits the EU will need to import so many workers from North Africa and the Middle East that it will be well on its way to majority Muslim by 2035. As things stand, Muslims are already the primary source of population growth in English cities. Can a society become increasingly Islamic in its demographic character without becoming increasingly Islamic in its political character?

Steyn’s last question answers itself (No!) and raises a good point for Americans to ponder: Can our society remain free if religion, particularly Christianity, is stripped from the public square? What will happen if America’s religious demographic is prevented from expressing itself politically?

To deny American’s political character is to deny its religiousity. The adulation of secularism in our law and in our law-making institutions will cripple our will and resolve. An unfettered and allegiant resolve is what we will need to confront the growing crawl of Islamofacism. Eurabia, I’m afraid, is only the beginning.

Today marks Rightank’s one year anniversary!

Definitely, my more memorable posts this past year revolved around same-sex marriage. Particularly, the debate on same-sex marriage between Rightank and The Baltimore Group I found intellectually stimulating, fun, and collegial. Also, comments by Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review and Professor Dale Carpenter (including the subsequent back-and-forth) regarding different aspects of the same-sex marriage debate were highlights as well.

Rightank also tackled the Roberts nomination, illegal immigration, the ACLU, religious freedom, and the War on Terror. Recently, I began reviewing books after I finish reading them. I hope my readers find the reviews meritorious and worthwhile.

My theme has changed quite a bit. My theme schizophrenia occured because of my switch from Blogger to WordPress, and trying to find a theme compatible with what I wanted. I hope to stick with the current theme for a long time.

Blogging this past year at Rightank has been a great experience. WordPress is a great blogging platform and I am excited about what the future holds. Robust political debate is the primary reason why the Founders inserted “freedom of speech” in the First Amendment. The blogosphere channels political debate throughout our country and the world. It is an honor to be part of that debate. I hope you’ll join me for the ride in Rightank’s second year.

Michael Barone makes an excellent point regarding the Donkey Party’s loyalty to America, using their love affair with Michael Moore to illustrate:

Consider the case of Michael Moore. In June 2004, about half of the Democratic senators attended the Washington premiere of Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11. Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida emerged from the theater with a big smile and a thumbs up for photographers. At the Democratic National Convention, Moore was seated next to former President Jimmy Carter on Monday night.

This is the same Michael Moore who hailed the Iraqi insurgents as “Minute Men” and who said they will and should win. This is the same Michael Moore whose own website featured his statement that Americans are the stupidest people in the world. If that is not rooting for America’s enemies, I don’t know what is. Yet leading Democrats chose to associate themselves with him. . . .

[I]t is these Democrats [who support Michael Moore et al.], not George W. Bush or their Republican critics, who have raised the question of whether they are on America’s side.

Partly, the Democratic Party has yielded to the kookish leftish fringe that Moore represents, which has forced them to applaud approvingly for lying debauchery like Farenheit 9/11. Yet, their ideological surrender does not exculpate their behavior. Indeed, why should Americans trust congressional leaders who, for one reason or other, side with individuals who prefer socialism over constitutional democracy and surreptiously apologize for the 9/11 bombers or current Al Qaeda members fighting against the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere?

It is now 2006. Almost 4 1/2 years since members of Al Qaeda viciously attacked our country, murdering 3,000 Americans. Yet, we’ve just recently approved the completion of a border fence to close up open transit for illegals at the Mexican border, the Democratic party is kicking and screaming about legally wiretapping suspected Islamofacists, and Granny is still being searched at our airport terminals. Our military is superbly handling the fight outside of borders, but what about the fight within? We are a nation of laws. Our Constitution empowered a people’s government—and that government should be enacting laws (like the Patriot Act) that aggressively protect us.

According to Daniel Pipes, the United States should begin “tagging” (i.e., electronic monitorization) suspected terrorists. Last week, German Interior Minister Uwe Schünemann proposed tagging three types or classes of terrorists: dangerous Islamists, hate preachers, and terrorist camp graduates. Pipes notes that tagging is permitted in the UK and Australia.

In my view, tagging is a fallback strategy. If the terrorist supporter cannot be deported or incarcerated for life, then tagging would at least temporarily keep the FBI and other law enforcement agencies apprised of his or her whereabouts. However, monitoring physical location would not necessarily translate in the prevention of terrorist attacks. For example, a radical imam who wears an electric bracelet who sits in his mosque 24-7 does not provide much information. In addition, it would still allow for the Islamic filth and perversion that he spews to filter throughout congregants and sift into unbridled minds of youth and adult alike. Pipes suggests coupling the locality monitoring with communication monitoring. Communication monitoring would include monitoring telephone, direct mail, and electronic mail correspondence. In the case of the radical imam, communication tagging might stem and curb the content from that one individual but likely would result in greater creativity by the terrorists and their confidants (who are not monitored) to enact their anti-American designs.

My solution would be to change our sedition laws to define a terrorist conviction or support of a monetary operation as a seditious or treasonous offense. In addition, the law should be amended to require immediate deportation to their country of origin. If the terrorist convincingly claims that he would be killed if deported, he could choose the option of incarceration for life without the possibility of parole. No other option would be given.

Whether by tagging terrorists or changing our sedition laws to expel or lock them down for life, our government needs to work proactively and aggresively to protect our Nation from within. It’s time to stop worrying about safeguarding the civil liberties of terrorists and start worrying about protecting the civil liberties of loyal American citizens.