RELIGIOUS MURDER

Next week the American people and the world will witness an historic debate.

The issue can be stated in different ways.

How do you wage war on terror?

What do you do about religious murder?

No doubt during the Obama vs Romney rematch, there will be much said about the President’s speech in the Rose Garden on September 12.

Did he call the Benghazi attack terrorism or didn’t he?

Oddly enough, I think that if you were to ask both candidates why the Benghazi consulate was attacked, they would agree that the attackers were radical Islamists who hate the United States and everything it stands for.

They hate the United States because it tolerates ridicule of their prophet. Because it tolerates what the Quran brands as sin. Female immodesty. Consumption of alcohol and drugs. Homosexuality. Abortion. Gambling.

Because we are infidels. Because we are Christian. Because our religious teaching tells us to love the sinner, no matter how much we hate the sin.

After 9/11/2001, President Bush took great care to insist that Americans love and respect our Muslim brothers and sisters.

He saw what any thinking person would see, what President Obama sees, and surely what Governor Romney sees as well. A rising public animosity toward Islam.

So how do we keep the war on terror from becoming a religious crusade?

The answer is very simple. You treat Islamic terrorists exactly the same way you treat misguided Christians who murder abortionists.

By bringing them to justice. By punishing them to the full extent established by the law. By demonstrating that no amount of misdirected righteousness excuses or mitigates the killing of a human being.

Here’s where next week’s debate will get interesting. Exactly how do you do that? How do you punish terrorists?

Are there different rules for domestic and foreign terrorism?

If the terrorist kills 13 people at Fort Hood, in Texas, on American soil, do you dink around for years without even bringing him to trial because he won’t shave off his beard?

But if you find him in Pakistan or Yemen, do you just bump him off with a cadre of Navy Seals or take him out with a remote controlled drone?

If our mystical and faceless ‘intelligence community’ decides that it has identified the killers of Ambassador Stevens, do we send a detachment of CIA agents to Libya with orders to waste them?

In his Rose Garden remarks, the President said;

And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

And he also said:

We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

There’s a right way and a wrong way to do things. Either we administer justice according to the rule of law, or we extract revenge in the manner of the Mafia.

If our Ambassador to Canada were assassinated, we would expect his killer to be prosecuted by the Canadian authorities or extradited to the United States.

If any nation refuses or neglects to protect our diplomats and our embassies, they are not our friends, and should be treated as such.

The President repeatedly urges us to ‘make no mistake.’

He should heed his own advice.

LIBYAGATE REVISITED

I hate sloppy work. Especially when I am the perpetrator.

The other day put up a blog. Misspelled ‘Libya’ in the title. Misspelled my own name twice in the email.

Worst of all, I published the blog without first running it by my severest critic. The missus, God bless her, said she didn’t like it. All over the place, she said.

Couldn’t figure out what I was trying to say.

So, in the spirit of dogged perseverance, I’ll try again.

I began with this quote from the President’s speech in Cairo on June 4, 2009:

I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

I was trying to connect the dots. I was trying to make a point about President Obama’s foreign policy that would help explain the inexplicable.

Why did the White House cling to the ‘offensive video’ explanation of the attack on our embassy in Benghazi despite the proven fact that they knew there was no spontaneous demonstration?

They had to know it was an organized terrorist attack. Still, they sent U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice out to do the Sunday morning TV talk shows four days after the event.

Her mission: keep insisting that the slaughter in Benghazi was an offshoot of the demonstrations in Cairo, a natural reaction to a scurrilous video.

Our President is a Christian. I take him at his word. He joined Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s church when he was in Chicago working with inner city churches to organize the neighborhoods.

His mother and maternal grandparents were not church going folk. He idolized his father, who was a Muslim. He has spoken often about his knowledge of and respect for, the Islamic faith and traditions.

His speech in Cairo described a Utopian dream. A world in which every nation was at peace with every other nation, where historic feuds and conflicting cultures would be smothered in an atmosphere of good will and understanding.

I think he expects Muslims to see him as their friend, their champion in a hostile world of Christianity.

And I think he really believes that his presence in the White House will keep the peace in the Middle East.

Unhappily, the world is messy and life is more complicated than can be untangled in a single speech.

The President is at pains to declare that the vast majority of Muslims are good people. They don’t riot. They don’t kill.

But good people don’t like their homeland to be invaded by foreigners. Which might explain why the Afghans we have trained and equipped to corral Al-Qaeda have started shooting our soldiers.

Good people don’t like to see their religion mocked and desecrated by negative stereotypes. And when the promise to “fight negative stereotypes” is no more effective than the promise to close Guantanamo, good people are unhappy.

I don’t think that the Nation of Islam feels any more kindly toward the Pax Americana today than it did when President Obama took the oath of office.

His claim that the killing of Osama Ben Laden was anything other than a symbolic victory rings hollow.

His promise to send more billions to finance social programs in the Middle East is no more effective in placating ancient hostilities than was the tribute our nation paid to the Barbary pirates before Thomas Jefferson sent the United States navy into the Mediterranean.

Neville Chamberlain proved the folly of appeasement three quarters of a century ago. Ronald Reagan proved that peace is better preserved through strength and determination.

Nations which permit their people to invade our embassies and kill our diplomats are not friendly. We should treat them as such.

THE COMMON GOOD

This blog is for my dear friends and beloved relatives who will be voting for the reelection of the incumbent President of the United States.
First of all, progress in human society is like walking. Putting one foot ahead of the other. Shifting the balance from left to right, right to left.
Saint Thomas Aquinas called it ‘the common good.’ The Constitution of the United States calls it the general welfare. The Pope calls it social justice.
And some conservatives call it redistribution of the wealth.
It is the panoply of causes that need support. It is that vast array of things we spend money on which conscience and sound public policy require. The poor. The sick. The elderly. Kids. Schools. Universities. Hospitals. Libraries. The environment. Drug and alcohol abuse rehabilitation. Science. Religion. Research. The Arts. The list goes on and on.
Some voices on the left have decried the fact that Mitt Romney has not made all of his income tax returns public. That complaint has been central to a narrative that defines him as a greedy, self-centered capitalist, who writes off 47 percent of the American people because they don’t pay income taxes.
I think that most fair minded people would assume that the numbers on Romney’s recent tax returns probably reflect the numbers on his tax returns generally.
That said, here’s what we know: last year he made 13.7 million dollars. He paid 1.94 million in federal income tax. He donated 4 million dollars to charities.
The word ‘charity ‘comes from the Latin for ‘love.’
It means giving freely and generously because we care. It means giving out of a sense of social responsibility. It means answering the conscience-bound call for social justice.
Charity is the personal response to the call of the common good. It is how we share what we have with less fortunate neighbors. It is how we contribute to the general welfare.
So why don’t we add up income taxes and charitable contributions to determine somebody’s ‘social justice quotient’ ?
I submit that in 2011, Mitt Romney’s contribution to the common good, his participation in promoting the general welfare, amounted to 43% of his total income.
That doesn’t really sound like a greedy capitalist.
But it does make us focus on an underlying difference in political thought.
Is the common good the exclusive province of government, and particularly, the federal government?
Do a free people retain a prerogative to decide for themselves how to promote the general welfare?
Or have we relinquished our sense of social justice and the fulfillment of our responsibilities to each other to a distant, monolithic bureaucracy?
An important factor in our charitable giving is always an assessment of efficiency.
How much of our money actually gets to the people and causes we are trying to help?
When administrative costs and fund raising expenses dwarf the bottom line that reaches the needy, we stop giving.
The federal government has the same responsibility to shore up confidence in the taxpayers as the United Way has to convince the public of its efficiency.
How much energy does the Department of Energy generate?
How much education does the Department of Education deliver?
Is the taxpayer getting a bang for his buck? Are food stamps better than meals on wheels? What services are so critical to the common good that we keep providing them even if it means borrowing from China to do it?
These might be good questions for a Presidential debate.

MY DARLING WIFE

She fixed a beautiful meal. Shish kabob.

Colorful. Bold. Imaginative. And delicious. Surprisingly delicious. Chicken, oranges, pears, and veggies. Cooked on the grill. And tender green beans.

It began with a good white wine. Enough for a glass and a little more. She toasted Pine Valley and my upcoming golf trip.

I lit the candles.

It was a perfect evening. One of those times when two eighty-three year old lovers can laugh and call up the memories of days and nights long ago, when the flame was bright and the future danced before our eyes, beckoning us to dream, to hope, to believe that there would be still better tomorrows.

Dessert was a Weight Watchers ice cream bar. Chocolate and vanilla on a stick. Just the right touch of self indulgence to finish off a perfect evening.

I should have left the room right then.

I should have come down here to my man cave and written a blog. Or played spider solitaire for a couple of hours until it was time to go to bed.

But no. Not me. Not that night.

I had to go into the pantry and get the chocolate chip cookies.I had to go to the fridg and get another bottle of wine.

If one is good, two is better. If some is good, more is better. Right?

Wrong.

Pretty soon conversation turned into discussion. Discussion became debate. Debate became argument. And Pop! There goes the moment. In the echo of a word, a phrase, a thoughtless unnecessary comment, the mood crumples like an unwatered flower.

Roses become dandelions. The music stops.

Once again, I have initiated a three day snit. Once again, I have stupidly, thoughtlessly invited a period of hostile silence, clipped answers, averted eyes, pursed lips and touchless days and nights.

It’s 5:47 AM. I’ve been awake since three.

Tossing and turning, I compose a letter. How many letters in 61 years? How many tears? How many unhappy hours have I caused her? How many sleepless nights?

You can’t get them back, those ugly moments. You can’t brush them off, make them disappear. You did what you did. You said what you said. It’s done. It’s there. Another wart. Another wound.

Young people and not-so-young people ask me, “What is the secret of a happy marriage?”

I don’t honestly know. Polly says it’s being friends. Best friends. Her test is, “Would you say that to your best friend?” “Would you treat your best friend that way?”

I dunno. Maybe I would.

Maybe I do hurt friends and family in a thousand thoughtless ways. In what I do and say. In what I don’t do and don’t say.

Happily, my darling wife has a bottomless reservoir of tolerance and forgiveness which always prefers happiness over unhappiness.

Other folks don’t always tell you. They just clam up, disengage or disappear.

All I know is that Catholic guilt works for me. A lifetime of saying “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us,” has a way of easing the aftermath of hurt feelings.

It’s the best I can do.

DEAR GOVERNOR ROMNEY

The enclosed check is the largest donation I have ever made to any political candidate.

I want you to win the election.

I want you to win because I think that the present administration is taking the United States of America down a path which Alexis de Tocqueville so eloquently described 200 years ago.

He said, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”

You must remind the American people that we are not a democracy, we are a republic.

We are not 300 million people ruled by a single government in Washington D.C.; we are fifty sovereign republics united under a constitution which gives only limited, necessary powers to those who conduct the affairs of our national union.

You were the Governor of Massachusetts. Remind the American people that every state has its own history, its own economy, its own weather, its own people and its own politics.

De Tocqueville told us that there are two things democracies find hard to do: start wars and end them.

Remind us that our constitution was made to provide for the common defense, not to police the world, nor export western style democracy.

Tell it like it is: we can afford to maintain the strongest military force on the planet for our defense, but we cannot afford to underwrite the military occupation of hostile nations all around the world.

Have the courage and integrity to tell the American people that you will bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan on your first day in office.

Have the courage to tell the American people that we need to reform our Congress; amend the constitution to prohibit omnibus bills, require that every bill address only one subject, require members to read what they vote for.

Governor, everyone keeps saying that this is the most important election in our lifetime.

It is not so important just because you are a more skilled and experienced executive than your opponent.

This election is important because we are inching down the road to become a one party nation, ruled by a political establishment with a collectivist mindset, abetted by a concupiscent media which coddles its heroes and impales dissenters with ridicule and scorn.

It the name of national security, your opponent assumes the power of life and death, maintains a Presidential kill list, authorizes indefinite detention of suspected troublemakers, and tolerates wholesale violations of the Bill of Rights.

You have to say so.

You have to tell us that when you take the oath of office to support and defend the constitution, you mean the constitution as it was written and ratified by the people, not some unwritten constitution that is supposed to have evolved because nobody objected.

This will be the most important election of our lifetime only if you make it a contest between a Republic and a Democracy.

A contest between freedom and collectivism.

De Tocqueville wrote: “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”

Ronald Reagan fought for Christianity against Godless collectivism.

So should you, Governor, so must you.

RACHEL MADDOW

I’m no fan of Rachel Maddow, though I admit to being sometimes titillated by her acerbic wit.

Recently however, she took a step to distinguish herself from the drooling disciples of Democrat despotism, and prove that she is, indeed, a principled constitutional liberal.

The occasion was a speech by the Chief Executive on Constitution Day, September 17th, in the hallowed halls of the National Archives within sight of the document written by our founders in 1787.

Take a minute to listen to what she says:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbslm1h8xjI

Here is what the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution says:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

I would think that Guantanamo Bay would be a “place subject to their jurisdiction” wouldn’t you?

So we’ve got all these ‘detainees’ at Gitmo.

Bush didn’t know what to do with them. Obama doesn’t know what to do with them.

The apologists of the status quo talk about ‘prisoners of war’ as though criminals who plot the murder of American citizens are somehow to be raised to the dignity of civilized enemies fighting for King and country.

Federal District Judge William Young got it exactly right when he sentenced Richard Reid. Here’s what he said:

Now, let me explain this to you. We are not afraid of you or any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been through the fire before. There is too much war talk here and I say that to everyone with the utmost respect. Here in this court, we deal with individuals as individuals and care for individuals as individuals. As human beings, we reach out for justice.

You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier, gives you far too much stature. Whether the officers of government do it or your attorney does it, or if you think you are a soldier. You are not----- you are a terrorist. And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not meet with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.

So war talk is way out of line in this court. You are a big fellow. But you are not that big. You're no warrior. I've known warriors. You are a terrorist. A species of criminal that is guilty of multiple attempted murders. In a very real sense, State Trooper Santiago had it right when you first were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and the TV crews were, and he said: 'You're no big deal.'

You are no big deal.

“Detainees.” I’d like to know who came up with that wimpy word. It sounds like you got stuck in a traffic jam.

I suppose that Nidal Hasan, who killed twelve people in Texas is now just another ‘detainee’. He has been a guest of the army brass for over three years.

If all these ‘detainees’ have committed crimes, then let’s get them convicted and punished.

The trials don’t have to be in New York, but the jury sure as Hell should be twelve good and true citizens of the Big Apple.

Try them at Gitmo, try them in Nebraska, try them on the deck of an aircraft carrier.

But if they are guilty, lets say so and treat them as criminals.

CORPORATE PROFITS

The guy’s name is Schiff. He’s a radio talk show host. I take it he’s a conservative, or at least a Republican.

Anyway, he went to North Carolina to get some footage of the Democratic National Convention. The result is on You Tube.

Microphone in hand, Schiff stops people entering the convention hall.

“Would you support a platform that would favor a ban on corporate profits?”
“Oh, yes.”
“Of course.”
“I could actually support that.”
“I favor corporate losses.”
“Obviously something I would be for.”
“At least a cap on profits.”
“And a cap on CEO salaries.”

Admittedly, Schiff pandered to the idea of supporting the ban. He painted a picture of corporate big wigs gouging consumers and lining their pockets with generous bonuses, and blamed it on corporate profits.

His tongue-in-cheek harangue against corporate wealth earned him unexpected kudos.

With a smile of appreciation and admiration, one delegate told Schiff, “You happen to be one of the smartest people I’ve met since I have been down here.”

Almost at the same time the Schiff You Tube interviews landed in my email, someone sent me an article by Deroy Murdock in the New York Post, entitled “Look Who Parks Their Cash At Bain.”

The article lists Bain Capital clients who have entrusted Mitt Romney’s firm with 1.56 Billion dollars to invest on their behalf.

Here are the beneficiaries of “corporate profits:”

Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund, $2.2 million.
Indiana Public Retirement System, $39.3 million.
Iowa Public Employees Retirement System, $177.1 million.
Maryland State Retirement and Pension System, $117.5 million.
Public Employees Retirement System of Nevada, $20.3 million.
State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, $767.3 million.
Pennsylvania State Emplyees Retirement System, $231.5 million.
Employees Retirement System of Rhode Island, $25million.
San Diego County Employees Retirement Association, $23.5 million.
Teacher Retirement System of Texas, $122.5 million.
Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System, $15 million.

In addition, Bain has managed endowments for such educational institutions as Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Purdue, and the universities of California, Michigan, Virginia and Washington.

Couple of days ago, Polly and I saw the movie “2016, Obama’s America.”

I was left with the uneasy feeling that our President has a very third world concept of political leadership.

Everybody talks about the President of the United States as being the most powerful man on the planet. In the minds of simple folk, who think that corporations are greedy conglomerations of wealth, the man who occupies that office is empowered to bestow financial security, health and happiness on all his constituents.

They will be heard on November 6.

And so will the rest of us.