Should We Declare War on Terrorism?
By Harris R. Sherline on February 2, 2010 at 8:25 pm
The latest question being debated in the media is, “Can we kill an American who is working for al Qaeda overseas?” It may be rhetorical, but it clearly demonstrates the confusion in America today about our status, that is, whether we are at war or not?
The nation is divided over the issue. If we are at war, why aren’t we trying war criminals in military tribunals as opposed to giving them the same rights that our citizens enjoy in civilian courts?
The Bush administration seemed to be clear that we are at war, and that enemy combatants should be tried in military courts. However, although Guantanamo Bay was established as the place to hold people who were picked up on the battlefield or otherwise captured and known to be terrorists, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, in the eight years following the World Trade Center attack, the government never completed the job of updating our laws to deal with such prisoners.
Most of the public seems to believe we are at war and that it is a war on terrorism. However, the Obama administration apparently does not agree.
This leads to confusion and weakens our nation’s defenses. Obama’s position that the word “terrorism” is not to be used by his administration and being unwilling to acknowledge that we are at war is directly at odds with his authorization to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan and his approval of attacks by military drones in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The confusion is further exemplified by the administration’s handling of incidents like the Fort Hood shooting, promising to close Gitmo without thoroughly considering the consequences, and moving the trials of Khalid Sheik Mohammad and the Christmas Day bomber to civilian courts. For the most part, the reasoning behind these decisions is not clear and the public appears to strongly object to them.
Article One, Section Eight of the U.S. Constitution says, “Congress shall have power to…declare War,” so perhaps the question should be, “Why not declare war al Qaeda and any other group that attacks us?”
We seem to be overlooking the fact that Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States in August 1996. His declaration was published in a London based Arabic language newspaper and followed a long list of attacks on U.S. properties and personnel overseas dating back to 1979, when Iran took U.S. embassy employees hostage. It continued from there with the 1983 attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon and a succession of other attacks thereafter, the most notable of which were the attacks on the World Trade Center in September 2001 and the attempt to bomb a Northwest Airlines flight from Copenhagen to Detroit on Christmas day 2009.
So, what’s the problem? Are we at war or not? And, if we are, why don’t we formally declare war and move on from there? The obvious question is, “against whom?” There is no easy answer to this, but how about starting with al Qaeda and any nation or group that gives them support or allows them to use their territory for training and staging attacks on other nations?
As for declaring war, that’s the province of Congress, not the president, so why not move the process directly to the legislature where the issue can be openly debated, regardless of what the president may want? Ultimately, the decision is up to them, not him.
My guess is that the American people would strongly favor debating and settling this issue once and for all. We should eliminate any confusion about holding enemy combatants until the war ends and trying them in military tribunals or civilian courts, or killing an American who is openly waging war against his own country.
I know it’s a complicated and confusing issue, but no more than many others that are taken up by Congress. Let them get everything out on the table for all to see and discuss, then decide – so we can go forward with a clear understanding of the alternatives, good and bad, which hopefully would unify the nation behind a single, clear-cut policy.
The problem with the current situation is that it allows our enemies, al Qaeda, Muslim fundamentalists and others, such as Iran, to capitalize on our confusion and adapt their strategy accordingly, while we can’t seem to agree on how to respond.
As long as we continue to allow our enemies to exploit our vacillation and indecision, there are sure to be more attempts to attack our homeland, some of which are bound to succeed. To succeed, they only have to be right once, while to prevent them we must be right 100% of the time.
I believe we should push Congress to debate the issue and vote up or down for an open declaration of war on our enemies.
© 2010 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved
Obama’s State of the Union Lecture
By Harris R. Sherline on January 28, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Forgive me if I appear to be skeptical, but after his first year in office, I am just not able to take anything our president says at face value.
The annual state of the union message that he presented to Congress on January 27 is required by the Constitution, albeit not necessarily in the manner and form that are employed today. Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution says: “He (the president) shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”
In 1913 Woodrow Wilson initiated the practice of delivering the State of the Union message in person. Prior to that time, it was a written report that was sent to Congress to be read by a clerk.
I had a number of reactions to Obama’s January 27 State of The Union address: It was more of a campaign speech than a message to Congress on the status of the nation. It was also overly long and boring, and Obama was combative much of the time, rather than unifying, the prime examples being a direct insult to the Supreme Court about their recent decision on campaign finance and his frequent references to the fact that he had inherited most if not all of the nation’s current problems from the Bush administration.
The speech was riddled with self-serving “facts,” many of which were either distortions or downright lies, but perhaps most of all, typical of the president’s style, it was not so much a speech as a lecture, which I found insulting.
A Fox News fact check noted seven instances where Obama’s statements did not square with the facts, including the following:
OBAMA: “Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will not be affected…” FACT: Obama failed to point out that this amounts to less than one percent of the deficit.
Regarding his health care initiative, OBAMA said: “Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan.” FACT: There is no way to guarantee this and it most certainly cannot be the case with the type of single-payer plan he envisions.
The president also took his “share of the blame” for “not explaining” health care better, but he failed to acknowledge “that 61% of voters nationwide want Congress to drop the health care plan.” (Rasmussen Reports). Translation: He intends to stuff it down the throats of those who disagree, like it or not.
OBAMA: called for action by the White House and Congress “to do our work openly, and to give our people the government they deserve.” FACT: This is an astounding claim, considering that the entire process related to the health care proposal has been done behind closed doors, without including any Republicans, who were literally locked out.
OBAMA: “We will continue to go through the budget line by line to eliminate programs that we can’t afford and don’t work. We’ve already identified $20 billion for in savings for next year.” FACT: Pay attention to Obama’s words. He may have identified savings but that doesn’t mean any have been or will be realized.
OBAMA: “The United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades.” FACT: The U.S. and Russia have not reached any agreement, yet the president unilaterally abandoned the anti-missile system that was intended to protect Poland and the Czech Republic without getting anything from the Russians in return.
OBAMA said that lobbyists have “outsized influence” over the government, claiming that his administration has “excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs” and that they should be required “to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or Congress” and “to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office.” FACT: The White House obtained seven waivers from the ban against lobbyists, including Eric Holder (Attorney General), Tom Vilsak (Secretary of Agriculture), William Lynn (Deputy Defense Secretary), Will Corr (Deputy Health and Human Service Secretary), David Hayes (Deputy Interior Secretary), Mark Patterson (Chief of Staff to Treasury Secretary), Ron Klain, (Chief of Staff to Vice President Joe Biden), Mona Sutphen (Deputy White House Chief of Staff), and Melody Barnes (Domestic Policy Council Director).
There’s more, much more, that could be said about Obama’s State of The Union speech, however, suffice it to say that more of the same probably won’t change anyone’s opinion about him. The bottom line is that I don’t like the man, don’t trust him, and believe his policies are bad for the country. I found his speech more of the usual self-aggrandizing, self-righteous posturing we have come to expect of him.
Those on the other side of the political divide obviously disagree. So be it.
© 2010 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved
Read more of Harris Sherline’s commentaries on his blog at www.opinionfest.com
Pension Madness
By Harris R. Sherline on January 22, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Jack Dean distributes daily alerts and newspaper headlines from around the country - about retirement plans, how much pension trusts have declined in value, and how various cities, counties and states are responding. The sheer volume of these articles can be overwhelming, and just glancing through them can give you serious heartburn. Not only because of the loss of value of the various pension portfolios, but also because of the expectations of government employees and the actions of politicians in response.
Here are two examples that illustrate the point:
The Star-Ledger reported, “At the monthly meeting of the New Jersey State Investment Council it was reported that the value of assets in the state pension fund declined to $59.2 billion (from $63.9 billion the previous month)”
Liberty Magazine noted, “The influence of public-sector unions … in California and New Jersey leads to unsustainably generous benefit and pension packages…”
Among the states, the question is no longer, which are the most likely to succeed? It’s which are most likely to default? However, it’s not just government employees who should be worried. Employees in private industry also have reason to be concerned.
General Motors has become the poster child for the consequences of catering to the demands of the unions over the years – to satisfy unrealistic demands for pension and health care benefits for their members. Unable to continue meeting these demands, the company was on the verge of going under before it was taken over by the U.S. government.
Although Congress established a special pension liability fund for that purpose, the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC). Its website notes that PCBG “is a federal corporation…It currently protects the pensions of nearly 44 million American workers and retirees in more than 29,000 private single-employer and multiemployer defined benefit pension plans. PBGC receives no funds from general tax revenues. Operations are financed by insurance premiums set by Congress and paid by sponsors of defined benefit plans, investment income, assets from pension plans trusteed by PBGC, and recoveries from the companies formerly responsible for the plans.”
The problem is that the PBGC doesn’t have nearly enough money to cover the potential losses of all the pension plans in the U.S., which add up to many the trillions of dollars.
So, where will they turn when the PBGC runs out of money? Obviously to the federal government, and our ever-accommodating political leaders will be only too willing to turn on the spigot of free money to solve the problem. The response of choice has become to either borrow the money or print it, and I have little doubt they will do so again.
In the meantime, government employees keep turning to the cities, counties, states and the feds, expecting them to guarantee their losses. However, to do that they must either raise taxes or cut services, or both.
Many government employees seem to think the public should beggar themselves to support their retirement benefits. Not that they haven’t earned them. They have. But taxpayers are rapidly reaching the limit of their willingness and ability to continue underwriting the funding of employee pension trusts when they decline in value. Especially, since most people who work in the private sector don’t have anything close to the benefits of government employee pension plans.
There was a time when the compensation of government employees was much less than that of workers in private industry. The tradeoff was to exchange higher pay for security and benefits. However, that situation has changed. Today, those who work for government have better benefits and pensions than most people in the private sector. Yet, the general public is invariably expected to pick up the tab when the pension trusts of government employees experience losses.
This can’t go on much longer before many jurisdictions at every level, state, county and municipal, are forced to either repudiate their commitments to guarantee employee retirement benefits or to seek the protection of the bankruptcy courts to re-write the pension agreements with their employees.
© 2010 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved
Should Brooks Firestone Run Against Lois Capps?
By Harris R. Sherline on January 19, 2010 at 10:56 am
Will Brooks Firestone step into the breach and run for public office one more time? Can he or should he?
Lois Capps represents a Congressional district that was gerrymandered specifically to favor her election. In my opinion, she has not served the community at large well, instead concentrating her efforts on behalf of an entrenched liberal constituency that has managed to keep her in office, notwithstanding breaking her promise to serve no more than three terms.
But, enough about Lois Capps. This is really about Brooks Firestone.
My initial reaction to the news that he may be thinking about running against Mrs. Capps is that I wish he would. My reasons are purely selfish – in the sense that I believe he would be a far more even handed and productive representative of the people in California’s 23rd Congressional district.
After two terms in the California legislature and one as Santa Barbara County’s third district Supervisor, he has nothing to prove. His record clearly demonstrates that his reasons for holding public office have never been about personal gain or advantage. Brooks is one of the few people who truly believe in public service. Contrary to many of the politicians who hold office today, he has never sought to take advantage of his position for his personal benefit.
During his time as a member of the California Assembly, Brooks accomplished something that was badly needed and long overdue at the time when he introduced House Resolution No. 13, which required the Assembly Rules Committee to contract with a recognized private accounting firm to conduct a performance audit of the Legislature’s lower house. The measure was adopted by the Assembly on a 61-5 vote.
When he left the state legislature in 1998, Brooks said, “When I first ran for the Assembly in 1994, I set two very simple goals: to begin to make government run like a business and to start reforming education…In three years, California has made great progress in both areas and I have played a material role in that progress. I feel I have done what I set out to do; now it’s time to give others a chance.”
Now, once again the Siren Call of public service is beckoning Brooks, and I can understand why, at this stage of his life, he might prefer not to respond. For one thing, the sheer demands on the time of office holders can be overwhelming. Everyone wants to get to them for something, seeking favors or special privileges, making public appearances, raising money, often foregoing one’s personal needs to meet the needs of constituents. It requires enormous effort and focus.
There’s also the matter of cost. At the time Brooks ran for the Board of Supervisors, as with all candidates, he asked for contributions from his supporters. Unfortunately, as I recall, the financial support he received fell far short of the cost and he was forced to spend around $250,000 of his own money on his campaign. I suspect that has to be on his mind at this point as he thinks about possibly mounting a new campaign that is bound to cost a great deal more than running for County Supervisor, especially against an incumbent who already has over $473,000 in her campaign account.
Another consideration I think Brooks will certainly weigh, in addition to his age and being at a point in his life when he probably thought he would be free of significant responsibility, is the stress of serving 3,000 miles away and having to travel back and forth to his district. As a County Supervisor, he could be home most nights and weekends. In D.C., he will be away from our Valley and the district most of the time for two years.
Finally, having had a pacemaker implanted in 2008, I’m sure the question of Brooks’ health is bound to be an important consideration in evaluating his options.
On the other side of the equation is Brooks’ drive to serve his community. He is clearly qualified, not just politically speaking but also because of his extensive and successful business background. He is thoughtful, even-handed and knowledgeable.
Brooks does his homework, works well with others who have a different point of view, and believes in limiting government.
The Republicans couldn’t ask for a better candidate.
Finally, as one who has also held positions of responsibility and reached retirement age, I can understand the appeal of getting back into the action one last time.
If Scott Brown can win a Senate seat in Massachusetts, which is an overwhelmingly liberal state, surely Brooks Firestone can win in California’s 23rd district.
© 2010 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved
Where Are The Lawyers?
By Harris R. Sherline on January 15, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Is the health care reform constitutional? How about taking over General Motors and Chrysler, insurance giant A.I.G., the banks, or any of the other myriad actions taken by Obama and his administration and Congress since he became president?
The number of lawyers in Congress varies over time, but in general, it is a high percentage of the membership, ranging from 55 to 80 percent of the House of Representatives and approximately 60 percent of U.S. Senators. That translates into 60 Senators and 250 plus Congresspersons, a total of something over 300.
With all the lawyers in Congress, one wonders how it is that they manage to pass legislation that violates the U.S. Constitution. Or, could that possibly be the reason? That is, because they are attorneys, they believe they can ignore the Constitution with impunity.
Senator Orrin Hatch, former Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, and Kenneth A. Klukowsi, a fellow and senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union, made the case in a Wall Street Journal editorial that the health-care bills currently working their way through Congress are unconstitutional for the following reasons:
“First, the Constitution does not give Congress the power to require that Americans purchase health insurance. Congress must be able to point to at least one of its powers listed in the Constitution as the basis of any legislation it passes. None of those powers justifies the individual insurance mandate.”
“A second constitutional defect of the Reid bill passed in the Senate involves the deals he cut to secure the votes of individual senators.”
“A third constitutional defect in this ObamaCare legislation is its command that states establish such things as benefit exchanges, which will require state legislation and regulations.”
According to the Congressional Budget Office: “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”
Steve Elliott, President, Grassfire.org Alliance, noted: “Never before in U.S. History has such a federal mandate been imposed on the people of the United States! Why? Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional.”
Michael Connelly, a retired Constitutional Attorney, observed: “The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants…”
Mr. Connelly also stated: “If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed. The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government…This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, of all of your personal healthcare information (a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution), your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital…The 4th is supposed to be a protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.”
As the health care legislation is currently proposed, Mr. Connelly further notes: “If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn’t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law.”
Finally, led by South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster, the Attorneys General of at least 10 states are already lining up to contest the health care bill on constitutional grounds. Questioning the permanent exemption granted to the state of Nebraska to pay for an expansion of Medicaid, Mr. McMaster asks, “Why is it that Nebraska pays no taxes, pays no money as a state while the other 49 states do?”
So, with such a high percentage of attorneys in the Congress, how is it that they can create and adopt legislation that is so clearly unconstitutional? Do they actually believe that no one will challenge the health care bill in federal court? Or, is the legislation as it is currently proposed merely a tactical maneuver in a larger strategic plan to get health care passed in any form, lock it in, then continue to modify it over future years – ala Social Security and Medicare?
© 2010 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved
Apologist-in-Chief
By Harris R. Sherline on January 13, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Who asked Barack Obama to run around the world apologizing for America, and by implication, all Americans? Certainly not the American people. Nor have we seen any polls or news stories reporting that Americans asked the President to apologize on their behalf. If anything, it’s just the opposite.
I, for one, am deeply offended by our President traveling outside the U.S. and using the trips as the occasion to apologize for our policies, actions and past transgressions, as he may see them. Bill Clinton did this on a trip to Africa in1998, when he said, “going back to the time before we were a nation, European-Americans received the fruits of the slave trade. And we were wrong in that.”
What is it about the mindset of people like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama that makes them think apologies can change the attitudes of people who hate America and Americans and want to destroy us? Does anyone really believe this will make people in other nations our friends or supporters?
For generations, we have bowed and scraped to the heads of Arab states to keep their oil flowing in our direction – and continue to do so. On one trip, Obama visited Saudi Arabia on his way to Egypt, where he delivered a major speech to the Muslim world, and while in Saudi Arabia, Obama and his State Department agreed to the following set of conditions for the reporters who travelled with him to report to the American people: That they all be confined to the hotel where they stayed, that they were not allowed to independently report on Obama’s meetings with the Saudi King, that they would only be allowed to use the official press releases of the Saudi government and finally that they not interview any Saudi citizens or authorities, under penalty of imprisonment.
We may need Saudi oil, but they are ingrates. We have provided them with military cover when they were threatened by their own neighbor, Saddam Hussein, whose aggression extended to his invasion of Kuwait, which led us into the Gulf War to expel the Iraqis. On his way out of Kuwait, Saddam set their oil fields ablaze and destroyed as much of their property as he possibly could, killing and torturing many Kuwaitis as his troops were being driven out. Should we also be apologizing for rescuing their country and restoring their monarchy? Or, how about apologizing to the Saudis for sending our troops and planes to their country to shield them from the same fate? Should we apologize to them for that as well?
In the June 3, 2009 issue of The Morning Bell, “President Obama’s Top Ten Apologies,” the Heritage Foundation noted that the President apologized for Guantanamo (in France and D.C.), the mistakes of the CIA, America’s policy toward the Americas, for slavery and segregation (before the Turkish Parliament), the War on Terror (as if we started it), for attempting to dictate the terms of our relationship with other nations (at the Summit of the Americas), to the Muslim world in general, saying “We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect,” and to France and Europe for the “times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”
However, as he traveled around the world apologizing to just about anyone who would listen, Obama failed to also note that we have saved many of the same countries to which he apologized, that they owe their very existence to the United States. Most of Europe would have been enslaved by Germany or the Soviet Union if it were not for the United States in World War II, South Korea from the North Koreans in the 50s and some 50 million people by Saddam Hussein, al Qaida and the Taliban in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11.
The oft quoted adage, “Be careful what you wish for, you may get it,” applies to America haters everywhere. If they believe we are so terrible, they might think about the kind of world they would be living in if we were no longer available or able to protect them.
Is Obama also prepared to apologize to the American people when his policies prove to be the cause of the widely predicted financial disaster that his policies initiated in 2009, with a dramatic increase in spending?
It’s time we stopped apologizing for our way of life, for helping to free other people from tyranny and for the economic success that has made us the object of envy and hate in many parts of the world.
The one thing we absolutely do not need is an official Apologist-in-Chief as our head of state.
© 2010 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved
Are We Schizo Or What?
By Harris R. Sherline on January 6, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Notwithstanding our laws against entering the U.S. illegally, far too many of America’s leaders continue to tolerate the millions of people crossing our borders who are labeled “undocumented workers,” in an obvious effort to confuse their true status. For reasons that appear to be purely political, enforcement of our immigration laws is consistently ignored by just about everyone in authority, while at the same time they complain about the cost of government services that are provided to illegal immigrants, most notably health care, welfare and education.
Voting may be an absolute right of citizenship, but some people object to the idea that voters should be required to provide proper identification at the polls, which they claim is evidence of bias and prejudice against minorities. So, while we may have the right to vote, we shouldn’t have to prove that we are entitled to do so.
California universities require out of state students to pay higher tuition fees than residents, but accord those who are illegal immigrants the same status as residents. So, if a student from another state, say Colorado, Arizona, New York, etc., wishes to attend a California state financed university, their tuition fees will be substantially higher than the fees of those who are in the state illegally.
Tobacco is a legal product that is heavily taxed by the same government that historically subsidized tobacco farmers. Both the Federal and state governments tax cigarettes, ostensibly to offset health care costs incurred by smokers or to establish programs designed to discourage people from smoking. They then use the money for other purposes, often completely unrelated to tobacco use. If the product is so bad, why not just make it illegal? The obvious answer is that there is just too much money in it for the government and for our politicos. So, the product stays legal and is both heavily taxed and subsidized, health considerations aside, so long as it keeps feeding money into the tax coffers.
We put people in jail for ingesting something they like (as in drugs), while tolerating, even encouraging, the proliferation and aggressive marketing of prescription drugs throughout our culture, including the schools.
We tell our children that sex before marriage or at too early an age is a bad idea, while dispensing condoms to them at our schools.
The Supreme Court has held that abortion is a constitutional right; however, that right has produced a great deal of confusion in our society. While it is legal to abort a fetus at almost any stage of its development, including mere moments before the infant is born (“partial birth abortion”), it is homicide if the fetus is killed by, say, a gunshot or stab wound to the mother’s stomach. But, it is not murder for a mother to terminate her own pregnancy at the same stage of development for purely personal reasons. So, for some purposes, the law recognizes the fetus as a living person, for others it does not.
In many states, girls under the age of 18 must have their parents’ permission for a medical procedure, or to have their ears pierced, but they can get an abortion without parental consent or knowledge.
We try to teach young people that they should be good citizens and respect the law, while at the same time the airwaves are flooded with music, videos and TV programs that are vulgar, challenge authority, celebrate violence, preach hatred and generally pollutes their minds.
We are shocked by the steady stream of disclosures of the ethical and moral lapses of our business, political and religious leaders, while at the same time we tolerate hostile, anti-social and “in your face” behavior among our young people. Somehow, there is a disconnect between the “anything goes” mentality that pervades our society and the behavior of the adults who are supposed to be in charge. The old saying, “Monkey sees, monkey does,” seems to apply.
Americans treasure their right of privacy, yet for generations we have passed laws that intrude into the lives of people in a wide range of areas: limiting free speech, restricting the ownership of guns, intrusive tax regulation, making various consensual sexual acts illegal (even for married couples), and smoking, to name just a few.
Gambling is illegal or strictly regulated in various states, and while many people bemoan the fact that it can be addictive, many of those same governments operate and aggressively promote lotteries.
We constantly preach tolerance, but experience far too many shocking incidents of intolerance and prejudice, abuse, brutality and murder. “Do as I say, not as I do,” is not just some trite saying. It has become the accepted standard in our society.
Is it any wonder there are so many problems in America today when there is such contradictory, schizophrenic behavior in our society?
© 2009 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved
My New Year’s Resolutions
By Harris R. Sherline on December 27, 2009 at 10:29 am
New Years Eve celebrations never mattered to me. We stay home and watch the festivities on T.V. as they circle the globe, go to bed early. Boring, I know. But, it’s safe and sane and keeps us out of trouble. We stay off the roads and don’t travel.
So, what’s the point of this column, you may wonder. The point is that as each New Year rolls around, I try to focus on the future, not so much in the sense of making New Year’s Resolutions, most if not all of which I never keep, but my hopes and aspirations for the next year.
First and foremost, I look forward to another year of just living, spending time with my wife, our two dogs, and my friends and associates. I have been blessed with a long and fruitful life, filled with challenges and my share of hardships, I suppose. At 81-years-of-age, I am a living testimonial to the miracle of modern medicine and the talents of many fine medical professionals, who managed to get me through various health travails on numerous occasions, some of which were quite serious.
Following, in no particular order, are my hopes and wishes for 2010:
- That our political leaders will come to their senses and stop spending money we don’t have. We are rapidly spending ourselves into oblivion at every level: national, state, local and individual, and appear to be headed into the worst of all economic worlds, hyperinflation.
- That people around the world can somehow stop enslaving, torturing and killing one another, for whatever reason(s). I understand that there may be compelling reasons in some instances, such as defending oneself, but man’s inhumanity toward one another has been the hallmark of civilization throughout recorded history, and unless we find a way to control our baser instincts, we may well destroy ourselves. Some people think that might be the best outcome.
- That we will somehow manage to get through the current economic downturn largely unscathed.
- That we can manage to elect some people to public office who are principled and honest and are willing to serve for the common good rather than how they can line their own pockets. That’s a tall order, I know, but I can at least hope.
- That our educators will find a way to reach a generation of indifferent young people, too many of whom are ignorant and self-centered to a fault. When a young person cannot make the simplest calculations to give change to a customer, something is seriously wrong.
- That we can somehow find a way to lift our society out of the cultural morass into which it has sunk. Through the medium of modern communication: radio, TV, the Internet and print media, we have managed to reach the point where anything goes and there are no limits, debasing too many of our young people in the process.
- That we catch or kill Osama bin Laden, along with the other bad guys.
- That all of our military come home safely to their loved ones, their friends and their communities.
- That science will find cures for the worst diseases, such as cancer, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, AIDS and the host of other conditions that plague the human race.
- That we can somehow improve the desperate conditions in which far too many of the world’s peoples are forced to live.
- That we do not have a severe earthquake in California.
- That the techies among us will find a way to stop spam forever and catch the people who spew endless unwanted garbage messages at us.
- That I get through another year without any serious health problems and that my wife does not break her other knee.
- That my six grandchildren will inherit a better world than we have now.
- That you will have the happiest, most successful and healthiest year you have ever had.
It may seem like I’m asking for a lot, but in the final analysis, you can probably sum up my hopes and aspirations in one wish, that, as beauty contestants so often say, I just want “world peace.”
© 2009 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved
Rules of Engagement
By Harris R. Sherline on December 24, 2009 at 8:29 am
Are we fighting a war or not? Sometimes I wonder. Wars are generally all-out efforts to kill the enemy and destroy their ability to fight. The goal is to win, and to do that it’s necessary to kill people and break things.
However, there are some rules, although not everyone observes them. The most widely accepted are The Geneva Conventions, which Wikipedia describes as follows:
The Geneva Conventions consist of four treaties and three additional protocols that set the standards in international law for humanitarian treatment of the victims of war. The singular term Geneva Convention refers to the agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of World War II, updating the terms of the first three treaties and adding a fourth treaty. The language is extensive, with articles defining the basic rights of those captured during a military conflict, establishing protections for the wounded, and addressing protections for civilians in and around a war zone. The treaties of 1949 have been ratified, in whole or with reservations, by 194 countries.
Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity. Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault. Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health, age and sex, all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the Party to the conflict in whose power they are, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion. However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war.
Unfortunately, as terrorism has appeared on the scene, the generally accepted standards of The Geneva Conventions have fallen by the wayside. Terrorist combatants wear no uniforms, represent no specific nation and observe no rules, including attacking and killing women and children, even those in their own societies.
Furthermore, the forces of Political Correctness have influenced our military mindset to the point that the United States has exceeded the basic standards of The Geneva Conventions by imposing extraordinary Rules of Engagement (ROE) on our military, which can jeopardize their safety in combat zones.
Based on individual soldier accounts, WorldNetDaily reports that current ROE restrictions include:
- No night of surprise searches.
- Villagers are to be warned prior to searches.
- Afghan National Army or Afghan National Police must accompany U.S. units or searches.
- U.S. soldiers may not fire at insurgents unless they are preparing to fire first.
- U.S. forces cannot engage insurgents if civilians are present.
- Only women can search women.
- Troops can fire on insurgents if they catch them placing an IED but not if they walk away from where the explosives are.
In addition, the ROE often require varying levels of approvals before action can be taken.
One company commander has been quoted as saying, “We can’t do anything if we don’t have the ANA or [the Afghan National Police]… We have to follow the Karzai 12 rules. But the Taliban has no rules…Our soldiers have to juggle all these rules and regulations and they do it without hesitation despite everything. It’s not easy for anyone out here.”
Imposing restrictive ROE’s is not just some theoretical exercise in winning the hearts and minds of the Afghans, that they have caused the loss of life is well documented. For example, in one case, four U.S. Marines (fighting in Kunar Province) twice radioed for artillery support during a combat action, which was refused. As a result, they were killed. Who knows why those in command would not or could not give their authorization?
So, while we are supposed to fight with one hand tied behind our backs by observing PC Rules of Engagement, our enemies are free to engage in the most heinous actions, torturing and beheading people, hiding among the local population, using them as shields, committing the most violent acts against both our military forces and civilians alike.
Under the circumstances, my conclusion is that we should be less concerned about the constraints of The Geneva Conventions than taking the fight to the terrorists without hesitation. The idea that we can fight a war in which we hamstring our military because of some PC notion that we are morally superior to our enemies is counterproductive. My sense is that they also believe they are better than their enemy, us, which permits them to win by any means possible, no matter how despicable.
© 2009 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved
The Tyranny of The Majority
By Harris R. Sherline on December 18, 2009 at 12:10 pm
When I was in high school in the 1940s, we were taught to believe that majority rule was best, that the function of government was to help us, that our system of justice was intended to be a “search for the truth.” These ideas were widely accepted as immutable truths. Today, over 60 years later, to my eye, they are no longer as true as we once thought. The cause may be directly attributable to our treasured democracy in action. That may sound cynical, but consider the evidence from the following perspective.
A brief examination of four major issues helps illustrate how the rule of a simple majority has been impacting our rights as American citizens: taxes, tobacco, health care and property rights.
Taxes: Everyone should pay their “fair share,” especially the rich. But, who are the rich? How many people do you know who think they are rich? Would you be surprised to learn that for certain purposes, “rich” has been defined by the U.S. Treasury Department as including those with incomes as low as $50,000 a year.
According to recent IRS figures, 50% of all taxpayers pay only about 3% of the total Federal income tax burden, while the top 10% pay around 66% of the bill. Almost half of all those who file Federal returns pay no tax at all, the top 25% contribute 86% of the total, and the top 1% pay about 39% of all income taxes collected. Is that fair enough? Or, should the “rich” pay even more? Remember, the definition of rich probably includes you, no matter how you view yourself, since taxpayers with Adjusted Gross Incomes around $55,000 are in the top 25% of taxpayers. So, is the “fair share” concept really fair?
If you complain about the amount of taxes you have to pay, you may be labeled “greedy” or selfish. Imagine that, being considered greedy or selfish simply for wanting to keep more of your own money. After all, it’s your money, not the government’s, although many politicians would have us believe otherwise. I don’t remember anyone ever calling people greedy or selfish because they favored lower taxes. I often wonder why politicians or bureaucrats are never called greedy or selfish when they advocate taking more of our money to expand an already bloated government and increase their own pay and benefits.
What happened? Simple: the tyranny of the majority. Over the past 60 years, a majority of the electorate has become convinced that “big spenders” are what we need in Congress, and with big spending came increased taxes. Republicans and Democrats are both at fault. There’s plenty of blame to go around, including the voters.
Tobacco: The tyranny of the majority also rules in matters involving the tobacco industry. Tobacco companies have been cast in the role of villains that should be punished for selling a legal product but lying to the public about the effects of smoking on their health. The power of the government has been used to levy a massive tax on the industry through litigation and settlement of court cases, in spite of the fact that cigarette packaging and advertising have carried warning labels for over 40 years. Whatever you may think about the tobacco companies, right or wrong, you should question the actions of Federal and state governments extracting money from any industry by this means and using it to fund pet projects that could not gain the necessary public support to increase taxes to pay for them. If they can do this to the tobacco industry and get away with it, which industry will be next: pharmaceuticals, automobile manufacturing, food businesses (as in MacDonald’s or General Foods), perhaps even the company you work for? This drives up the costs of doing business and ultimately impacts the public through increased prices. Where will it stop?
Health Care: Government intervention in health care has become a major focus. It is no longer possible to escape the consequences of “Big Brother’s” involvement in health care. Driven by the votes of a growing elderly population, the “tyranny of the majority” continues to expand government intervention in our lives with cries for government funding of health care for all Americans, in spite of strong evidence that national health care plans do not work as advertised.
Property Rights: Here too, the “tyranny of the majority” is at work. Do you actually own your real property? Your home? The apartment complex or commercial building you bought as an investment? Your ranch or farm? If you think you do, consider just some of the following limitations on your ownership:
The government can take your property if they want it for some public purpose (eminent domain). They are supposed to pay fair compensation for it, but the list of property owners who believe they did not receive full value for their property is very long indeed.
Even if your property is paid for, you still have to pay a form of rent - forever (in the guise of property taxes) - to keep it. If you fail to pay, the state will eventually take it from you and sell it at public auction.
Limitations on the use of your land can be forced on you for public purposes, such as riding trails, access to the beach, power lines, view corridors, roads and highways, maintenance of public areas, zoning laws that tell you what you can build - how to build it and what it must look like, how much you can charge tenants (rent control), what you can plant (landscape plans), removal of trees and a host of other restrictions too numerous to include here.
The answer to the question, “Who owns your property?” is – you don’t! Not really. You may have title, but your control is very limited.
It’s important to note that a majority is only “one” over half. One vote more than 50% is enough to win an election. One is enough to rule. And, that “one” often delivers the power to dictate to the other half. One-half plus one can truly be a tyrannical majority in every key aspect of life in America: taxation, gun control, abortion, education and school choice, defense, Social Security, health care, property rights and land use, you name it.
America’s Founders created a representative form of government, a republic, in an effort to guard against the possibility of a small majority gaining control and dictating their own terms of governance. Unfortunately, however, we seem to have morphed into the idea that a simple majority should decide everything for everyone. Are you convinced that our “democracy” is working the way you think it should?
Perhaps a “super majority,” say 60% or 65%, should always be required to pass certain types of legislation, such as tax increases, bond issues, etc.
© 2009 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved
-
Publisher/Editor
-
Spread the Word!
Help us spread the word about our site by bookmarking OPINIONFEST with your favorite social bookmarking application.
-
Sponsors & Partners
Interested in sponsoring or partnering with Opinionfest? Get in touch with Harris to let us know how you can help!
