Letter From The Capitol

Index 7/4/08

SPECIAL GLORIOUS FOURTH POST: Independence Day: Dissed in Denver, Sharia Next?--The Home Front.

Independence Day: Dissed in Denver, Sharia Next?

Our national day commemorates, as all sentient Americans of sufficient education know, the Declaration of Independence from our English Mother Ship, whose text contains perhaps the most famous, celebrated words in the global political lexicon:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness .-- that, to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- that whenever any Form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Our Revolution established that military force is needed, at times (alas, usually), to secure release from tyranny, as the current wars amply illustrate anew--read Ralph Peters' tribute to Second Lt. Peter Burks, who gave his life for freedom in Iraq, on Nov. 14, 2007.  Also read Peggy Noonan, at her poetic best, saluting John Whitehead, who commanded a landing craft on D-Day, ferried men to Omaha Beach on the first wave, landed with his second load, and told PN: "Then I took a few breaths and felt elated, proud to have played a part in maybe the biggest battle in history."  And honor as well the Israeli commandos who so memorably reaffirmed in their dramatic counter-terror hostage rescue at Entebbe, Uganda (Wiki entry + at the IWeapons website, a 52:03 Israeli YouTube video), carried out magnificently coincident with America's Bicenntennial Birthday.

Yet something seems increasingly precarious as we celebrate: a growing rift as to what truths are "self-evident" and thus held in common by all Americans.  A symbol of this is the July 2 incident in Denver, when an African-American singer substituted the lyrics of what many of her race regard as the "black national anthem" in lieu of the anthem most of us recognize as our national anthem.

Here is the video (2:30 after 10 sec. silent commercial) of Wednesday's substitution, by an African-American singer, Rene Marie, of the lyrics of "Lift Every Voice and Sing" (James Weldon Johnson, 1900), adopted by blacks during the Jim Crow era as the black national anthem and sung on Abraham Lincoln's birthday.  The lyrics Francis Scott key set to "The Star Spangled Banner" became, in 1931, our official national anthem.  As this Wiki entry explains, the melody for our anthem comes from an English drinking song composed by John Stafford Smith.  Ms. Marie also added her own, soul-singer style melodic embellishments to Key's tune.  For perspective, here is a video (2:38) of singer Kim Weston singing the actual melody & lyrics of the song, accompanied by a video montage of images, starting with the 1970s mass rally where it was sung.  (Weston was introduced by an Afro-headed young Rev. Jessie Jackson, to sing the black anthem to an audience of fists raised in the 1960s black power salute; images of the heritage of racism follow, then a brief Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King excerpt, out of step with the militant flavor of the 1970s rally).

Ms. Marie said that she was not trying to make a political statement, only a personal one.  Her answer, whose sincerity I do not question, evinces painful disconnection from five central socio-political realities: (1) the obligation of elementary social courtesy, which commands that, on public and private occasion alike, when invited to sing  a specific song, one is disrespectful to the host if one sings other than the song specifically requested, without seeking permission to switch; (2) the inherently political character of political events, which makes intended personal statements partly political, and thus makes her attempt to classify her substitution as "personal" simple nonsense, her private motivation notwithstanding; (3) the temporal dislocation of her gesture, in singing in 2008 America, when blacks are accepted as legal and moral equals by all civilized Americans, a song composed in 1900, when segregation and white racism were endemic; (4) the distinction between melting-pot dual loyalty and  multicultural dual loyalty, in that  a United States cannot have multiple anthems, consistent with its ideal of e pluribus unum --Ms. Marie apparently agrees with Al Gore, who once translated the Latin motto as "out of one, many" rather than its correct translation of "out of many, one"; (5) the inherently totalitarian merging of political and personal realms, in that the "total" in totalitarian" refers to precisely that--it is limits on state law (by publicly formalized norms), power (ability to act) and authority (entitlement to exercise power, per popularly ceded sovereignty), that separates fully free from utterly unfree countries.

I attribute all this to confusion rather than lack of patriotism, as in her mind I believe that she does love her country.  Patriotism, after all, is ultimately a state of mind denoting an individual's love of country, but the word is silent on whether one loves wisely or well.  It is just that to Ms. Marie, her country is a multicultural , barely tossed salad, not an integrated melting pot.  With an African-American running for the Oval office, one can only wonder how many African-Americans share Ms. Marie's view of anthem and country.

At bottom, there seems to be less and less agreement as to what our country is.  Everyone is loyal to one's vision of country, but if visions irreconcilably diverge, then loyalties do, too, no matter how pure of heart people are.  Put simply: Are we, metaphorically, upon the 232nd anniversary of America's birth, a family living in a common national home, or are we just a bunch of people who happen to live under one geographic roof?

Yesterday came startling news from the UK: Britain's top jurist said that Muslim couples could legally contract marriages to be governed not by British law, but Sharia, so long as divorces comply with English civil law; Sharia could also be applied to other family matters, and to financial transactions.  Yes, that Sharia, as in Islamic law.  Lord Phillips did say, thankfully, that sanctions must comply with European human rights laws.  His remarks were in a speech given at a London mosque, and (equally thankfully) are not legally operative.

But the paths from separate anthems to separate legal systems are not as far apart as they may seem today.  Such an outcome was hardly what the Founders who signed the Declaration, let alone, the Framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, had in mind.  Yet open-ended "evolving standards of decency" championed by five Justice of the United States Supreme Court may, in the not-too-distant future, help bring about just such a result.

If so, we will have jettisoned once and for all our nation's birthright and Mr. Jefferson's "self-evident" truths, and thus celebrate thereafter the "Inglorious Fourth" as we sing multiple multicultural anthems.

Index 7/3/08

6 posts: (1) America's Worst State--The Home Front; (2) Cross-Hairs for Obama--Weenie Watch; (3) "Suicide Pact" Diplomacy & Law (Here & Abroad)--Weenie Watch; (4) Pakistan: Islamists Regroup--Weenie Watch; (4) Corporate Tax Primer--"It's the Earth Stupid!"; (6) 9/11 + 7: Zero at Ground Zero--The Ap & the Cap.  N.B., There will be a special July 4th posting, was we celebrate our nation's Glorious 232nd.

America's Worst State

The Wall Street Journal posted last week's exchange between a top Cheney aide and Rep. William Delahunt, a Massachusetts Democrat, in which Delahunt told the aide that he, Delahunt, was glad that al-Qaeda now has a video image of the aide.  Here is the full YouTube video (30 sec.), which includes a few extra choice words from Delahunt that establish beyond cavil the import of his words.  His hint, of course, was about possible targeting for assassination of Cheney's aide by our enemies.  Delahunt's later denial that he intended any such thing was risible.  His anger was over the failure of the administration to give him more material on--what else?--waterboarding.

Which brings to mind James Baker's famous crack to a reporter who asked him, riding on Air Force One on President Reagan's first trip to China, if the visit was the Gipper's first to a Communist country.  To which Baker replied, "No, he's been to Massachusetts."  Gerry Studds buggers a 17-year old boy House page and is re-elected; Barney Frank houses a transvestite prostitute in his basement, fixes parking tickets for friends, and is re-elected; Teddy leaves a girl in a lake while he calls his lawyers instead of calling for help, she dies, and he is re-elected.  And Delahunt surely will be, if he runs this fall.  All of which makes one nostalgic for the Peoples' Republic of Vermont, which is, as ever, contemplating possible secession.

Cross-Hairs for Osama

A Washington Times front-pager informs us that we have a deal with Pakistan that we can shoot on sight if we get Osama in the cross-hairs of a Predator, without obtaining prior clearance from the Pakistani government.  Columnist Robert Novak reports that new Pakistani PM (from Benazir Bhutto's party) Yousef Raza Gillani (sounds like Rudy, doesn't it?) has sidelined President Pervez Musharraf, and is pushing a recalcitrant military to shift from confronting India to fighting Islamists.  This is our only realistic chance to nail Osama and Zawahiri, and it only can work if we can streamline our operation to allow rapid decisions.  Translation: contain the lawyers.  Osama does not play golf.  We will get a brief look only.  Twice already, a knowledgeable source vouchsafed to me, we had Osama in the sights of a Predator, only to lose the chance because we could not decide quickly enough.

Much was made in the NY Times Monday, about how we should have special ops traipsing about ISO Osama.  Anyone who believes this is realistic should first read Lone Survivor, by Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell.  Parachuted a few years ago with three comrades into the Afghan Highlands ISO an al-Qaeda bigwig, his group was spotted by three goatherds, one a 14-year old boy.  Their evident hostility led the SEALs to weigh killing them to escape detection, but humanity won over.  For that 3 of the 4 SEALs lost their lives, when the goatherds sicced Taliban on them.  Outnumbered about 35 to 1, the SEALs fought with incredible bravery, going down fighting only after being wounded multiple times.  One of their number, Michael Murphy, won the Congressional Medal of Honor for standing up, braving enemy fire, to make a cell call for rescue.  Two others, Matthew Axelson and Danny Dietz, perished, along with Murphy. Luttrell was rescued by friendly tribesmen, sheltered, at great risk to the tribe, and finally picked up by Army Rangers, but not before the first rescue attempt failed, with 8 SEALs killed in a helicopter hit by a Taliban RPG, along with 8 others.  Luttrell, in a scene right out of Hollywood, found himself face to face with the leader whom he was tasked with assassinating, just before departing the village, whose members had sworn, per ancient custom, to protect him to the death.  Luttrell relented, so that the villagers would not be massacred in revenge.  Luttrell, Axelson and Dietz all were awarded the Navy Cross, the service's highest combat decoration.  Meanwhile, dozens of SEALs gravitated to the Luttrell ranch in Texas, awaiting word of Luttrell's fate, standing by his family.

In all, a tale for Hollywood, were Tinseltown not too busy making antiwar flicks on torture, Iraq, rendition, etc.  But it is also a cautionary tale, as to the extreme difficulty of inserting teams to find Osama.  Getting local intel from tribesmen sworn by ancient custom to shelter visitors is well-nigh impossible.  And getting discovered by unfriendly locals is all too possible.

Put your money on the Predator, as our best chance to nail Osama & Zawahiri--if, that is, we can contain the hyper-legalists once and for all.  We cannot get rid of lawyers entirely, but unless their instincts can be restrained they will inflict on any quick-decision assassination window the death of a thousand cuts.

"Suicide Pact" Diplomacy & Law (Here & Abroad)

Columnist Caroline Glick eviscerates the awful hostage swap Israel just made: live terrorists for corpses.  The human desire to give "closure" to the parents of the two Israeli soldiers, Eldad Regev & Ehud Goldwasser, kidnapped two years ago, a kidnapping that ignited the Israeli - Lebanon War of 2006, is understandable.  But the Lebanese terrorist, Samir Kuntar who along with three Hezbollah terrorists wins his utterly undeserved freedom, is contemptible even by standards of a contemptible breed.  Kuntar was jailed for an April 21, 1979 atrocity in which he and four fellow terrorists assaulted an Israeli home--parents and two daughters.  He killed the father, Danny, and 4-month-old daughter, Einat, while the wife, Smadar, hid with her two-year-old daughter, Yael, whom she accidentally suffocated while trying to silence her.  He killed the baby by smashing her head with his rifle butt while she was propped against a rock.  Kuntar is unrepentant and intends to rejoin the fight against the Jewish state.

Media pressure, plus familial pressure, as recounted by Glick, helped push this outrage.  Benny Morris provides added instructive historical context.  All this to get a couple of corpses and thus appease the sentiment of their families.  The cost of is appalling: allowing a butcher who crushed an infant's skull to go free, and thus endangering innocent lives in the future.  Mawkish sentimentality wins again, at the expense of future peril.  Is there a victim's family that will refuse such an empty gesture in the context of this kind of trade?  It may be too much to ask a family to waive concern for relatives who are alive, but on behalf of the dead?  Such sentimentality must amuse our adversaries, and encourage them to try bolder terrorist acts.

Author Melanie Phillips exposes the absurdity of British judges denying the government the ability to deport released (or detained) terrorists to their native countries on the grounds that those countries--usually, Islamic countries that are dictatorships--might harm them upon their return.  So what?  The idea that a Western country is morally or legally obligated to harbor those who seek actively to kill its people, en masse if possible, is stupefying.  We seem unable to tell such folks: If you face problems at home, that is your problem, not ours.

The real-world wages of legalism in the US are rising, too: the leading federal appeals court (D.C Circuit), in Parhat v. Gates (6/30/08), has overturned a Combat Status Review Tribunal decision in the case of a Muslim Uighur detained at Guantanamo, citing want of adequate evidentiary justification.  In rejecting the administration's claims, the Court resorted to no less than Lewis Carroll: "Lewis Carroll notwithstanding, the fact that the government has 'said it thrice' does not make an allegation true."  Generic allegations by the government, the Court held, amount to the government asking that its word be automatically accepted as true, which the Court (predictably) expressly declined to do.  And Parhat is also free, after the Supreme Court's recent ruling, to file a petition in federal district court for a writ of habeas corpus.

As a Wall Street Journal editorial notes today, it is now clear that the military will be unable to sustain the burden of case by case litigation for each detainee it captures on foreign battlefields, and holds for more than 6 months.  We will simply have to let most of them go.  We will wind up taking only senior detainees prisoner, and compensate partially by killing more terrorists on the spot, or rendering them to the locals for extended  incarceration and interrogation.  Commanders, the WSJ editors writes, will rightly decline to order their charges to collect shell casings under sniper fire, risking their lives to satisfy the likes of Justice Kennedy.  There is, the editors sum up, no "C.S.I. Kandahar."  Already, lawyers for alien detainees held as unlawful combatants at the US military base in Bagram, Afghanistan, are filing habeas petitions in our federal courts.  ABC News Supreme Court reporter Jan Crawford Greenberg reports that President Bush is considering closing Guantanamo, in light of these court rulings, possibly announcing this before he leaves this Saturday for the G8 summit.

Thus is our military ever more deeply enmeshed in a legal quagmire, which will engage it, case by case, for every clown picked up in Asia wandering around with an AK-47, unless rapidly released.  Lawyers David Rivkin & Lee Casey offer suggestions for coping with the 2009 closing of Gitmo (both presidential candidates intend to do this) and how best to cope with the mess the Supremes have given us.

Such are the wages of "suicide pact" diplomacy and "suicide pact" legalism.

Pakistan: Islamists Regroup

Ralph Peters reports that Islamists have resurgent in Pakistan.  Basically, the military is the only reasonably honest institution there (Peters rejects, implicitly, Robert Novak's view given above, of the new Pakistani gov't), and Islamist sentiment feeds upon corruption, propaganda and the like.  Islamists are trying to cut the supply line to Peshawar, that crosses into Afghanistan and supports NATO troops.  Peters provides lots of detail in a small column, well worth a read.  In all, it is a sobering reminder that in war the enemy has a vote.

Corporate Tax Primer

A Wall Street Journal editorial shows why corporate taxes should be cut.  The last major cut, in 2004, a one-year cut, brought a huge jump int he tax base, and thus higher revenues--naturally, not forecast by Treasury, which always assumes that tax cuts lose revenue and tax hikes grow revenue, propositions repeatedly refuted in the marketplace.  Like the State Department re the Palestinians, Treasury refuses to learn from experience in taxation.

9/11 + 7: Zero at Ground Zero

Manhattan Institute scholar Steven Malanga explains succinctly how, seven years after the atrocities of 9/11, the WTC Tower project is mired in government red tape, with years before anything can go up on the 16-acre site.  The only rebuilt structure is 7 WTC, rebuilt by developer Larry Silverstein; ground was broken for the 52-story tower in May 2002, as the cleanup of Ground Zero was finishing, and it opened for tenants in 2006.  Meanwhile, local pols demonized who else but Silverstein, calling him greedy for having the temerity to strike tough commercial bargains, while they and the gaggle of activists hovering like vultures over Ground Zero cannot get their collective act together to do anything but carp and posture.  In Malanga's telling, even Rudy did not cover himself with glory on this one.  Malanga details the whole mess in a riveting read.  Mayor Mike has, it seems, brought the Big Apple back to some of the ways that got the city into the mess of the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s.

Dan Henninger goes farther, calling the impasse at Ground Zero a metaphor for our contemporary politics, in which "can-do" is replaced by "can't possibly do"; 19 agencies created "a perfect storm of contemporary American politics" in which "toxic" values such as being "inclusive" and allowing families of the victims to be "heard" have made productive decisions impossible.  The cost rises above $15 billion and counting.

Perhaps instead of an oddly-shaped building and a lachrymose memorial it is best to leave the pit as it is.  It is stark, ugly and irrefutable testament to our enemies and what they wish to do to our civilization and society--the first installment on a long-term payment plan.  Doing so is cheaper, by $15+ billion, and teaches a better lesson than the proposed memorial, which ignores the vast difference between victims trapped inside the towers and the heroes that went into the towers to try to save them.

Index 7/2/08

3 posts: (1) IRAN: Nuclear Post Time?--Us v. Them; (2) What Works (FedEx); What Doesn't Work (Fed Gov't)--The Home Front; (3) Obama's Liberal Fascism--The Home Front.