OBAMA EXPOSED???

An unsolicited advertising link showed up on my gmail account. It was from Human Events, the self-described "National Conservative Weekly." My mother might take issue with that description. She considers herself the paradigm for a conservative Republican. She is deeply embarrassed that the last three Republican administrations have engaged in record deficit spending, while an intervening liberal Democratic president managed to balance the budget and almost eliminate the national debt. You could call Human Events the "Borrow and Spend Government Weekly." But professional pundits consider it to be a quintessentially "conservative" publication. So be it.

The unsolicited ad link offered me a FREE paper, with the catchy title, BARACK OBAMA EXPOSED! Naturally I wanted a copy. They were happy to download the free exposé. But its true "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch" (TANSTAAFL). First came three web pages full of clickable ads for all kinds of merchandise and services I definitely do not need. I had to be careful too, because if I clicked on the wrong button, I would be authorizing purchase, dissemination of my personal information, etc. etc. etc. No doubt Human Events gets a cut on every sale. Talk about arrogant people, who think they know what is best for me, better than I do. Thank God I know how to look for the SKIP button.

Then I got to the final pitch. A striking but not particularly attractive blonde woman, name of Ann Coulter, offered me a FREE copy of her latest book, something about how liberals can't be liberals without God, in appreciation for my new subscription to Human Events. No thank you. I just wanted to see all the worst that could be said about Barack Obama collected in one convenient pdf file. Ann Coulter? If this woman loved her enemies, she would be a Christian.

But at last I broke my connection with this pushy web site, and could curl up to read all the dirt about the man I voted for in my state's primary.

Disclosure: Yes, the anonymous individual behind this DemocritusNA persona voted for Obama, and I have an Obama bumper sticker on my car. I meant to make the contents of this site available in a nonpartisan spirit to whoever cared to use it: John McCain, Ralph Nader, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, anyone. But I just had to take up this offer, read the material, and then dissect it in an articulate manner. So a brief disclosure is in order. We all know that Publius, who wrote The Federalist Papers, was really Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison. We all know that Vindex was Samuel Adams. For now, my name is unimportant, but for the record, I consider myself a Madisonian Federalist. And I did vote for Barack Hussein Obama.

Barack Obama Exposed! turns out to be a hastily collected anthology of articles, most previously published in Human Events, or by its sister publishing companies, most by regular contributors or staff. Nine of these articles could be considered favorable to Obama. If I were his campaign manager, I might well run off copies.

"Barack Obama and the Pertinent Precedents" by Steve Chapman is glowing praise with a few sensible caveats. Chapman compares Obama to Colin Powell, finds many admirable qualities in common, then notes that Powell had more experience commanding before anyone talked about him as a possible president. (Certainly Powell would have made a better president than the man with NO experience in command, whom he served under as Secretary of State.) The way in which Obama resembles George W. Bush, "his thin resumé," will not help him observes Chapman, but it may be cancelled out by the ways in which he contrasts with the outgoing president: "notably, being thoughtful, articulate and seemingly open to opposing views. Bush is the commander in chief. But it’s Obama who gives the effortless impression of command." Wow. No wonder some life-long Republicans I have known since childhood are thinking of voting for Obama. Now when does Obama start to be EXPOSED?

D.R. Tucker asks "Will GOP Be Ready for Obama Onslaught?" and makes a good case that it will not. Tucker finds this obnoxious. Obama, he worries "offers the Democrats an opportunity to once and for all destroy any chance the GOP has of appealing to black voters." The Republican Party, says Tucker, must be prepared to defend its record on race. Well, yes, the Republican Party gave the nation a president with a very admirable record on race; his name was Abraham Lincoln. A more recent Republican president appointed a very intelligent African American to the cabinet, and side-lined him for pointing out inconvenient truths. Certainly to a partisan Republican (and any American has a constitutional right to be one) Tucker poses an important question. But to undecided voters, this is hardly an exposé showing that Obama is unqualified to be president.

Robert Spencer's "Our First Muslim President?" debunks its title with admirable honesty. He suggests that Obama may be our first Muslim president in the sense that Bill Clinton was our first "black president." Spencer actually speculates whether Muslim clergy may put Obama under a death sentence for NOT being a Muslim, since he attended school in a predominantly Muslim nation, Indonesia. But Spencer is just kidding. He admits that is not going to happen. And he knows Obama is a bond fide active worshipping member of a United Church of Christ in Chicago.

Dennis Byrne, in a piece called "Is Obama Black Enough" ends up highlighting what a ludicrous question that really is. Byrne is not anxious to see Obama win, because Byrne differs on how the U.S.A. should be governed for the next four to eight years. But he freely admits, "The vetting has begun of Obama’s views on great and small issues, and of his mettle and character. This is all that counts." Byrne offers no scandals, just straightforward disagreement. And he's not disagreeable about it.

Bill O'Reilly is almost sympathetic in "The Perils of Obama," noting that unfortunate misunderstandings about the meaning of various words may have caused him to fall 14 points behind Hillary Clinton in a January poll. Well, I guess that's old news now.

Ericka Anderson's title "Debate Coverage: The Obama Question," belies its content, which is basically a quick round-up of everything that may be wrong with each Democratic candidate's contributions to the debates. And that's kind of old news now too.

Dan Proft's "Reality of Obama Taking Hold" observes hopefully that Hillary Clinton's lead over Obama has widened to 33 points, "just as she has emerged as the front-runner in Iowa." If that weren't one small step in a long race, it would rank right up there with the Chicago Tribune's famous headline "Dewey Defeats Truman." And, this must be the first time anyone writing in Human Events spoke with admiration of Hillary Clinton's commanding lead for anything.

The very next page, "Obama In Perspective" by Robert J. Caldwell, is a bit more up to date. One wonders why the editor who put all this together didn't notice the disconnection. Obama "won a smashing victory in Iowa, then gave a stirring speech framed as a transformational moment in American history." Caldwell is a little concerned that Obama has a relatively short resum

é. He's a "skilled campaigner with an inspirational message," but a bit on the liberal side for Caldwell's taste. Fair enough. Those of us who do not share Caldwell's vision find that inspiring.

"Huckabee and Obama: A Study in Contrasts" by Star Parker draws parallels, then makes distinctions, which amount to, for anyone who writes for

Human Events, Huckabee is more their kind of guy. Well, Huckabee is history, and I'm still waiting for Barack Obama to be exposed. Nine out of twenty articles really inspire me.

Ann Coulter (there she is again) contributes a tired mix of name-calling and considered sarcasm. That's a legitimate art form, and it will play well to the budding thespian's fan base, but hardly informative to undecided or wavering voters. Seven articles to go.

Amanda B. Carpenter offers up three articles which prove to her personal satisfaction that Obama has a liberal voting record in the Illinois legislature. I don't recall that Obama ever said he has a 100% rating from the American Conservative Union, or that he is a compromise candidate with a 50% liberal and 50% conservative record. His first classic sound byte on the national stage was "We worship an awesome God in the blue states." He offered that the polarization between liberal and conservative, red and blue states, not to mention the tired old black and white, are hollow nothings. Carpenter obviously clings to her hollow nothings, which have been a great comfort to her, but the rest of us are tired of them.

Tom Fitton reviews some questionable real estate deals with a questionable man now under indictment, under the title "Barack Obama's Whitewater?" The facts as stated are disturbing, and could best be addressed by the candidate publicly saying "I made a mistake here, I regret it. I'm not going to move my family out of our home now, but I will be more careful in the future." On the other hand, Fitton could have his facts all wrong. Who knows? Its not a make or break situation.

Michelle Malkin and Ben Shapiro manage to score a few points about Iraq. ("Obama: Wasting His Own Breath" and "Iran Praying for Obama"). It all turns on the phrase that "

over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans" have been "wasted" in Iraq. Naturally, Malkin can turn up veterans, and families of veterans, who passionately state that they, or their late loved one, believed wholeheartedly in the mission, and their sacrifices are NOT wasted. Anyone who wants to get us out of Iraq sooner vs. later will have to deal with that, directly and upfront.

It probably isn't enough that Obama told the Des Moines Register "I was actually upset with myself when I said that, because I never use that term," or that he clarified "What I would say-and meant to say-is that their service hasn’t been honored." Now, let's get real on this question. When thousands of soldiers are sent into a conflict overseas, and the mission gets bogged down in a long, protracted fight, there will be many thoughts among the troops, and among the civilians. There will be many motives among those in uniform. Some become sick and tired, demoralized, or develop moral doubts about why they are there. They don't speak for everybody; never have and never will. Many earnestly desire to provide security and peace to a civilian population which badly needs and desires it, especially if they have personal experience with individual Iraqis they were able to serve and protect.

But there is still a factual question: With all the best motives and most earnest convictions, with all the skills, training and determination in the world, are we delivering that objective? Considering the incompetent way the troops were sent in, in the first place, are we in a position where we CAN deliver that objective? If not, then in the end, it may prove true that over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans have been wasted. One thing General David Petraeus has firmly stated is that IF the Iraqi political leaders and government cannot pull their own nation together, then no sacrifice by American soldiers can do that for them.

The Bush administration offered us a glowing vision that "the Iraqi people" would "welcome us as liberators" and then peace and democracy would reign. Mission accomplished in May 2003, remember? It turns out there is no such thing as "the Iraqi people," there is no unified democratic leadership in Iraq, and while most people were glad to be rid of Saddam, everyone had their own agenda, which is not ours, and involves a good deal of killing each other. In that specific sense, the lives of many of brave American soldiers were wasted on a lie.

Whether we can pull anything worthwhile out of the mission now is open to doubt, but is still up for debate. Meantime, every American soldier who has saved the life of an Iraqi family can and should be proud of that. Nobody should expect a soldier who has to put on their uniform each morning, pick up their gun, and go out on patrol, to do so thinking "I may die today, and it will all be for nothing." Even pulling out has to be managed better than that.

Shapiro shoots himself in the foot, quoting Australian Prime Minister John Howard "lashing out" after Obama sponsored legislation calling for a full troop withdrawal from Iraq. Make that former Prime Minister Howard. The Australian people dumped him in the last election, because they also want a full withdrawal of their own troops from Iraq. As Obama responded at the time, Howard's words were empty rhetoric unless he called up another 20,000 Australian troops as his contribution to the war, and it appears Howard is no longer in any position to do that. Australian voters have told him "We won't go."

Most undecided voters who have bothered to read this column have long since fallen asleep. "Barack Obama Exposed" is a mind-numbing 37 pages long. If this is how so-called "conservatives" have "Exposed" Barack Obama, he seems to be headed for a landslide victory in November.

CAMPAIGN PROMISES

If a candidate for public office is honest, they will tell voters openly that they have no idea what they are actually going to accomplish in office, and can't make any firm promises. This is most true for executive offices, and most of all for the office of President of the United States. State legislators, even congressional representatives, can promise to introduce certain legislation, to oppose other measures. But they cannot promise voters what their legislation will look like when it comes out of committee, or that it will come out of committee at all. Presidents? They can't promise much of anything.

John F. Kennedy was elected president with then-traditional Democratic support from most southern states. Nobody would have expected him to sponor a comprehensive federal civil rights bill. He certainly didn't promise one in his campaign. If he had, no doubt he would have lost the election. True, he did make a phone call when Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was in prison in Georgia, and many feared for his life. That was a calculated political move, debated in both the Nixon and Kennedy campaigns. Shall we, or shall we not? Will we win more votes or lose more votes if we get into this or stay out of it? Decisions like that do give voters a glimpse of the calculations that motivate a candidate. But they don't tell us what the candidate will actually do in office.

George W. Bush did not campaign in 2000 promising a "war on terrorism." He didn't know, or we hope he didn't know, that the World Trade Center was going to be targetted on September 11 of his first year in office. He did campaign on a promise to cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans. A man of integrity, who entered into a protracted and expensive set of military operations on three or more fronts, might have said "oops, I'm sorry folks, we can't cut taxes when we have all these wars to pay for." An honest fiscal conservative, seeing the dot com bubble burst and revenues sharply down, would have said, "I thought I saw a surplus, but its just not there any more." Not George W. He was determined to deliver on his campaign promise, AND fight his wars, even if he had to mortgage the U.S.A. to the Bank of China to do so. (And he did exactly that.)

Abraham Lincoln did not campaign on a promise to emancipate all slaves in the U.S.A. He promised to leave slavery alone in the states where it existed, but forbid introducing slavery into new territory. He didn't expect a civil war either. His greatest leadership skill was timing: introducing emancipation, enlisting soldiers of African descent, laying the groundwork for African Americans to vote as full citizens, in ways and at times when a hostile majority of "white" voters (and soldiers) would accept it.

Jimmy Carter came into the White House to heal the wounds of a corrupt government that betrayed the people's trust, expecting to do so in an atmosphere of general prosperity. Nobody knew that most of the industrial employers in America were about to close down or move overseas. Ronald Reagan said he could turn that around with some tax cuts. He presided over one of the worst recessions since 1929, and kept smiling through it all, because he believed in his campaign promises more than he believed what was really happening to American working families.

George H.W. Bush campaigned in 1988 on the promise "Read my lips. No new taxes." He didn't really believe that, but he had to pacify the right wing of his own party, which regarded him as something of a liberal. In 1991, it was obvious that responsible government required a modest increase in certain taxes. Congress passed it, and he signed off on it. Now it is quite doubtful that massive numbers of anti-tax conservative voters cast their ballots for William Jefferson Clinton because the Republican incumbent signed off on a tax increase, but that's how its been spun in most of the media, from radio talk shows to the New York Times.

The highest integrity a candidate for president could offer would be to admit that s/he has no crystal ball, that any new president faces surprises nobody could have expected, and then give us a clear sense of the principles that will guide them as they make difficult decisions, in crises we haven't even imagined yet. An honest candidate facing voters concerned about rising unemployment would admit that what government can do is limited in an international market, but give some hints about how s/he would cultivate new development, spread the short-term pain around, and introduce as much fairness into the market as possible.

Of course a candidate who did that would be called vague and superficial, attacked mercilessly for having no substance to their proposals. There is a difference between casual slogans and offering a clear vision for the future. There is also a difference between offering detailed position papers and delivering practical results. A president must inspire, must know how to work with a variety of people and interests, and still keep a clear vision of where we are trying to get to as a nation. Skills are important, principles are important, but promises, even well-intended promises, don't really mean much.

RAISING TAXES

Two things that sound really foolish coming out of the mouth of any candidate for public office:

I'm going to raise taxes.

I will cut taxes, or never raise them for any reason.

Everyone knows why the first statement is a stupid thing to say. There will be all kinds of negative campaign ads saying "John Smith wants to raise taxes!!!" That will be enough to ensure defeat at the polls. These ads never say "John Smith wants to add fifteen dollars to your annual tax bill, so that your aging widowed mother has the best quality health care and lives to see her great-grand-children grow up, even though she is eking out a living on your late father's social security."

The second statement is equally silly. The real question is "What exactly are we getting for our taxes?" But among professional campaign managers, voters are generally assumed to be too dumb, ignorant, dazed or intoxicated to think about that question. Professional campaign managers think the only way to deal with this question is bound up in 500 page volumes of highly technical budget proposals. The truth is, this question can be discussed in plain, simple direct language any voter can understand.

A president with any integrity who said "We are going to invade Iraq" would in the same breath say "It is going to cost American taxpayers $X billion, but we are willing to pay that price. We will raise taxes as much as necessary to provide our brave troops, who are risking much more than money, whatever they need to carry out a successful mission. We're not going to wage war on credit, we are going to be fiscally conservative, even in a time of national crisis, and pay as we go."

The truth nobody want to mention is, government is NOT a business, it is NOT a family, it does not EARN any income at all! As MAD Magazine said in its parody of The Godfather, everyone knows the government loses money every year. Who wants to take over a losing operation like that? The only money the government has, is what we all chip in, one way or another, whether it is income tax or sales tax or import tax or whatever tax. We pay it in the end. So we can't ask government to "live within its budget." I can live within a budget, because my paycheck is what it is, and that's all I have to spend. The company I work for does NOT belong to me. But the government does belong to us. It doesn't have ANY paycheck; until I pay some taxes, it has NO MONEY at all. First we, the people, have to DECIDE what the budget IS.

A cardinal principle in American government is "That government governs best which governs least." Somehow, everyone manages to think of some ways the government should govern more, and other ways the government should govern less. The sheer size of American government grew more under Ronald Reagan than under any previous president. Let's get real about taxes:

Anyone want to save tax money by disbanding all local police forces, the state highway patrol, closing down sheriff's departments, abolishing the FBI, the DEA, the ATF ??? Some people advocate abolishing the ATF, some the DEA, but nobody wants to live with no law enforcement at all, except those who expect "I could BE the law around here without any police to interfere." People who think like that are the reason the rest of us want some kind of police force on the street.

OK, we want police protection. How much are we willing to pay for it? Bill Clinton spent our tax money paying for thousands of additional officers doing community policing, on the street, in local cities all over America. George W. Bush saved taxpayers money by taking that funding away. Do you feel safer now?

Many cities have tried to save tax money by keeping the police department on a tight budget. That means police officers don't get paid much. That means police officers are easy targets for anyone who offers to supplement their income. "Oh, the mayor isn't paying you enough to buy your family a nice house? We'll pay you something extra on the side, and its tax free. All you have to do is..." Taxpayers, like everyone else in the world, get what we pay for.

There may be good reasons to cut government spending. Just let me know what spending you intend to cut, and how I am going to live a safe, comfortable life without it. Let me know what the impact on my world is going to be. I may even want to know whether it would be morally acceptable, to me, to cut whatever you are cutting to save me money. By all means buy toilet seats and hammers from Home Depot, or Ace, or True-Value, at the same price I pay, not hundreds of dollars extra. That would be a way to save tax dollars.

Much of the "anti-tax" propaganda is funded by people who save millions of dollars on their taxes, and can afford to buy premium medical care for themselves, but the TV spots are aimed at people who will save $40 or $100, maybe $2000 at best. A smart president or congress rep or senator would cut off this kind of appeal with a simple restructuring of the income tax. Call it "The Fair Income Tax," to steal a page from the manipulators.

The first $20,000 should be tax free. For families with children, make it $50,000. Every taxpayer, whether it is Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or a single mother flipping hamburgers at McDonald's gets this part of their income tax free. That's fair for all.

Start taxing 10% of the income ABOVE that level. So a single person with no dependents making $60,000 a year would pay 10% of $40,000. $4,000 taxes on $60,000 income. A family would not pay $4000 until they had $90,000. When income goes over $500,000, tax it at 50%. Don't listen to the crocodile tears of those who say that will discourage investment. Nobody ever walked away from a million dollars because they would only get to spend $500,000 of it.

But every year, the tax rates should be adjusted, just a little, based on what we actually NEED to spend. No more seeing what the current tax rate will bring in, then deciding what we are going to spend that money on. First, let's decide what we want our government to do for us in the first place. Then, how much is that going to cost. Then, is it really worth the money, or, looking at the price tag, would we rather do without this program? Then adjust the tax rates, according to what we are really willing to pay for. But the first $20,000, or $50,000, is tax free. Only income above that level will be taxed.

When the income tax was first introduced, only about 10% of Americans made enough money to file a return or pay an income tax at all. The tax return was one page long, for everyone. That is the kind of simplicity we need to return to.

Iraq, A Rock

“a stone which causes them to stumble, and a rock which makes them to fall”

A large majority of Americans wish that George W. Bush hadn’t led us into this quagmire in Iraq, and want us to get out of there.

Muslim leaders in the Middle East say that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have to be kidding when they talk about a rapid withdrawal.

Clinton has the albatross around her neck that she DID vote to go in there, and publicly justified that vote in many speeches. It seemed the politically prudent thing to do at the time. She blithely turned around when she calculated she could get more votes in 2008 by opposing the whole debacle she voted for.

John McCain admits that the man he ran against for the Republican nomination in 2000 made serious strategic errors getting in, but firmly supports “staying the course” now that we are there.

The obvious specter is that either Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia will take over if we leave, or that Iran, Turkey and any other neighbor will move in to pick up the pieces.

Everyone still wonders, is there anything in all this for American soldiers to die for, and American taxpayers to run up huge deficits, with the national debt being purchased by the national bank of China, flush with the profits of outsourcing manufacturing for American brand names?

The bottom line is, we have no friends in Iraq. The cardinal rules for intervening in someone else’s civil war are:

1. Don’t.

2. If you do, pick a side.

3. Make sure your side wins.

“Our side,” according to George W. Bush and VP Cheney, was an overwhelming majority of “the Iraqi people” who would “welcome us as liberators,” elect a government committed to democratic pluralism and free enterprise, and live happily ever after, a beacon of hope to the Middle East. Remember that delusion?

Well, there is no such thing. Iraq is a fictional nation, created by British military officers and diplomats after World War I, who didn’t know beans about the people of the land. Now it is a mess of feuding tribes, ethnicities and religious sects. Our closest thing to friends in that nation are Sunni Arab tribes, who were the political base of Saddam Hussein, the man we moved in to overthrow.

The government we are shedding American blood to uphold is led by corrupt, venal, politicians, playing the Shia Muslim religious card, and cozying up to Iran. Oh, and then there are the Kurds, who under the protection of our air cover, while Saddam Hussein ruled in Bagdhad, built up a fairly prosperous mini-state, occasionally fighting civil wars between political factions. But if we leave them, Turkey will no doubt invade, because Turkey has its own Kurdish revolt on their side of the border.

The problem for John McCain is, how can he justify sacrificing American lives to defend such a corrupt, factionalized government? Especially when some of the parties IN the government have militias who periodically declare war on OUR soldiers who are there to preserve and protect that same government?

The problem for any anti-war candidate is, now that our country, albeit under the most incompetent leadership we have had since Millard Fillmore and James Polk, has broken Iraq open, how can we just leave it to its fate, with all the disasters that might present for its neighbors, some of whom are our friends, and the opportunities it would present for other neighbors, some of whom way nasty things about America?

The corrupt factions sitting in the Green Zone in Bagdhad, pretending to be a government, know that is our dilemma. Therefore, they assume they can do whatever they want, and our troops will pay the price of keeping them in office. The sad truth is, we cannot build someone else’s country for them. General Petraeus has done an amazing job, but he freely admits that the military can only buy time, not do the work of creating a peaceful, prosperous, united nation. Nor have our diplomats persuaded any significant political faction in Iraq to do so. The time to heed General Petraeus was in 2003, not 2008.

We probably owe it to our few remaining friends in the region, and those who have in some way helped us and relied upon us, to execute a staged withdrawal, not simply get out in February 2009. It will be hard to tell the families of servicemen and women, who die during that protracted withdrawal, that we couldn’t get their son, daughter, brother, sister, cousin, wife, husband, father, mother out of there sooner, because we had to stay long enough to clean up our own mess. But that was decided when we went in. We can’t get all the troops out in one day. Someone has to be the rear guard, or even more troops would die on the way out.

Our president, whoever that may be, must communicate by action, not words, to the political cliques in Bagdhad, that we are going, and they will have to step up to the plate, now. They have had a free ride on our backs, exercising the rhetoric of sovereignty without many of the responsiblities. We will not be blackmailed by the probability of chaos to continue paying their prices, letting them fiddle while their country burns. That means we have to start pulling out. We can’t do any more for them than we already have.

On the way out, perhaps we should keep some presence in support of the Kurds, who have shown they can run their own little mini-state with some success, and arm the Sunni tribes who have helped us against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. They are going to be a minority in Iraq when we leave. We owe them some protection. They could continue to be helpful, if they don’t feel used and betrayed.

IF there were a sizeable ORGANIZED number of Iraqis who said “we are Shia and Sunni and we don’t want armed gangs turning us against each other, give us a protected enclave where we can live in peace together and we will help you hunt down and kill the armed factions” that might be a viable strategy. It is not enough that INDIVIDUALS say that. They need to be a political FORCE in the nation. Any president who could put together the diplomacy and military operation to accomplish that would go down in history as a hero. But it would mean trampling, at least temporarily, on the forms of Iraqi sovereignty.

Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is going to be nothing once there are no more Americans in Iraq to blow up. They and the Shia majority hate each other. They have alienated the Sunnis as well. They are for the most part foreign interlopers, who get away with raising a so-called “insurgency” because they are foreigners who speak the same language, less foreign than the Americans. With the Americans gone, the Shia and Sunnis will do horrible things to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, slaughtering and torturing them in ways that our armed forces are not allowed to do.

Finally, all voters should remember that, whoever we elect, we don’t know what our new president is going to end up doing, and neither does he or she. Events change. George W. Bush didn’t know in 2000 what was going to happen September 11, 2001. At least, we hope he didn’t. Presidents try out new programs, some work, some don’t. We need to get the president who has shown the best judgment in the past, and trust him or her to lead us well through the hazards of the next few years, which we can’t even guess at. It is doubtful that anyone who voted to get us into this mess can succeed at getting us out of it.

Abortion

First of all, the President of the United States has no authority regarding abortion. Zip. Nada. Nothing. Article II of the Constitution defines the Executive Power. It says nothing about abortion. It is not a suitable subject for national policy. If any criminal statute is going to be passed, that is properly a matter for the states, not the federal government. This is still a federal republic, even if it is a fact of life that our commerce is almost all interstate these days, and federal jurisdiction is a lot bigger than it used to be.

So its really not a significant issue in a campaign for president. But as a matter of moral leadership, Bill Clinton had it right when he said that abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

Hardly anybody is “in favor of abortion.” Most of the rest of us don’t listen to those who think there is some liberating positive good to having an abortion. Any woman who has had an abortion knows there are physical, psychological and spiritual prices. ANY decision in life has prices, as well as, sometimes, benefits, or the benefit of avoiding even more painful prices.

To the extent that abortion is a spiritual question, we should look to spiritual means to prevent it, not look to government to do what is truthfully a very delicate job that requires reaching out one on one. History teaches that criminal laws concerning abortion do more harm than good.

The Supreme Court has never ruled that abortion is a good thing, nor that there is a constitutional right to abortion. The Supreme Court has ruled, on many subjects, that there are matters in our private and family lives that the government is constitutionally restrained from butting into. The Supreme Court has ruled that during the first trimester of pregnancy, abortion is one such matter, and to a lesser extent, during the second trimester as well.

Those who are opposed on principle to abortion may someday have cause to be thankful for the ruling in Roe v. Wade. Consider the possibility that a government may come to power in the United States committed to a vast program of social engineering. Suppose the newly elected congress passes a law requiring women to have abortion in certain circumstances: because the mother cannot provide for the baby, because it would be cruel to bring a severely deformed child into the world, to prevent a financial burden upon taxpayers and society... There are many legal advocacy groups who would rush into court for an injunction protecting women from enforcement of such a law, probably including the Pacific Legal Foundation and the Rutherford Foundation, not to mention Focus on the Family.

Lawyers for these organizations would find their best legal foundation in Roe v. Wade. If the government may not intervene, then the government may not intervene. Period. The government may no more decree that a woman must abort than the government may forbid abortion. Either the government has power over the decision, or it does not. The constitution is indifferent as to how a legislature exercises power it does have. The constitution only defines whether the government does or does not have authority to act. As to the third trimester, the state’s power to intervene derives ONLY from the development of a fetus much closer to independent viable existence as a distinct person. If the fetus is not a person, the state may not intervene at all. If the fetus is a person, the state may intervene only to protect, not to destroy, as with any other person.

Let’s also remember that it is an arrogant myth that electing a president can sway the Supreme Court. Presidents have always been shocked, surprised, disappointed by their Supreme Court appointees. Rightly so. On the court, as judges, men and women have assumed the very real responsibilities of an independent branch of government. This is not unlike the appointment of Thomas a Beckett, by England’s King Henry II, to be Archbishop of Canterbury. Thomas warned his good friend Henry, if you make me Archbishop, I will act like an Archbishop. And he did. A president who approaches Supreme Court appointments with suitable humility will look for distinguished, well qualified judges, knowing that the president can never predict how they will decide any particular case.

Roe v. Wade is a fine legal framework for the power of the state to intervene in a personal or family decision. That said, many things can and should be done to make the individual decision to seek an abortion as rare as possible. The most obvious is, every person who is morally opposed to abortion should make the offer to a pregnant woman, whatever you need, to carry that baby to term, I will provide it. That is a responsible way to act on pro-life principles. We should all be prepared to pay the prices of acting upon our beliefs; it is cheap to say to another, you pay this price, because I believe you should, and I will call the police if you don’t do it my way.

There are steps government can take also, steps which promote the general welfare and the public good, which will make abortion increasingly rare. Some of the lowest rates of abortion are found in European nations where the operation is legal, and the social safety net strong. Some of the highest rates of abortion are found in nations where abortion is strictly punished by law, and there is virtually no social safety net.

We need to move beyond the two failures of the 20th century: giving any woman who has a baby eighteen years of welfare, or putting mothers to work full time when their youngest child reaches the age of two. But we have to assure pregnant women that any baby they choose to carry to term, will have a healthy future available. Children take time, providing for children costs money. Unfortunately, government is not and cannot be the village that raises a child. Private initiatives, local community initiatives, and stable families, are indispensible. Government, especially the federal government, can only foster opportunities and provide essential resources.

Torture

Let’s apply a little common sense to the debate about use of torture by police, military and intelligence forces.

If we have a man or woman in custody, who we know for a fact has information on where a nuclear bomb was placed in a major city, and when it will detonate, we are justified in using ANY means to extract that information from them. Whatever they suffer, it is secondary to the thousands or millions of lives to be saved, and even larger numbers of lifelong painful burns and cancers to be averted.

Of course, we are hardly ever so lucky as that.

More likely, we have a few dozen people in custody, some frightened raw recruits, some innocent people who happened to be swept up, maybe a couple of hardened veterans, and even those may or may not know anything useful.

Torture will induce a man or woman who knows nothing to make up anything to stop the pain. We send our best forces off on a wild goose chase, put civilian populations through all kinds of annoying security measures, and accomplish nothing. We might even miss something that was really going on, because we were so confident of the lies we extracted by use of torture.

Torture will inspire an innocent man or woman to join whatever it is the torturers are fighting against, out of sheer personal hate for what they went through. It will also inspire their families, neighbors, even people who read about it in the newspaper, to fear and loathe whatever principles we thought we could offer to the world. Statements obtained through torture should never be admitted as evidence in any court: they are never reliable.

For those who have the luxury of considering pure spiritual concerns, freed from the gross material concerns of everyday life, it is true that to inflict torture dehumanizes the interrogator. They come back to civilian life someday, and they think its OK to treat their spouses, children, neighbors, coworkers, more or less the same way. There is no evidence that God calls us to torture, maim, or terrorize.

There are many good reasons not to torture prisoners, no matter what they have done or tried to do. There are exceptions to every rule. There are ways every rule, and every exception, can be abused. To forbid torture is a good policy. If we make an exception for a very good reason, we need to be sure we know exactly what we are doing and why. Then we need to have enough oversight to be sure it really was a good reason, and won’t ever be done again for any lesser reason.

Immigration

There is, at the train station in Cudahy, Wisconsin, a new brick plaza with a recently commissioned set of statues, called the “Immigrant Family Monument.” It is not unknown that people driving past the sign which advertises this memorial remark “Immigrants? Oh, no, I don’t support that.”

Of course, the immigrants portrayed by the monument appear to be Polish, or German, Slovenian or Serbian, the kind of immigrants most local residents are descended from. These are the people who made Cudahy the industrial powerhouse it once was.

When the United States of American ratified a constitution creating a federal government, the right of free travel between these previously independent states was guaranteed to citizens of any state. But it can still be a federal offense to cross state lines for the purpose of committing a crime. And when it comes to national borders... they ARE borders. Nations retain the right to control who enters or leaves their jurisdiction.

Immigration throughout our history started with some industry offering people jobs if they would only come here to work. Workmen who were already here complained that this would undermine their wage scales and standard of living. It did. Captains of industry didn’t care. They were making money. The immigrants came anyway. Their children joined unions and pushed the wage scales back up.

It is true that if millions of average Joes, desperately seeking a job, can get across our borders without going through customs, then sophisticated drug smuggling networks and ruthlessly trained terrorists can also do so with ease. In that sense, it is important to get control of our national borders. It is also true that when millions are crossing the border out of necessity, those with a more ominous purpose have plenty of cover for their own itinerary.

Most people do not cross borders for the purpose of invasion or subversion. They are motivated by necessity. They are hungry, displaced, unemployed, and they hear if you go to American, and work very hard, you can make enough money to get by. Its true, they can. Somehow, there are jobs they can get when they arrive. As long as that is true, little will be accomplished by building walls and mounting patrols. The key to immigration policy is:

(1) Conducting our commerce, foreign policy, and global trade in a way that leaves people options for survival in their nations of origin. People immigrate because people have to “follow the money.” If we don’t want the whole world coming here, we have to be sure the money flows through the countries people are immigrating from. It will flow back here too. Money doesn’t sit still. We have to be sure all our neighbors are in the loop.

(2) A cold, hard look at the jobs immigrants are attracted by: are there American citizens out of work who would take those jobs? Why aren’t they being hired? Are they applying? Is the rate of pay unconscionably low? Are our labor protection laws being enforced in that industry? If there really is nobody to do those jobs, what orderly process will allow them to be filled legally, without undermining anyone else’s job or standard of living?

Vigorous enforcement of our laws, all of them, and fair trade policies, are the key. As for physically securing the borders, walls are not the key. We don’t want someone coming to our border with a Ronald Reagan mask crying out “Tear down this wall.” Information, rapidly relayed, and mobile border patrols trained to move swiftly, are the key to secure borders.

Yes, sometimes we may be up against paramilitary narcotices smugglers with automatic weapons. We need strike forces trained and equipped to take them out, successfully. Other times we may be up against two young men chasing stray cows. We don’t need to be sending combat troops with automatic weapons to apprehend them. Intelligence and rapid response, the right response for the real situation on the ground, will get the job done.

Oh, and let’s remember what the French colonel said when he took command of a deteriorating military situation in The Battle of Algiers: “You can forget about those checkpoints to ask everyone for I.D. If anyone has their I.D. in order, it is the terrorists.”