Search Results for “Free PDF CAS-005 PDF Download – The Best Knowledge Points for CAS-005 – Authoritative CAS-005 Pass Test 🅱 Search for ✔ CAS-005 ️✔️ and easily obtain a free download on [ www.pdfvce.com ] 🦈Valid CAS-005 Exam Pass4sure” – Page 12

Trump’s Impeachment Was Not ‘Rushed’ and He Has Not Been Denied Due Process of Law

Trump’s Impeachment Was Not ‘Rushed’ and He Has Not Been Denied Due Process of Law

By John R Guardiano on January 17, 2021

Refuting the Bad—and Bad-Faith—Arguments Against Trump’s Impeachment and Conviction.

There are lots of lame excuses, but no valid reasons, for not impeaching and convicting Trump.

Sadly, but perhaps not surprisingly, Congressional Republicans, Trump toadies, and their lapdogs in the media are making excuses for why Trump should not have been impeached and should not be convicted.

None of these arguments are persuasive or compelling, and most do not acknowledge the dangerous, precedent-setting implications of Trump’s actions and failures of action since Nov. 3 and especially since Jan. 6.

Instead, the argument essentially is that Trump should escape impeachment and conviction on legal or procedural technicalities.

Procedural Technicalities. Conservative Republicans historically have opposed letting criminals go free because of legal or procedural technicalities. So it’s surprising and disappointing to see many of them eager to let Trump escape Constitutional censure because of a legal or procedural technicality.

We will take up the objections to Trump’s impeachment and conviction in a series of posts. The first objection is that impeachment was “rushed through” Congress and that Trump, therefore, has been denied due process of law.

As Byron York puts it, the House of Representatives conducted a

quickie impeachment article on Wednesday—dispensing with the hundreds of hours of deliberation and due process that would precede a normal impeachment vote…

But of course, the Constitution does not specify any time requirement or procedural obligations for impeachment.

Moreover, as Matthew Continetti points out, “All the facts are in evidence. They are plain to anyone who can read or watch television.”

Due process or fairness thus did not require a lengthy investigation or fact-finding expedition because the public record already is quite voluminous and well-known. Trump’s tweets, public statements, actions, and inaction are available for all to see, read, and review.

Due process also is a subjective standard that is situationally dependent, and it is more relevant to a Senate trial than a House impeachment. As Andrew C. McCarthy observes:

If we woke up one morning to smoking-gun, undeniable proof that an American president was a spy for a foreign adversary, Congress would have to impeach and remove the president immediately…

No one in his right mind would say, “Let’s leave a foreign spy in the Oval Office for a few more weeks so we can have some hearings and make sure the Senate trial is fair.”

For this reason, the Constitution does not impose any due process standard on impeachment and conviction.

In short, the House of Representatives has handled Trump’s second impeachment fairly and lawfully. Critics who complain about a “rushed impeachment” are either disingenuous or ignorant.

In truth, the House had to act with dispatch and for several reasons:

First, Trump is leaving office Jan. 20, and there is legitimate legal disagreement as to whether a president can be impeached when he is no longer president.

Second, with a new president (Biden) about to take office and other pressing matters (such as the pandemic) to attend to, Congress cannot afford to waste time belaboring impeachment and conviction. Instead, it must act quickly and decisively and move on.

In fact, if anything, the House took too long (a full week) to impeach Trump.

Third, there is the old adage that justice delayed is justice denied. Indeed, Trump’s assault on the Congress, the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law was so blatant and egregious that it demands prompt and immediate redress.

All Americans must know and understand that such flagrant abuses of power will not be tolerated.

Pretending otherwise through weeks or months of haggling and debate over irrelevant legal and procedural technicalities is a disservice to the American people and an abandonment of the Constitution and Constitutional governance.

In our next post, we will consider whether the article of impeachment (incitement of insurrection) warrants Trump’s conviction. Critics contend that Trump did not incite an insurrection. Is this true and does it matter?

Feature photo credit: Joyce N. Boghosian, courtesy of WBNG.

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Spreads Malicious Lies about Ukraine and the United States

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Spreads Malicious Lies about Ukraine and the United States

By John R Guardiano on December 11, 2022

In his zeal to vilify Ukraine and malign the United States, Carlson betrays an appalling ignorance of the politics and history of both countries.

Is Tucker Carlson a knowing Putin propagandist or historically obtuse and ignorant?

It’s hard to tell, but that is the inescapable conclusion one must draw after listening to his myriad commentaries trying to portray Ukraine in the worst possible light, while saying little or nothing critical of Putin and Russia.

Most recently (Dec. 7, 2022), Carlson declared that Ukrainian President Zelensky is a Lenin-like dictator who is using American tax dollars to stamp out opposition parties and religious liberty in Ukraine.

Zelensky is a “dangerous authoritarian” who “has no interest in freedom and democracy,” Carlson intoned. And, for this reason, any comparison to World War II, the proverbial “good war” for freedom and democracy, is wrongheaded.

American support for Ukraine today does not mirror American support for Britain at the outset of World War II. No, Sir, said Carlson.

The Biden administration “baited” Russia into invading Ukraine: by “telling Zelensky to join NATO, which they, [the Biden administration], knew was a Russian red line. They, [the Biden administration], wanted this war,” Carlson said.

Russia Threats. Carlson then brought left-wing journalist Glenn Greenwald on air to tell viewers that the U.S. government “actually doesn’t care about spreading democracy.” That is a “fairy tale,” Greenwald said.

Russia, he scoffed, is no threat to the United States. Russia is not our enemy. Presidents Obama and Trump didn’t see Russia as an enemy and neither should we. Only crazy left-wing Democrats who still cling to the Trump-Russia collusion hoax think that, Greenwald said.

As Luke Coffey observes, “Tucker would make a fantastic spokesman for the Kremlin.” And, in fact, as The Guardian points out:

Carlson’s commentaries on the Ukraine war generally reflect Putin’s speeches and claims. Russian television then plays back the monologues as evidence that Putin is right because the same is being said by “the most popular television presenter in America”.

But while Americans of all political stripes do not accept the lies spewed by a Russian dictator, American conservatives are inclined to accept the falsehoods spouted by Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, and therein lies the problem.

Carlson is opposed to U.S. aid to Ukraine, which is a legitimate, albeit wrongheaded position.

What is illegitimate is deliberately lying about the United States and Ukraine, and deliberately defaming and demonizing these two great countries, to try and make your case for cutting off American aid dollars.

Zelensky v. Lenin. First, to compare Zelensky to Lenin is obviously idiotic and slanderous. Lenin seized power in a violent Communist revolution and was guided by dictatorial Communist ideology. Zelensky was elected president peacefully and democratically, and is guided by the broad-based concerns of the Ukrainian people.

As for religious liberty, it is guaranteed in the Ukrainian Constitution, and it is, in the main, respected and protected. However, because Putin has weaponized the Orthodox Church and manipulated the church to try and conquer and subdue Ukraine, matters are considerably more complicated than Carlson acknowledges.

Ukraine is fighting for its very survival and has a legitimate interest in rooting out spies, traitors, and saboteurs.

Perhaps Zelensky and his government have overreached. But if that is the case, they did so as a wartime exigency and not out of any ideological desire to stamp out legitimate democratic opposition and dissent.

Let us remember: the United States, too, has sometimes stifled dissent and infringed upon liberty while at war.

Lincoln. During the Civil War, for instance, President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus to ensure that Union commanders could arrest and detain people seen as a threat to military operations. Yet, only the historically illiterate would suggest that, because of this, Lincoln was a “dangerous authoritarian” opposed to democracy.

Instead, historians understand that Lincoln was a wartime leader trying to preserve the union and save his country.

This doesn’t meant that Lincoln was right to suspend habeas corpus. That is a legitimate historical argument to have. But any fair-minded historian will place Lincoln’s suspension of the writ into historical context to arrive at a judicious and fair-minded conclusion regardless of whether he thinks what Lincoln did was right or wrong.

So, too, with Zelensky. Political and wartime context is required to understand his actions vis-a-vis the Orthodox Church. Yet, Carlson eschews such context precisely in order to demonize Zelensky and portray him as a cartoonish political villain.

Ukraine. What is beyond dispute and debate is that Ukraine is a burgeoning democracy that aspires to be part of the West. The Ukrainians wish to share in our political and cultural patrimony. They wish to be a free, sovereign, and independent country.

Russia, by contrast, wants to dominate and subjugate Ukraine. They want to isolate Ukraine from the West and make it dependent upon and subservient to Russia. And, more ominously, in so doing, they want to wipe Ukraine off the map and destroy its culture and its nationhood.

American support for Ukraine is thus morally just and righteous and something all Americans ought to be proud of—Carlson and Greenwald to the contrary notwithstanding.

But make no mistake: America supports Ukraine not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it serves the American national interest.

Russia. Again, Russia is an avowed enemy of the United States that has spent the better part of two decades undermining American national security interests in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. So any opportunity to bloody and weaken Russia is a good and welcome opportunity for the United States.

This doesn’t mean that the United States baited or lured Russia into waging war on Ukraine, as Carlson and Greenwald idiotically assert. To the contrary: the United States and its European allies went to great pains for many years to allay Russian concerns.

The problem is that Putin has been hellbent on resurrecting a new Russian empire and could not be assuaged by anything less than utter appeasement and surrender.

Putin launched a war on Ukraine not because of anything the United States or NATO did or did not do. He launched a war on Ukraine because he wants to conquer and subsume Ukraine.

The United States is supporting Ukraine because it recognizes that Russia success there will threaten peace and stability throughout Europe, while inspiring dictators worldwide to redraw national boundaries and rewrite the wold map.

In other words, American support for democracy is no fairy tale; it is reality, hard-headed realism in a dangerous world. And the only lies being told are those by Carlson and Greenwald, who portray an illiberal, authoritarian Ukraine that doesn’t exist.

The bottom line: Ukraine is a good country and its president, Zelensky, is a great wartime leader, despite whatever mistakes he might have made and, undoubtedly, will make in the future.

Ukraine and Zelensky, in fact, can be compared, favorably, to Great Britain and Winston Churchill as they heroically fought back against Nazi Germany at the onset of World War II.

Russia, by contrast, is a bad country and its dictator, Vladimir Putin, is a bad man. Russia and Putin can be compared, unfavorably, to Nazi Germany and Adolph Hitler as they savagely tried to conquer Europe during World War II.

And then, as now, the United States is doing the Lord’s work in supporting the forces of freedom and democracy. May it always be so.

Feature photo credit: Fox News’ host Tucker Carlson and left-wing journalist Glenn Greenwald, courtesy of a Fox News screenshot.

Who is Failing Ukraine: Biden or Congressional Republicans?

Who is Failing Ukraine: Biden or Congressional Republicans?

By John R Guardiano on January 8, 2024

The media blame Congressional Republicans for failing to support Ukraine; but the real failure of support lies in the Oval Office with Joe Biden.

The media and most foreign policy analysts would have you believe that farsighted Joe Biden supports Ukraine, while myopic Congressional Republicans don’t; and that a lack of GOP support is why Ukraine enters this, its third year of war, on the defensive, facing a Russian military onslaught.

In fact, the opposite is true. Joe Biden says he supports Ukraine; yet he has deliberately withheld from Ukraine critical weapon systems such as the ATACMS or long-range Army Tactical Missile System.

He has been seriously tardy and parsimonious about the weapon systems he has provided (e.g., a few dozen Abrams tanks and just 20 ATACMS), while imposing range and use restrictions on other provided weapon systems (e.g., the HIMARS or High-Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems).

As Biden himself publicly acknowledged Nov. 9, 2022: “There’s a lot of things [i.e., weapon systems] that Ukraine wants that we didn’t do” or provide.

Consequently, as Phillips P. O’Brien observes, “while Russia can strike anywhere in Ukraine, the U.S. has denied the Ukrainians the weapons they need to hit Russian targets, even in the parts of Ukraine that Russia occupies.”

Biden’s dithering and delay has been quite costly. It has given Russia the time and space that it needed to massively mine occupied Ukraine and to erect massive defensive fortifications, which the Ukrainians simply have not been able to overcome, especially given their lack of Western and American aircraft.

The President, of course, has his reasons, or excuses, for practicing self-deterrence. He says he wants to avoid a wider war, “escalation” and “World War III.” But whatever the reason or excuse, the bottom line is still the same: The West has given Ukraine enough to survive, but not enough to win.

For the most part, Biden’s center-left supporters have implored him to speed up the delivery of weapon systems to Ukraine while they refrain from criticizing him directly. Instead, they aim their rhetorical fire at Congressional Republicans for not supporting Biden’s most recent Ukrainian aid request.

As David Frum argues, “A ‘yes’ on both Ukraine and the border is still within reach, if only pro-Ukraine Republicans will press their colleagues to grasp it.”

Congressional Republican Politics. There is some truth to Frum’s argument. Some Congressional Republicans are, indeed, opposed to aiding Ukraine, while other GOPers are playing politics and trying to use Ukraine aid to score political points against Biden.

But the more important and consequential issue which Frum and other center-left Biden supporters ignore, is that most Congressional Republicans are fed up with Biden’s weak, timid and half-hearted approach to aiding Ukraine.

Congressional Republicans don’t want another “forever war”; they want a clear and decisive Ukrainian win. Yet Biden has never laid out a strategy for ensuring that Ukraine wins and Russia loses. Instead, he repeats his vague mantra about “standing by Ukraine for as long as it takes.”

But this begs the question: as long as it takes to achieve what, exactly? Win? Lose? Tie? Negotiate? Biden never says.

Biden’s Timidity. Occasionally, the president will tip his hand. During a June 13, 2023, Oval Office meeting with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, Biden said explicitly that aid to Ukraine is designed to achieve not a military victory for Ukraine, but a negotiated settlement instead.

“It’s still early days,” he told reporters, “but what we do know is that the more land that Ukrainians are able to liberate, the stronger hand they will have at the negotiating table.”

In other words, Biden isn’t playing for a Ukrainian win; he’s playing for a tie and a negotiated settlement that will force Ukraine to cede large amounts of its territory and millions of its people to the tender mercies of Putin’s Russia.

As O’Brien frankly acknowledges, “The Biden administration doesn’t want Ukraine to win.”

Most Congressional Republicans, however, do want Ukraine to win, and this explains their frustration with Biden and their reluctance to support additional aid request for Ukraine.

“Absolutely, we have to stop Putin,” Rep. Michael Waltz (R-Florida) told Fox News’ Mark Levin Dec. 11, 2023. But “it’s our job to say ‘to what end?’ What’s the strategy? How are you going to get there?’—and also to question what he [Biden] has done so far.”

“We are in a stalemate that will be very long and very expensive,” Waltz adds.

“I’d say from the very beginning, they’ve [the Biden administration] been engaging in half-measures while Ukraine has been half-succeeding,” said Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) Feb. 16, 2023.

“That has been a pattern with this administration from the beginning,” said Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) Feb. 26, 2023.

They have slow-rolled critical military weapon systems… [and] it’s a long list. It’s Patriots, it’s HIMARS; it’s tanks; and now it’s F-16’s. And to me, that is a real blunder.

We need to get them what they need now and listen to the Ukrainians… They’ve proven their ability to fight bravely, and I think we need to do a much better job.

It took nine months to get them the Patriots…

In short, Biden says he supports Ukraine but fails to follow through with specific policies that would make that rhetorical support real and tangible. Most Congressional Republicans, meanwhile, support Ukraine but have grown weary of a president who refuses to commit to victory.

As Frum rightly notes, “If leadership was ever needed, it’s needed now.” But that leadership has to come from the President, the Commander in Chief. It cannot come from Congress.

Featured photo credit: President Joe Biden (L) and Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) (R), courtesy of the Washington Free Beacon (Getty Images). Biden and Cotton represent polar opposite approaches to Ukraine. Biden, the Democrat, wants a tie and a negotiated settlement. Cotton, the Republican, wants a Ukrainian win and a Russia defeat.

Did the First GOP Presidential Debate Winnow the Field?

Did the First GOP Presidential Debate Winnow the Field?

By John R Guardiano on August 26, 2023

Yes, and it looks like it will come down to Haley and DeSantis vying for the right to take on the former president. Let’s hope Haley prevails.

With Donald Trump in a commanding lead for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, the big question coming out of the first GOP presidential debate is: what does it portend for the winnowing of the field?

That question is important because the assumption by political analysts all along has been that to defeat Trump, you need to winnow down the anti-Trump field to one primary challenger. Otherwise, the anti-Trump vote will splinter, thus allowing the former president to prevail with only a plurality, and not a majority, of the vote.

2016. That’s what happened in 2016, and Republicans eager to move beyond Trump are deathly worried that it might happen again this year. As New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu explains:

While it’s true that Mr. Trump has an iron grip on more than 30 percent of the electorate, the other 60 percent or so is open to moving forward with a new nominee…

In both Iowa and New Hampshire, he is consistently polling in the low 40 percent range. The floor of his support may be high, but his ceiling is low…

Mr. Trump must face a smaller field. It is only then that his path to victory shrinks…

After the results from Iowa come in, it is paramount that the field must shrink, before the New Hampshire primary, to the top three or four…

Provided the field shrinks by Iowa and New Hampshire, Mr. Trump loses. He will always have his die-hard base, but the majority is up for grabs

So, with that in mind, did the first 2024 GOP presidential debate winnow the field, or is it more splintered than ever?

Byron York argues persuasively that field has been winnowed from 13 candidates to at least seven candidates and, more likely, five candidates.

Winnowing the Field. For starters, he notes, four candidates—Larry Elder, Perry Johnson, Francis Suarez, and Will Hurd—did not meet the debate’s minimal qualification standards and thus were no-shows. That leaves nine candidates.

Two candidates, Gov. Doug Burgum (R-North Dakota) and former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, “used funding gimmics to meet the RNC’s donor requirements, and both made little impact on the debate.

“There’s really no reason for them to continue participating in the debates,” York notes. “So that is a nine-candidate field going down to a seven-candidate field.”

Former Vice President Mike Pence and Sen. Tim Scott (R-South Carolina) may stay in the race for a while; however, it is clear that neither man can be nominated. Scott had a very weak debate performance and is not a compelling presidential candidate.

Pence had a strong debate performance, but “given Pence’s history as Trump’s vice president,” York writes, “he has no comfortable place in a race against the president he served.”

Final Five. That leaves five GOP presidential candidates: Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Florida), former Gov. Nikki Haley (R-South Carolina), former Gov. Chris Christie (R-New Jersey), Vivek Ramaswamy, and Trump.

Christie no doubt will leave the race in time for the anti-Trump vote to consolidate around a candidate who can deny Trump the nomination. Christie knows he is not that candidate and is committed to doing whatever it takes to defeat Trump, even if it means falling on his sword.

Vivek will not leave the race because is not running against Trump; he is running interference for Trump as the former president’s defender and blocking back.

That leaves DeSantis and Haley as the only viable candidates who can prevail against Trump. The danger is that neither of them will withdraw from the race; they will split the anti-Trump vote; and the former president will again win out with a plurality of the vote.

DeSantis won’t want to withdraw from the race because he has been the anti-Trump favorite all along, polling consistently a distant second to the former president.

DeSantis was underwhelming in the debate. His stellar record as governor, his superb management of the COVID crisis, and his fight against woke indoctrination in the schools have earned him GOP support; but he has been a weak, wooden, and uninspiring presidential candidate.

Haley, meanwhile, started out the race respectably, but did nothing to distinguish herself —until that is she literally lit it up in the debate.

“Voter interest in Nikki Haley is surging after the underdog presidential contender delivered a breakthrough performance during a combative Republican debate in Milwaukee,” write David Drucker, Audrey Fahlberg, and Steve Hayes in The Dispatch.

“We’ve raised more online in the last 24 hours than on any day since the campaign started,” says Haley’s campaign spokeswoman Olivia Perez-Cubas.

Haley’s surge in the race is, indeed, well deserved. She would be the Republican Party’s most formidable presidential candidate against Joe Biden or Kamala Harris and is far better positioned than DeSantis to take down Trump.

She is simply a better and more compelling candidate. And the fact that she is a woman is a decided political advantage, given the GOP’s gender gap and loss of suburban women if Trump is the nominee.

But will DeSantis recognize this and bow out gracefully, thus giving Haley a one-on-one matchup against Trump?

Probably not—unless and until Haley can best him in one or more primary contests.

Conclusion. As I say, DeSantis probably has too much invested in this race to cede the nomination to Haley. As the number two candidate in the polls for many months, he no doubt feels entitled to be the party’s anti-Trump candidate.

But if GOP voters reject him and embrace Haley instead, DeSantis may have no choice but to face the music and accept defeat. We’ll know soon enough.

The Iowa Caucuses are Jan. 15; New Hampshire voters go to the polls a couple of weeks later; the Nevada Caucuses are Feb. 8; and South Carolina renders its verdict Feb. 24. Stay tuned.

Feature photo credit: YouTube video screenshots of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley.

The Suleimani Strike Comports with Both International and Constitutional Law

The Suleimani Strike Comports with Both International and Constitutional Law

By John R Guardiano on January 16, 2020

There have been a flurry of published articles declaring, ex cathedra, that the U.S. military strike against Iranian General Qassem Suleimani violates both international and Constitutional law. As we briefly explained in a previous post, this is not true.

The strike against Suleimani was defensive in nature; it occurred in a country, Iraq, where U.S. military personnel have been fighting and dying for 17 years; and it commenced only after a long-running series of Iranian military actions in Iraq, dating back over nearly two decades, that have resulted in the death of more than 600 Americans.

Iran, moreover, has been waging war against the United States for the past 40 years, ever since its 1979 revolution and seizure of 52 American hostages.

For ordinary people, enough said. Neither international law nor Constitutional law are suicide pacts. However, because media and academic partisans are out in force arguing that the strike was illegal, it is worth revisiting the issue.

International Law. First, international law is real and important because it promulgates rules and norms that govern international conflict and provide some predictability of action, thereby helping to minimize war crimes and atrocities. However, international law is much more malleable and subject to dispute and interpretation than domestic law, and it evolves organically over time to a far greater extent than domestic law.

That is because there is no international legislature and executive branch responsible for passing and implementing international law. Instead, international law develops over time based on treaties, customs and conventions, judicial decisions, and general principles of law recognized by civilized nations.

True, we have a United Nations, but the U.N. is not a unitary world government that rules the planet and whose decrees ipso facto have the force of law. Instead, the U.N. is a deliberative body, where countries argue, negotiate, and try to address problems and difficulties as best they can short of war.

U.N. resolutions sometimes have the force of law, but not always. The United Nations Charter adopted in 1945 is considered binding international law. However, other U.N. resolutions, such as ES-10/L.22, which denies that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, are more controversial and in dispute.

My point is this: anyone who insists that international law, or the application of international law, is clearcut, obvious, fixed, and unchanging is either lying or trying to use international law to pursue a political agenda.

And in fact, using international law for political purposes, as a tool of statecraft, is commonplace. This often is how international law evolves and develops. Countries try to promulgate rules and norms to justify their actions on the world stage. It’s called lawfare: “the strategy of using—or misusing—law as a substitute for, [or a complement to], traditional military means to achieve an operational objective.”

Thus for the United States—and certainly, for Trump administration officials determined to put “America First”—international law is not a problem to overcome, but rather a justification that must be embraced.

Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, after all, specifically gives countries the right to self-defense. Everything else is legalistic background noise. And if some legal scholars don’t yet recognize the legitimacy of the Suleimani strike, they soon will, as international law adapts and evolves to reflect changes in weapons and war, as well as the geopolitical landscape.

Constitutional Law. As you would expect, because of the more fixed and settled nature of domestic law, U.S. Constitutional law is more discernible and straightforward: As we’ve previously observed, the President of the United States, as Commander in Chief, has a solemn responsibility to act with dispatch in defense of U.S. military personnel under attack. Failing to do so would be a dereliction of duty.

This is not “initiating a war” against Iran as some critics falsely and hyperbolically assert. Instead, it is wisely prosecuting a long-simmering war in Iraq. The Armed Forces of the United States, remember, have been deployed to Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi government and in accordance with a 2002 Congressional authorization for the use of military force there.

“The power to declare war is different from the power to make war, which belongs to the president in his role as ‘commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,'” explain Constitutional scholars David David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey in The Wall Street Journal. “There are few constraints on that power when the president is defending Americans, civilian or military, against armed attack,” they note.

“Suleimani,” adds David French, a wartime attorney in the Army’s Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps, “was killed lawfully [and] in a properly constitutionally-authorized conflict… Trump’s action was constitutionally legitimate, and that matters. A lot.”

“It is a basic aspect of the law of armed conflict,” French adds, that opposing commanders are a legitimate target.

Soleimani had entered a theater of armed conflict not as a diplomatic guest of the Iraqi government, but rather as a co-belligerent with Shiite militias—the very militias that had attacked an American base and killed an American contractor and had days before attacked and burned part of the American embassy.

The bottom line: Americans need not feel guilty about our strike against Suleimani. It was morally and legally justified. He had it coming, and America’s enemies have been put on notice. With a nod to Liam Neeson, if you kill an American (or orchestrate the death of many Americans), we will look for you; we will find you; and we will kill you. Enough said.

Tump’s Tweets About Lieutenant Colonel Vindman Are Politically-Inspired Lies

Tump’s Tweets About Lieutenant Colonel Vindman Are Politically-Inspired Lies

By John R Guardiano on February 10, 2020

In two tweets Saturday, President Trump charged Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman with “insubordination,” “leaking information,” and “bad judgment.”

He further charged Vindman with failing to adhere to the chain of command and mischaracterizing the contents of his [Trump’s] “prefect” call with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky.

These charges are demonstrably false and say far more about Trump and his bad political judgment than they do anything about Vindman. However, because so much about U.S. civil-military relations is poorly understood, even within the U.S. military, it is worth explaining in some detail why these are charges are utterly groundless.

Origins. The charges arose last fall during the impeachment hearings. Tony Morrison, a Trump political appointee and Republican politico from Capitol Hill, had been brought onto the National Security Council (NSC) and served briefly as Vindman’s supervisor. He testified that he had concerns about Vindman’s “judgment.”

But Fiona Hill a professional Russian and foreign policy expert, who was Vindman’s supervisor before Morrison and for a much longer period of time than Morrison, clarified that their concern over Vindman’s “judgment” was specifically a concern about his domestic political judgment, and not a general concern about Vindman’s judgement as a Russian and Ukraine foreign policy professional serving on the National Security Council.

Here’s what Hill told Congress:

[Lieutenant] Colonel Vindman is a highly distinguished [and] decorated military officer. He came over to us from the chairman’s office in the Joint Chiefs of Staff…

I did not feel that he had the political antennae to deal with something that was straying into domestic politics. Not everyone is suited for that. That does not mean in any way that I was questioning his overall judgment. Nor was I questioning in any way his substantive expertise.

He is excellent on issues related to Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova, on Russian defense issues. He’d been in charge of the Russian campaign, thinking though at the Chairman’s office and in the Pentagon.

This was a very specific issue: because by June, we saw that things were diverging, and you needed a completely different sensitivity…

Mr. Morrison had come from Capitol Hill. He knew politics inside and out; and we said that Colonel Vindman did not. And we were concerned about how he would manage what was becoming a highly charged and potentially partisan issue, which it had not been before.

In other words, Vindman was doing a superb job, but seemed unwilling to compromise his integrity and his work product to meet the political demands of Trump and Rudy Giuliani, who were determined to have Ukraine investigate Joe Biden and Burisma.

That’s at least how I interpret this concern over “judgment” in light of the impeachment hearings, Hill’s testimony, and everything we now know. Indeed, during his Congressional testimony Vindman read from his military fitness report signed by Hill:

Alex is a top 1% military officer and the best army officer I have worked with in my 15 years of government service. He is brilliant, unflappable, and exercises excellent judgment… He was exemplary during numerous visits…

So much for the concern over Vindman’s “judgment”—which, in any case, is a bureaucratic weasel word designed to deprecate high-achievers who refuse to stay in their bureaucratic box. As the Air Force puts it, “if you’re not catching flak, you’re not over the target.”

If Vindman wasn’t causing consternation among bureaucrats and partisan political operatives like Morrison, then he wouldn’t have been doing his job.

‘Leaking.’ As for the charge that Vindman leaked classified information, there has been absolutely no evidence whatsoever put forth to support this smear; and Vindman directly and specifically denied the charge in sworn Congressional testimony, calling it “preposterous… I never did [that and I] never would,” he said.

It is true that Vindman reported to the NSC’s top lawyer that he had concerns about Trump’s phone call to Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky. Vindman was concerned because, as he explained in his testimony:

It is improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen and political opponent…

It was also clear that if Ukraine pursued investigations into the 2016 elections, the Bidens and Burisma, it would be interpreted as a partisan play. This would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing bipartisan support, undermining U.S. national security and advancing Russia’ strategic objectives in the region.

As a result of voicing his concern through official channels to the proper authority in the chain of command, Vindman was later subpoenaed by Congress. He did not expect this nor did he seek it, but it happened. And when U.S. military officers are called before Congress, they have a solemn obligation to come forth and tell the truth.

Pace Trump, that is not “leaking”; it is “testifying,” and it is the right and honorable thing to do.

‘Insubordination.’ And there is nothing “insubordinate” about testifying before Congress. U.S. military officers do not take an oath to the Commander-in-Chief. They take an oath to the Constitution of the United States. Their obligation is to the rule of law, not to the dictates or demands of any one man, even the president.

Nor did Vindman mischaracterize Trump’s “perfect” call with Zelensky. Quite the opposite: everything we’ve learned about the call—from the transcript itself and from a myriad of apolitical and nonpartisan witnesses—confirms that it is what Vindman said it was: inappropriate, and that’s putting it mildly.

As Vindman’s attorney, David Pressman, succinctly put it: Trump’s charges “conflict with the clear personnel record and the entirety of the impeachment record of which the President is well aware.”

Unfortunately, facts have never stopped Trump from deliberately lying and smearing those he perceives to be his enemies.

Still, it is important that we all realize: far from exercising “bad judgment,” Vindman instead exercised superior judgment: by sharing his concerns about Trump’s call with his chain of command and testifying truthfully and dispassionately before Congress. And, far from being “insubordinate,” Vindman instead was loyal to the country and the citizenry whom he serves.

Good on him and Godspeed.

Feature photo credit: Barcroft (via Getty Images) and Alamy Live News via the Daily Mail.

COVID Is About Done and America is Poised for Greatness

COVID Is About Done and America is Poised for Greatness

By John R Guardiano on February 21, 2021

When looked at through the long lens of history, COVID will be just the latest disaster that we Americans confronted and defeated as we scaled new and unfathomable heights.

With nearly 500,000 American deaths attributed to COVID in the past year, the news has been unrelentingly negative. Many of our friends, neighbors and loved ones are understandably frightened. They fear for themselves, for their families, and for the future.

But as the ancient proverb reminds us, “It is always darkest just before the dawn.” The ability of the human spirit to triumph over adversity should never be underestimated. And the spirit of entrepreneurship, ingenuity, and problem-solving that distinguishes the American character should never been given short shrift.

History. For the truth is that America has been down and out before. Many times in our history things have looked ominous, bleak and forbidding:

at Valley Forge during the War of Independence, throughout the Civil War, the 1918 Pandemic, the Great Depression, World War II and the darkest days of the Cold War, during the riots and assassinations of the late 1960’s, and during the decade-long decline and stagflation of the 1970’s.

But despite these earth-shattering historical events—or perhaps because of them—America has always picked itself up, fought back, triumphed, and emerged all the stronger. Of course, this is no guarantee of future success, but it is a compelling reason not to count America out.

Triumph. I say all this because, according to Dr. Marty Makary, a professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and Bloomberg School of Public Health, our long national nightmare—COVID and the consequent closure of the schools and economic lockdowns—will soon be a thing of the past: yet another chapter in our nation’s history where the spirt of America endured, triumphed, and prevailed.

How is this possible? Well, as as Dr. Makary explains:

Amid the dire Covid warnings, one crucial fact has been largely ignored: Cases are down 77% over the past six weeks. If a medication slashed cases by 77%, we’d call it a miracle pill. Why is the number of cases plummeting much faster than experts predicted?

In large part because natural immunity from prior infection is far more common than can be measured by testing.

Testing has been capturing only from 10% to 25% of infections, depending on when during the pandemic someone got the virus. Applying a time-weighted case capture average of 1 in 6.5 to the cumulative 28 million confirmed cases would mean about 55% of Americans have natural immunity.

Now add people getting vaccinated. As of this week, 15% of Americans have received the vaccine, and the figure is rising fast. Former Food and Drug Commissioner Scott Gottlieb estimates 250 million doses will have been delivered to some 150 million people by the end of March.

There is reason to think the country is racing toward an extremely low level of infection. As more people have been infected, most of whom have mild or no symptoms, there are fewer Americans left to be infected.

At the current trajectory, I expect Covid will be mostly gone by April, allowing Americans to resume normal life [emphasis added].

Economic Boom. Moreover, as the New York Times’ Ben Casselman reports, once COVID is vanquished, or at least rendered no worse than the seasonal flu, America is poised for a “supercharged [economic] rebound that brings down unemployment, drive up wages, and may foster years of stronger growth.”

“There are hints, he writes,

that the economy has turned a corner: Retail sales jumped last month as the latest round of government aid began showing up in consumers’ bank accounts.

New unemployment claims have declined from early January, though they remain high. Measures of business investment have picked up, a sign of confidence from corporate leaders.

Economists surveyed by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia this month predicted that U.S. output will increase 4.5 percent this year, which would make it the best year since 1999.

Some expect an even stronger bounce: Economists at Goldman Sachs forecast that the economy will grow 6.8 percent this year and that the unemployment rate will drop to 4.1 percent by December, a level that took eight years to achieve after the last recession.

“We’re extremely likely to get a very high growth rate,” said Jan Hatzius, Goldman’s chief economist. “Whether it’s a boom or not, I do think it’s a V-shaped recovery,” he added, referring to a steep drop followed by a sharp rebound.

Credit the scientists and researchers who developed a COVID vaccine in record time. Credit American entrepreneurs and businessmen who created new and novel ways to supply goods and services amid the pandemic.

Credit President Trump and members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, for acting quickly and decisively to sustain and support American families and American consumers.

And credit the Federal Reserve and Department of the Treasury for taking extraordinary and effective measures that keep the economy afloat in treacherous and turbulent waters.

But most of all credit the American people who, once again, demonstrated their resilience and resolve at a time when a nasty pandemic unexpectedly struck and threatened to destroy all that we hold dear.

We never submitted; we never surrendered; and, God willing, we never will.

Feature photo credit: Dr. Marty Makary, Professor of Medicine at Johns Hopkins and author of The Price We Pay: What Broke American Healthcare—and How to Fix It, courtesy of the Washington Speakers Bureau.

The 1980 ‘Miracle on Ice’ Presaged a Providential American Comeback Led by Ronald Reagan

The 1980 ‘Miracle on Ice’ Presaged a Providential American Comeback Led by Ronald Reagan

By John R Guardiano on February 22, 2020

Today is the fortieth anniversary of the “Miracle on Ice,” when the underdog U.S. men’s hockey team, which no one every thought had a chance, beat the world’s greatest hockey superpower, the Soviet Union, in the semifinal round of the 1980 Winter Olympics.

Two days later (Feb. 24, 1980), the U.S. men’s hockey team beat Finland to win the Olympic Gold medal.

The “Miracle on Ice” was a welcome and surprise victory that helped lift the spirits of the country at a time when America was down, and, many believed, in a state of irreversible decline.

And, in retrospect, it was clearly providential and a harbinger of the future. The win presaged the oft-stated belief by then-Republican presidential candidate Ronald Reagan that America’s best days lie ahead.

In fact, with Reagan’s election as president, America came roaring back and experienced one of the greatest economic booms in its history, while defeating the Soviet Union in the Cold War.

Talk of national decline was eclipsed with talk of American greatness, as the country enjoyed a quarter-century of triumph and achievement arguably unlike anything it has ever experienced and likely every will experience again.

All of this may seem obvious with the benefit of historical hindsight; but on Feb. 22, 1980, the notion that America had a future worthy of its past seemed quaint and fanciful.

American Decline. The U.S. economy was mired in a deep recession; the auto industry was on the ropes, with Chrysler and American Motors on the verge of bankruptcy; and OPEC, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries in the Middle East, had America over a barrel—literally and figuratively.

The Soviet Union, meanwhile, was on the march—in Asia, Africa, the Caribbean, and Latin America. Nicaragua turned communist in 1979 and El Salvador seemed destined to follow. Communist Cuban guerrillas were on the offensive in Angola, and the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in December 1979.

In 1956, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev boasted, “Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!” In February 1980, it looked, sadly, like he might be right.

In the preceding decade, the United States had suffered a series of disasters, including: the Vietnam War, Watergate, the resignation of Richard Nixon as president, oil and energy shocks, gas rationing and long lines at the pump, recessions and high inflation, Three Mile Island…

By November 1979, Islamist revolutionaries in Iran had toppled the government there and taken 52 Americans hostage. A rescue attempt in April 1980 was a complete fiasco. America looked like a pitiful, helpless giant, as even then-President Jimmy Carter seemed to acknowledge.

“The erosion of our confidence in the future,” Carter said in his important but much-derided ‘malaise speech,’ “is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of America.”

The malaise speech was much-derided not because it was wholly wrong in its diagnosis, but rather because Carter appeared to have no clue about how to right the ship of state and reverse America’ precipitous decline.

David versus Goliath. This was the political context in February 1980 when the U.S. men’s hockey team began its miraculous ascent.

The team was comprised of amateurs from the American heartland. Most were from Minnesota and other northern states. Some had played college hockey; but no one would ever put them on a par with their vaunted counterparts from the Soviet Union.

As Tom D’Angelo explains in the Palm Beach Post:

The Soviets had won six of the previous seven gold medals in men’s hockey and were the overwhelming favorites. The team was made up of professionals who had been crushing opponents after losing to the U.S. in the 1960 Games, losing just one game in the previous 20 years.

This band of mismatched American collegians led by feisty coach Herb Brooks stood no chance against the Red Army.

“By the time of the big game on Friday, Feb. 22,” notes the Washington Examiner’s Quin Hillyer,

the American people had adopted their gritty team in a way that I’ve never seen before or since. It is not mere ex post facto gloss to say the contest was seen as being about much more than just hockey, more even than Olympic gold.

For the first time since World War I, Americans saw themselves—not just the team, but the nation—as underdogs. The young hockey squad carried the country’s hopes that underdogs still could win, that freedom could defeat regimentation, and that right could triumph. The battle seemed civilizational.

Win, of course, the Americans did. Most readers know the game story—the saves by goalie Jim Craig, the go-ahead goal by captain Mike Eruzione, and announcer Al Michaels’s immortal question, as the last seconds ran off the clock: “Do you believe in miracles?”

“Yes!” he answered… And finally, yes, we did.

This was very important, because by most lights, it would take a miracle to outstrip the Soviets in the far more consequential, geopolitical, nuclear-haunted battle of ideals and will.

The problem was that only one major presidential candidate in 1980 seemed eager to wage that battle.

His name: Ronald Wilson Reagan. The rest, as they say, is history. Reagan would go on to win the presidency, and then to inspire and lead an American economic renaissance. And, in the end, thanks to his concerted efforts, it was the United States that buried the Soviet Union.

But for most ordinary Americans, the first real glimmer of hope that maybe, just maybe, all was not lost, and that America could once again be great, came in the winter of our discontent in a small town (Lake Placid) in upstate New York.

There a group of unheralded but determined young Americans came together as a team to give it their all and achieve the impossible. And if they could do it, so could we. And we did.

Feature photo credit: Focus on Sports/Getty via InsideHook.

Obesity Is a Much More Dangerous Public Health Problem Than the Coronavirus

Obesity Is a Much More Dangerous Public Health Problem Than the Coronavirus

By John R Guardiano on March 10, 2020

The coronavirus is dominating the headlines. This is understandable, given that it is a new and potentially fatal virus that we don’t well understand, and for which there is not yet a vaccine.

Still, as Anthony S. Fauci, M.D, acknowledges, the risks of serious ailments from the coronavirus are “overwhelmingly weighted toward people with underlying [medical] conditions and the elderly.” Fauci is Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Relative Risk. So, if you’re not a senior citizen and you don’t have an underlying medical condition, then it is exceedingly unlikely that you will die or suffer a serious problem if you contract the coronavirus.

Yet, a far more dangerous and deadly public health problem, which affects many more Americans, young and old, gets relatively little media and political attention. I refer, of course, to obesity.

“Some 42.4 percent of U.S. adults,” reports the Washington Post’s Linda Searing,

now qualify as obese, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], with no real difference in prevalence between men and women…

Both obesity and severe obesity are most common among middle-aged adults (those ages 40 to 59), according to the CDC.

Data show that since the start of the 21st century, obesity has become increasingly common, rising from about 30 percent to more than 40 percent of adults, while the prevalence of severe obesity has increased from about 5 percent to just over 9 percent in that time…

Obesity also has been linked to an increased risk for numerous diseases and medical issues, including diabetes, heart disease and some cancers, as well as depression, asthma, obstructive sleep apnea, osteoarthritis and back pain.

Health experts say that losing just 5 to 10 percent of body weight can help obese people rein in their health risks.

Adds the New York Times’ Jane E. Brody:

A prestigious team of medical scientists has projected that by 2030, nearly one in two adults will be obese, and nearly one in four will be severely obese…

In as many as 29 states, the prevalence of obesity will exceed 50 percent, with no state having less than 35 percent of residents who are obese, they predicted…

Given the role obesity plays in fostering many chronic, disabling and often fatal diseases, these are dire predictions indeed. Yet… the powers that be in this country are doing very little to head off the potentially disastrous results of expanding obesity, obesity specialists say…

Americans weren’t always this fat; since 1990, the prevalence of obesity in this country has doubled.

People who choose to blame genetics are fooling no one but themselves… Our genetics haven’t changed in the last 30 years. Rather, what has changed is the environment in which our genes now function.

As we’ve observed here at ResCon1, the obesity epidemic is a national disgrace, and it is largely preventable.

Simply put, we Americans eat too much bad food too often, with little or no regard for necessary limits on our daily caloric intake and the need for proper proportions of macro nutrients—i.e., fat, protein, and carbohydrates.

The problem starts early in life, during childhood and adolescence, as some 18.5 percent of the youth population in America is obese, according to the CDC.

Public Policy. The politicians and the media could do more to focus attention on this problem and educate the public. There also are concrete public policy actions that could be taken.

For example, federal nutritional guidelines that recommend we consume an inordinate and unhealthy amounts of carbohydrates should be revised, and the demonization of fat needs to be reconsidered in light of the best and most recent scientific research.

This may be less alluring than obsessing over a new virus that has induced a public panic (or at least a media panic), but it would be far more effective and desirable from a public health perspective.

Feature photo credit: CDC via Stat News (map of obesity rates by state).

Bernie Wins New Hampshire and it’s Now His Nomination to Lose

Bernie Wins New Hampshire and it’s Now His Nomination to Lose

By John R Guardiano on February 12, 2020

Now that New Hampshire Democrats have voted, it looks like it’s gonna be Bernie, Biden or Bust—with the Bust being a contested political convention in which no candidate has a clear majority of the delegates and all bets are off.

First, Bernie. After finishing in a virtual tie in the Iowa Caucuses, Bernie won the New Hampshire primary.

Critics carp that he won a bare plurality of the vote—far less than the 60 percent he won in 2016 when facing off against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. But it is obviously more difficult to run up vote tallies in fractured field than it is in a two-person race.

What matters is that Sanders won and is the clear frontrunner now, with all of the momentum and sense of destiny that accompany a political winner. He’s also cemented his hold on the party’s progressive, left-wing base; no other candidate comes close.

Sanders, moreover, has raised a boatload of money and has strong political organizations in key states nationwide. If, as the polls suggest, he wins the Nevada Caucuses Feb. 22, he likely will go into Super Tuesday, Mar. 3, as the prohibitive favorite.

Biden didn’t just lose New Hampshire; he lost badly, finishing fifth, with a measly 8.4 percent of the vote.

Of course, he didn’t do much better in Iowa, finishing fourth there, behind Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, and Elizabeth Warren. Many prominent political analysts say he’s finished. You can’t lose this badly, they say, and remain politically viable.

That’s probably true; but Biden is banking on winning in South Carolina, Feb. 29, to catapult him back into the race. More than 60 percent of Democrats there are African Americans, and polls have shown that they strongly prefer Biden.

But will black voters in South Carolina and elsewhere continue to support Biden even as he decisively loses these early contests? Or will they conclude that he’s a political loser and cast their lot elsewhere?

That really is the critical question for Biden: because if he cannot win in South Carolina, then his presidential campaign is over.

Bust. Unlike the Republicans, who have winner-take-all rules for most of their primaries and caucuses, the Democrats award delegates largely on a proportional basis in accordance with a candidate’s share of the overall vote tally.

In 2016, this meant that Donald Trump could win, and often did win, all of a state’s delegates simply by winning a plurality of the vote in that state.

This is not true for the Democrats. Because they award delegates proportionately, it is much more likely that, at their convention this summer, no candidate will have a clear majority of the delegates, and they’ll have to fight it out to determine who their nominee is.

There hasn’t been a contested major party convention since 1976 if you count the Republican Party battle between Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. Prior to that, you have to go back to 1952 for the last truly contested convention.

“The chance of there being no pledged delegate majority—which could potentially lead to a contested convention—is high and increasing, reports Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight. “New Hampshire,” he writes, “is

good news if you’re hoping for chaos. Our forecast has the chances that no one wins a majority of pledged delegates up to 33 percent, its highest figure yet, and roughly double what it was before Iowa.

Other Candidates. There are other candidates, of course, and, theoretically, they could win the nomination; but, practically speaking, I don’t see how.

Elizabeth Warren, the Senator from Massachusetts, will soon drop out. She finished fourth in New Hampshire after finishing third in Iowa.

If Warren could not win in either Iowa or New Hampshire, then it is difficult to see where she can win—especially given that she doesn’t poll well with blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities.

This is a real problem for her campaign: because starting with Nevada and South Carolina, minorities will become an increasingly prominent part of the Democratic Party primary electorate.

Klobuchar, Buttigieg, and Bloomberg have a similarly fatal political problem: a lack of support from blacks and other minorities.

Again, it’s possible that could change, but I don’t see how. As mayors of their respective cities, New York and South Bend, Bloomberg and Buttigieg alienated key black Democrats and sometimes had chilly and testy political relations with influential African American progressives.

Klobuchar does not appear to have incited opposition among blacks and other minorities, but she hasn’t exactly inspired their loyalty and commitment either. And her political problems extend well beyond this key voting demographic.

Does she, for instance, have the requisite political organization to compete head-to-head with Sanders nationwide and especially in the big and expensive states such as California, New York, Texas, and Florida? I rather doubt it, but we’ll see.

The bottom line: the media will do their best to make a race of it. Look for Klobuchar especially to be the beneficiary of glowing press coverage, and even Biden will get a second look. But right now, this is Sanders’ nomination to lose, and it is difficult to see how that changes.

Feature photo credit: the New York Times.