ResCon1

Democrats Veer Left on Israel, Gaza, and Hamas

Democrats Veer Left on Israel, Gaza, and Hamas

By John R Guardiano on May 23, 2021

Democratic criticism of Israel show their party is increasingly illiberal and left-wing.

If there was ever any doubt that the Democratic Party is no longer a center-left party, but increasingly, a far-left “progressive” party, that doubt was erased in recent weeks by the reaction of Democratic pols to Israeli self-defense efforts in Gaza.

New York City Democratic Mayoral candidate Andrew Yang, for instance, was forced to walk-back his support of Israel after his remarks caused an uproar on the campaign trail.

What did Yang say that ignited the furor?

I’m standing with the people of Israel who are coming under bombardment attacks, and condemn the Hamas terrorists. The people of N.Y.C. will always stand with our brothers and sisters in Israel who face down terrorism and persevere.

Such a comment, 35 years ago, when Ed Koch was mayor, would have been standard fare and utterly unexceptional. Koch, after all, was a Democrat, a proud Jew, and an unabashed supporter of Israel.

Not so the new breed of “progressive,” left-wing pols who, increasingly, dominate the Democratic Party in New York and beyond.

Leftists Attack Israel. Senator Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York), for instance, have been outspoken in their criticism of Israeli self-defense efforts in Gaza.

Ocasio-Cortez condemned what she calls Israel’s “occupation of Palestine,” while denouncing Yang for his “utterly shameful” statement of support for the Jewish state.

Sanders, meanwhile, blasted the government of Israel for allegedly cultivating and legitimizing “an increasingly intolerant and authoritarian type of racist nationalism” to oppress the Palestinians.

Ocasio-Cortez is rumored to be mulling a 2022 primary challenge to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York). So it is telling that she apparently sees no political downside to loudly beating the drums against Israel.

It is also telling that, last week, Schumer signed onto a Congressional call for a ceasefire—apparently because he takes seriously the threat of being primaried by Ocasio-Cortez.

Rise of the Left. Schumer has reason to worry. Ocasio-Cortez, after all, was a little-known 28-year-old bartender and organizer for the Democratic Socialists of America when she knocked off 10-term incumbent Rep. Joe Crowley in the 2018 Democratic Party primary.

Two years later, another leftist, Jamaal Bowman, upset 16-term incumbent New York City Rep. Eliot Engel in the 2020 Democratic Party primary.

“Jamaal Bowman proves Ocasio-Cortez was no fluke,” reported the Times. His election

looks more like an indicator than an anomaly: He is one of three younger, insurgent Democrats in New York who seem poised to tilt the state’s, and the party’s, congressional delegation further to the left.

So-called progressives “want the Democratic Party to rethink its relationship fundamentally with Israel,” reports National Public Radio.

“At least half [of the Democrats in Congress] are hostile to Israel,” while the other half of the party’s Congressional caucus is “afraid of those who are hostile to Israel,” explained Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky).

The Future. The far left hasn’t yet forced the United States to renounce its steadfast ally, Israel. President Biden has been careful to say that Israel has a right to defend itself while also urging the Jewish state to recommit to the so-called two-state solution.

However, given the political currents and the current political trajectory, we may only be a few election cycles away from the break with Israel that the progressive left demands.

“We are seeing the rise of a new generation of activists who want to build societies based on human needs and political equality,” Sanders exults.

“We saw these activists in American streets last summer in the wake of the murder of George Floyd. We see them in Israel. We see them in the Palestinian territories.”

“With a new president, the United States now has the opportunity to develop a new approach to the world—one based on justice and democracy.”

Feature photo credit: Three of the most anti-Israel members of Congress: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York), Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont), and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota), courtesy of Robert J. Hutchinson.

Bernie Biden and Joe Warren

Bernie Biden and Joe Warren

By John R Guardiano on May 2, 2021

Biden’s moderate public persona channels the political agendas of socialist Bernie Sanders and government-knows-best enthusiast Elizabeth Warren.

Joe Biden campaigned as a moderate who pledged a “return to normalcy.” But what’s become frighteningly clear during his first 100 days in office is that, despite his relatively relaxed and reassuring public persona, Joe Biden is no moderate, and what he is pushing legislatively is the antithesis of normal.

Mr. Biden seeks the biggest and most far-reaching expansion of the federal government in American history.

The dollar figures alone are staggering and defy all historical precedent: some six trillion dollars in new spending and an additional $3 trillion in new taxes, including a near-doubling of the capital gains tax for successful investors.

In short, the American people may have voted for normal and moderate Joe Biden, but what they got instead, policy-wise at least, was socialist Bernie Sanders and government-knows-best enthusiast Elizabeth Warren.

If Mr. Biden simply were proposing to spend a lot more money, that would be bad but reversible. Unfortunately, what he is trying to do is much worse.

The president seeks to legislate a slew of new entitlements that will exert government control over parts of our lives which, heretofore, have been relatively and blissfully free of state manipulation—pre-school education, childcare, and community college attendance, for instance.

As the Wall Street Journal editorial board explains:

The cost, while staggering, isn’t the only or even the biggest problem. The destructive part is the way the plan seeks to insinuate government cash and the rules that go with it into all of the major decisions of family life.

The goal is to expand the entitlement state to make Americans rely on government and the political class for everything they don’t already provide.

The problem is that entitlements, once established, become ticking financial time bombs that are immune to reform and modernization. Witness Social Security and Medicare, two badly-designed programs which consume an increasing share of the federal budget, and which are now politically sacrosanct and, sadly, untouchable.

“The Biden administration and President Biden have exceeded expectations that progressives had,” exulted Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) during a virtual town hall. “I’ll be frank. I think a lot of us expected a lot more conservative administration.”

So, too, did many Biden voters—especially middle class wage earners. They, ultimately, will bear the brunt of Biden’s entitlement burden through fewer jobs, slower economic growth, higher taxes, and less opportunity.

Feature photo credit: Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, and Bernie Sanders: three Democratic peas in a socialist pod, courtesy of Florida Politics.

Biden, Afghanistan, and the U.S. Military

Biden, Afghanistan, and the U.S. Military

By John R Guardiano on April 25, 2021

No to ‘Forever Wars,’ but Yes to ‘Forever Forward Deployed’

“It’s time to end the forever war,” declared President Biden in his Apr. 14, 2021, announcement that he is withdrawing all U.S. military forces from Afghanistan.

No one wants to say that we should be in Afghanistan forever, but they insist now is not the right moment to leave…

So when will it be the right moment to leave? …War in Afghanistan was never meant to be a multi-generational undertaking.

Of course no sane American wants to fight a “forever war”—that is, an indeterminable conflict with no end in sight, only a mounting list of U.S. casualties. But the President is wrong when he argues that the only alternative to “endless war” is military retreat and withdrawal.

In fact, there is a third and much better option: forever forward deployed as a garrison force, in country, that works closely with our allies—in this case, the legitimately elected government of Afghanistan—to protect vital U.S. interests in the region.

This was the option strongly recommended to Mr. Biden by his own military advisers, as well as the bipartisan Afghanistan Study Group.

A small residual force of 4,500 U.S. troops, they argued, would be enough “for training, advising, and assisting Afghan defense forces; supporting allied forces; conducting counterterrorism operations; and securing our embassy.”

U.S. troops, after all, have been forward deployed in Germany, Japan, and South Korea for more than half a century. True, Afghanistan is a far cry from being remotely like any of these three countries; it remains wracked by armed conflict and civil war.

Progress. Nonetheless, with American military help, Afghanistan has made tremendous strides forward—socially, politically, economically, and militarily. U.S. casualties, meanwhile, have steadily and precipitously declined. As the New York Times’ Bret Stephens reports:

Millions of girls, whom the Taliban had forbidden to get any kind of education, went to school. Some of them—not nearly enough, but impressive considering where they started from and the challenges they faced—became doctors, entrepreneurs, members of Parliament.

“There have been no American combat deaths in Afghanistan since two soldiers were killed and six wounded on Feb. 8, 2020, in a so-called insider attack in eastern Afghanistan’s Nangarhar province,” reports the Desert News.

“The U.S.,” Stephens notes “has lost fewer than 20 service members annually in hostile engagements in Afghanistan since 2015. That’s heartbreaking for those affected, but tiny next to the number of troops who die in routine training accidents worldwide.

“Our main role in recent years,” he adds, “has been to provide Afghan forces with effective air power. It is not an exorbitant price to pay to avert an outright Taliban victory.”

Strategic Ramifications. And preventing the Taliban from winning matters for reasons that extend far beyond Afghanistan. It matters in China, Taiwan, and the South China Sea. It matters in Russia, Ukraine, Pakistan, and Iran. And it matters in North Korea, Europe, and the Middle East.

“Our enemies will test us,” warns Bing West.

After Saigon fell [in the Vietnam War], Russia and Cuba supported proxy wars in Latin America and Africa, while Iranian radicals seized our embassy in Tehran.

The Biden administration will face similar provocations. Already, China is threatening Taiwan, Russia is massing troops on the Ukraine border, and Iran is increasing its enrichment of uranium.

“The theory of deterrence relies not just on the balance of forces, but also on reserves of credibility,” Stephens explains. “Leaving Afghanistan now does next to nothing to change the former while seriously depleting the latter.”

Diplomatic Leverage. The President disparages the notion “that diplomacy cannot succeed without a robust U.S. military presence to stand as leverage.” Yet, he offers no evidence to refute this commonsensical and well-proven truth.

Instead, he blithely asserts:

We gave that argument a decade. It’s never proved effective—not when we had 98,000 troops in Afghanistan, and not when we were down to a few thousand.

But the failure to win in Afghanistan is a reflection of an intractable war in an antiquated tribal society; it is not an indictment of the necessary nexus between military and diplomatic power.

Recognizing that the U.S. military has failed to achieve victory in two decades of conflict and likely will never achieve victory in the classic sense does not mean that we must reject wholesale the use of military power in Afghanistan.

This is a colossal blunder and unforced error by Mr. Biden.

The President compounds his error by arguing that “our diplomacy does not hinge on having boots in harm’s way—U.S. boots on the ground. We have to change that thinking.”

In fact, we need to understand that a forward-deployed U.S. military presence overseas is a stabilizing force for the good and a critical component of American diplomacy.

False Choice. The bottom line: the choice between so-called endless war and abject withdrawal and retreat is a false choice. We do not have to accept either of these two badly mistaken and extreme options.

Instead, we should choose to be forever forward-deployed militarily in small but strategically significant numbers to protect our interests and put America First. The President’s failure to do so in Afghanistan jeopardizes our national security.

Feature photo credit: President Biden announces that he is withdrawing all U.S. military forces from Afghanistan by Sept. 11, 2021, courtesy of ABC News.

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.

Most Senate Republicans Whiff on the Constitutionality of Impeaching Trump

Most Senate Republicans Whiff on the Constitutionality of Impeaching Trump

By John R Guardiano on February 15, 2021

For blatantly partisan political reasons, most Republican were willfully wrong about the Constitutionality of impeachment; but in the end, it did not matter: Justice, albeit not conviction, was done.

Senate Republicans eager to condemn Trump without voting to convict him during this, his second impeachment trial, found a convenient if disingenuous way to do so. They seized upon the notion that the impeachment itself is unconstitutional.

I say disingenuous because even if you grant that this is a legitimate point of view, Senate Republicans—and Democrats—are hardly sticklers for a narrow and cramped legalistic reading of their Constitutional authority or the president’s Constitutional authority.

Indeed, since at least the New Deal, the vast majority of elected officials have adopted a wide and expansionary view of their Constitutional authority. Yet, curiously, when it came to Trump’s second impeachment, Senate Republicans suddenly found that the Constitution prohibited them from acting.

The Constitution prohibited them from convicting a president who, plainly and obviously, was guilty of inspiring or provoking a violent attack on Congress and who, plainly and obviously, was guilty of a gross dereliction of duty as that attack transpired.

How politically convenient this was for Senate Republicans eager to find an excuse—any excuse—to shirk their Constitutional duty. Thus 43 of them voted to acquit Trump, while only seven voted to convict.

Plausible Deniability. How is this possible? How could Senate Republicans argue with a straight face that the Constitution prohibited them from impeaching and convicting Trump?

After all, Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the House of Representatives “the sole power of impeachment.” Article I, Section 3, likewise, gives the Senate the “sole power to try all impeachments.”

That seems straightforward and unambiguous. Case closed, no? Trump’s impeachment trial is perfectly legitimate and Constitutional.

Well, here’s the rub: when the Senate trial began, Trump already had left office. And the Constitution, some scholars argue, only allows for the impeachment of incumbent officials, not former officials.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) expressed this argument in full-throated fashion shortly after the Senate voted 57-43 Saturday (Feb. 13, 2021) to acquit Trump of “incitement of insurrection.”

McConnell began his remarks by unequivocally condemning Trump in no uncertain terms. In fact, an uninformed reader might think that McConnell is explaining why he voted to convict Trump, but no.

Although, “there is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day,” McConnell said, “we have no power to convict and disqualify a former officeholder who is now a private citizen.”

But of course, Trump was not impeached for what he did as a private citizen; he was impeached because of his conduct as President of the United States. And the Constitution does not specify that only incumbent officials can be impeached. Instead, it clearly allows for the impeachment and conviction of former presidents and former officials.

Impeachment Authority. That is because, as Chuck Cooper observes, one of the Constitutional penalties for an impeached and convicted official is “disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States” (Article I, Section 3).

That punishment can be imposed only on former officers. That is because Article II, Section 4 is self-executing: A convicted officeholder is automatically removed at the moment of conviction.

The formal Senate procedures for impeachment trials acknowledge this constitutional reality, noting that a two-thirds vote to convict “operates automatically and instantaneously to separate the person impeached from the office.”

The Senate may then, at its discretion, take a separate vote to impose, by simple majority, “the additional consequences provided by the Constitution in the case of an impeached and convicted civil officer, viz: permanent disqualification from elected or appointed office.”

Thus a vote by the Senate to disqualify can be taken only after the officer has been removed and is by definition a former officer.

Given that the Constitution permits the Senate to impose the penalty of permanent disqualification only on former officeholders, it defies logic to suggest that the Senate is prohibited from trying and convicting former officeholders [emphasis added].

Nonsensical Reading. In short, it is simply nonsensical to suggest that the Constitution does not allow for the impeachment and conviction of former presidents and former officials.

To arrive at such a conclusion, you have to read one provision of the Constitution (Article II, Section 4) legalistically and out of context, while divorcing it from its necessary and obvious relationship to a second provision of the Constitution (Article I, Section 3).

As the House impeachment managers pointed out, if McConnell’s nonsensical view of the Senate’s impeachment authority were adopted, it would mean that a president could commit impeachable offenses and then quickly resign to avert impeachment.

It would mean a “January exception” that would allow a president to commit impeachable offenses in his final days or weeks in office safe in the knowledge that Congress lacks sufficient time to impeach and convict him. It is inconceivable that this is what our Founding Fathers intended.

Founding Fathers. And in fact, as Princeton Politics Professor Keith E. Whittington notes:

For the Founders, it would have been obvious that the “power to impeach” included the ability to hold former officials to account.

The impeachment power was imported to America from England, where Parliament impeached only two men during the 18th century, both former officers. No U.S. state constitution limited impeachments to sitting officers, and some allowed impeachment only of former officers.

In 1781 the Virginia General Assembly subjected Thomas Jefferson to an impeachment inquiry after he completed his term as governor.

As the sixth President of the United States, John Quincy Adams, put it:

I hold myself, so long as I have the breath of life in my body, amenable to impeachment by this House for everything I did during the time I held any public office.

Historical Precedent. There is, of course, very little case law or precedent governing presidential impeachments. Only three presidents, after all, have been impeached, and Trump’s second impeachment was just the fourth impeachment in our nation’s entire 245-year history.

There is, though, one notable precedent, and that is the 1876 impeachment of Secretary of War William Belknap.

Belknap was impeached for malfeasance while in office, but resigned before the House impeached him. Nonetheless, the Senate asserted jurisdiction over his case and tried him for malfeasance in accordance with the House articles of impeachment.

Jurisdictional Question. The Senate also asserted its jurisdiction over Trump’s case after Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) introduced a procedural motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that the hearing was unconstitutional because Trump no longer was in office.

McConnell voted for Paul’s procedural motion; but as Quin Hillyer points out: “McConnell was [nonetheless] not duty-bound to vote to acquit Donald Trump if he thought the trial wasn’t constitutionally proper.”

For the purposes of impeachment, Hillyer explains, the Senate acts as a tribunal and thus is analogous to a federal court or judicial body. “Think of it this way,” he writes:

If a three-judge panel of a federal appeals court rules that the court lacks jurisdiction on a certain case, but the whole appeals court en banc decides that jurisdiction is indeed proper and thus sends the case back to the panel to decide on the merits, then, by gosh, the panel must decide on the merits.

Its judgment of jurisdictional constitutionality has been overruled by a higher authority.

Each individual senator is in somewhat the same position as that three-judge panel. His oath to the Constitution includes an oath to respect a higher constitutional authority—and, in this case, the full Senate is a higher constitutional authority than the individual senator is…

In other words, once the whole Senate, acting according to its agreed-upon rules, determines that it does have constitutional jurisdiction, then the individual senators should accept that determination and adjudge the impeachment solely on the merits.

In sum, the constitutional question becomes moot.

Put another way, even if McConnell genuinely believed that the Senate’s trial of Trump was unconstitutional, the entirety of the Senate ruled against him and decided otherwise. Thus that question no longer had any standing or relevance to the Senate’s deliberations.

McConnell’s task, then, was to address the sum and substance of the charges leveled against Trump. It was not his task, or any senator’s task, to revisit a jurisdictional question that the Senate already had decided.

The bottom line: if McConnell and other Senate Republicans wanted to convict Trump, they had more than ample Constitutional authority to do so. The truth is they chose not to convict Trump because they viewed Trump’s conviction as too politically problematic and difficult for them and the Republican Party.

That is, they chose their perceived partisan political priorities over the imperatives of the Constitution while pretending to do the exact opposite. Shame on them. These senators are profiles in cowardice, and their constituents and donors should remember this come election day.

The good news, though, as David Frum notes, is that “a clear American majority—including a sizable part of the Republican Senate caucus—[voted]… to condemn Trump as an outlaw and a seditionist…

The 57 votes against Trump silence any complaint that he was condemned on some partisan basis or by some procedural unfairness. It crushes his truculent lawyers’ claim that the argument against Trump was mere chicanery

The senators who voted to acquit are the ones likely to justify their decision on some strained, narrow, technical ground. The number who truly believed Trump innocent of the charges brought against him is surely smaller than the 43 who voted to acquit.

Statements by senators such as Mitch McConnell and Rob Portman show that their votes did not match their thoughts.

In sum, Donald Trump has been thoroughly discredited. His treasonous and insurrectionary conduct has been catalogued for history and for all to see. His failure to live up to his oath of office to ensure that the laws of the land were fully and faithfully executed has been thoroughly documented.

As a result, Trump is a spent political force in American politics. He won’t win another national or presidential election, as even the Trump-friendly Wall Street Journal editorial board acknowledges.

What remains unclear, though, is whether Trump is a spent political force within the Republican Party. Forty-three GOP Senators seem to think not, and that does not bode well for the party of Lincoln, Coolidge and Reagan.

Time will tell and we will see. Stay tuned.

Feature Photo credit: For better and for worse, GOP Senators Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul, both from Kentucky, played instrumental roles in the Republican Party’s posture toward Trump’s second impeachment (courtesy of Donkey Hotey, Forward Kentucky).