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 9

COVID19 v. Religious Liberty in America and at the Supreme Court

COVID19 v. Religious Liberty in America and at the Supreme Court

By John R Guardiano on December 6, 2020

The Court broke important new ground when it struck down New York’s discriminatory COVID19 public health restrictions.

The Supreme Court decision striking down COVID19 public health restrictions that discriminate against religious observers in contravention of the First Amendment is important for several reasons which have not been fully remarked upon.

This is in part because of the timing of the Court’s decision. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo was handed down just hours before the start of the Thanksgiving Day holiday and soon was eclipsed by the political drama surrounding the 2020 election.

Moreover, the losers in this case—Cuomo and other Democratic governors indifferent or hostile to the imperatives of religious liberty—have downplayed the importance of the decision.

Cuomo, for instance, said the ruling “doesn’t have any practical effect” because, prior to the Court’s decision, he had removed the restrictions on religious services.

Cass Sunstein, likewise, says “the decision is hardly pathbreaking”; and that “it’s wrong to say the decision shows the sudden ascendancy of a new conservative majority” on the Court.

Really? In truth, as Jacob Sullum observes:

This is the third time that the Court has considered applications for emergency injunctions against pandemic-inspired limits on religious gatherings.

In the two earlier cases, involving restrictions imposed by California and Nevada, the Court said no.

Those decisions were backed by Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented both times.

This time around, the replacement of Ginsburg with Amy Coney Barrett proved decisive, as the recently confirmed justice sided with Thomas et al. in granting the injunction sought by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Agudath Israel of America, which sued on behalf of the Orthodox synagogues it represents.

In short, contra Sunstein, there is a new conservative or originalist majority on the court, thanks to the arrival of Justice Barrett. And, as Sunstein correctly points out, this new conservative majority “will be highly protective of the rights of religious believers.

“The core of the case,” he explains, “was a claim of discrimination against churches and synagogues…

[Despite the 5-4 decision], everyone on the court agreed that if New York discriminated against houses of worship, its action would have to be struck down, pandemic or no pandemic. That idea breaks no new ground.

Of course, the principle at stake here—religious liberty—breaks no new ground because it is explicitly inscribed into the First Amendment of the Constitution.

But where new ground is broken is in the willingness of the Court, finally, to protect religious liberty against government encroachment during a pandemic or public health emergency.

“Even if the Constitution has taken a holiday during this pandemic,” writes Justice Gorsuch, “it cannot become a sabbatical… [The] courts must resume applying the Free Exercise Clause. Today, a majority of the Court makes this plain.”

The four dissenters argued that the Court should refrain from providing injunctive relief to religious observers because Cuomo had since rescinded his discriminatory restrictions against religious ceremonies. But as the majority pointed out:

It is clear that this matter is not moot… Injunctive relief is still called for because the applicants are under a constant threat that the area in question will be reclassified as red or orange…

The Governor regularly changes the classification of particular areas without notice. If that occurs again, the reclassification will almost certainly bar individuals in the affected area from attending services before judicial relief can be obtained.

The Court’s decision is important for two other reasons:

Secular Indifference. First, as Ron Brownstein notes in The Atlantic, demographically, America is becoming much less religious and far more secular. The danger, then, is that Americans will become increasingly indifferent to religious liberty and willing to countenance state encroachments on fundamental First Amendment rights.

Of course, this would be unthinkable to earlier generations of Americans who came to this country fleeing religious persecution precisely to enjoy religious liberty. This is significantly less true of recent generations of Americans, who are much more secular in their outlook.

Justice Gorsuch, in fact, warns that, “in far too many places, for far too long, our first freedom has fallen on deaf ears… We may not shelter in place,” he writes, “when the Constitution is under attack. Things never go well when we do.”

That the Court will act to protect religious liberty and the Constitution from an increasingly secular populace for whom religious liberty means very little is no small thing.

Justice Gorsuch. Second, Justice Gorsuch’s concurring opinion is a ringing defense of religious liberty. This is important because, less than six months ago, Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, which many feared might upend religious liberty in America.

In Bostock v. Clayton County, Gorsuch discovered that, unbeknownst to the legislators who drafted the law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity.

As David French observed, for religious institutions, the consequences of that ruling are potentially dramatic.

Should Christian colleges and schools be subject to lawsuits for upholding church teachings on human sexuality?

Does this case mean that the law now views Christians as akin to klansmen, and thus brings religious institutions one step closer to losing their tax exemptions?

French did not think so, noting that, in his decision,

Justice Gorsuch goes out of his way to reassure that the guarantee of free exercise of religion “lies at the heart of our pluralistic society.”

…[Moreover], there are a series of cases already on the court’s docket that are likely (based on judicial philosophy and court trends) to [protect religious liberty to a considerable extent].

…Stay tuned!

I, too, was skeptical that Bostock v. Clayton County was a far-reaching defeat for religious liberty. “Don’t be too despairing,” I wrote.

While the result in this case is regrettable and worrisome, all is not lost. This is one case that hinges on one statute. And while its effects will be longstanding and widespread, the damage can be contained by both Congress and the Court in future legislation and in future cases.

Well, the ruling in one such future case is now in, and it is a resounding win for religious liberty, with a ringing concurring opinion authored by the very same justice (Gorsuch) who wrote the majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County.

This surely bodes well for religious liberty on the Court and in America.

The bottom line: Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo is a very important decision because it heralds the rise of a new conservative or originalist majority on the Court that will act to protect religious liberty against government encroachment even if doing so is politically unpopular.

And Justice Gorsuch at least sees no necessary contradiction between jurisprudence that protects religious liberty and jurisprudence that protects the rights of gay men and women.

Stay tuned.

Feature photo credit: Justice Neil Gorsuch in The Federalist.

Three Reasons Conservatives Should Not Despair Over the Supreme Court’s Title VII Decision

Three Reasons Conservatives Should Not Despair Over the Supreme Court’s Title VII Decision

By John R Guardiano on June 17, 2020

In the wake of Bostock v. Clayton County, conservatives are disappointed and fearful. Here’s why they should temper their pessimism and perhaps even be optimistic.

The Supreme Court’s ruling Monday (June 15, 2020) in Bostock v. Clayton County has ignited understandable disappointment and fear among conservatives, especially religious conservatives.

Conservatives are disappointed that two generally conservative justices, Gorsuch and Roberts, sided with the Court’s four left-wing justices to find new and hitherto unknown meaning in Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964. Gorsuch, in fact, authored the majority opinion.

Title VII prohibits employment discrimination “because of” an individual’s “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Now, however, because of the Court’s decision, Title VII also prohibits employment discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity.

For many Americans, especially those of a more secular bent, this is really not a big deal. After all, as David French observes at The Dispatch,

A combination of company policies and state and local laws have led to workplaces that already refused to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

For religious institutions, however, the consequences are potentially dramatic.

Should Christian colleges and schools be subject to lawsuits for upholding church teachings on human sexuality?

Does this case mean that the law now views Christians as akin to klansmen, and thus brings religious institutions one step closer to losing their tax exemptions?

This is a legitimate concern. Every major religion that I am aware of—Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, certainly—contains longstanding proscriptions on sodomy and homosexual behavior.

But if these proscriptions are now considered unlawful discrimination, then what is to become of religious liberty in America?

This is hardly an academic matter. Religious liberty cases, in fact, are very much in dispute today, as religious institutions and religious believers who seek to live out their faith fight back against charges that they are unlawfully “discriminating” against gays and lesbians.

Whither Originalism? Moreover, if even conservative or originalist justices like Gorsuch and Roberts can essentially rewrite legislative statutes to comport with left-wing secular orthodoxy, then what is to become of the separation of powers, democratic self-rule, and the restoration of Constitutional government?

This, too, is a legitimate concern, as the courts continue to make legislative decisions that are well beyond their purview. The discovery of a hitherto unknown Constitutional right to homosexual marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) is the most recent example of this worrisome, decades-long trend.

Still, I think the pessimism that many conservatives feel right now—and which I share to a considerable extent—must be tempered by three important considerations.

1. Statutory Decision. Because Bostock v. Clayton County is a statutory and not Constitutional decision of the Court, it can be altered, changed or modified by new Congressional legislation.

True, because the cultural zeitgeist is decidedly secular and hellbent on stopping anything that might conceivably be called “discrimination” against allegedly oppressed or disadvantaged groups, legislative changes to Title VII are unlikely.

That, however, doesn’t change the fact that, unlike the Court’s Constitutional decisions, Bostock v. Clayton County does not preempt and deny democratic decision-making by the American people.

Indeed, Congress still has the right and responsibility to define the parameters and limits of anti-discrimination law.

2. As French points out:

[In his decision], Justice Gorsuch goes out of his way to reassure that the guarantee of free exercise of religion “lies at the heart of our pluralistic society.”

Provisions in Title VII itself provide limited religious liberty protections, the First Amendment is of course still applicable, and—as Gorsuch notes—the Religious Freedom Restoration Act also acts as a “kind of super statute, displacing the normal operation of other federal laws.”

Moreover, there are a series of cases already on the court’s docket that are likely (based on judicial philosophy and court trends) to [protect religious liberty to a considerable extent].

In short, the First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty, specific provisions within Title VII itself, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act all may trump Bostock v. Clayton County in specific cases and controversies soon to come before the Court.

“Stay tuned!” says French.

A year from now, the jurisprudence could look largely like this: Secular employers are fully subject to each element of Title VII while religious employers enjoy a broad ministerial exception and a more robust free exercise clause.”

3. Textualist Decision. While there can be no doubt that the Court has written new meaning into Title VII—a meaning that no one who drafted or voted on the legislation in 1964 ever imagined—it did so for explicitly textualist reasons—that is, reasons grounded in the plain meaning of the statute itself.

This is very different from most left-wing jurisprudence (such as the infamous 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion-rights decision), which makes little or no pretense to being tethered or moored to the Constitution or legislation that it purports to interpret and apply.

So while conservatives certainly can lament the result of the Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, they should be comforted by the fact that the majority nonetheless reached its decision in an explicitly originalist manner.

This originalist argument may be a complete ruse. It may be, as Justice Alito declared in his forceful dissent, “a pirate ship [that] sails under a textualist flag,” while, in fact, representing “the theory that courts should ‘update’ old statutes so that they better reflect the current values of society.”

That may well be true. But just as hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue; so, too, is a faux textualism the tribute that left-wing or progressive justices pay to originalist or conservative justices.

In other words, although conservatives may have lost this particular case, we seem to have won the larger-scale war over Constitutional and statutory interpretation if even left-wing or progressive justices feel obligated to justify their decisions on explicitly textualist grounds.

This doesn’t mean that the Court will always decide in our favor; however, it certainly increases the likelihood that it will.

More importantly, the recognition by the Court that it must tether its decisions to specific provisions of the Constitution and close and faithful readings of legislative statutes acts as an inherent constraint on judicial activism.

This helps to contain the Court’s more wildly progressive impulses and desire to legislate from the bench. This, obviously is a good thing that portends well for future Court decisions.

The bottom line: don’t be too despairing over Bostock v. Clayton County. While the result in this case is regrettable and worrisome, all is not lost. This is one case that hinges on one statute. And while its effects will be longstanding and widespread, the damage can be contained by both Congress and the Court in future legislation and in future cases.

Congressional action is highly unlikely; but future Court decisions are inevitable and much more likely to protect religious liberty. The Court, meanwhile, seems to have accepted a more modest and limited role for itself by basing its decision on explicitly textualist grounds.

Granted, this modesty may not be apparent in this decision—a decision Justice Alito derides as a “brazen abuse of our authority to interpret statutes.”

Still, by acknowledging that its decisions must be tethered and moored to explicit Constitutional and legislative provisions, the Court implicitly recognizes that there are real limits to what it can do—limits that likely will become increasingly apparent over time.

Stay tuned.

Feature photo credit: Justice Neil Gorsuch in The Federalist.

Why the Right-Wing Critics of Ukraine are Wrong

Why the Right-Wing Critics of Ukraine are Wrong

By John R Guardiano on October 15, 2022

They don’t understand the crucial nexus between Ukraine, Russia, and American national security.

Most Americans support Ukraine, and most Congressional Republicans support Ukraine. Yet a small but vocal contingent of so-called America First conservatives opposes U.S. aid to Ukraine.

Like former President Trump, these so-called conservatives call for a negotiated solution to the conflict now before, they say, it “escalates” out of control and leads to “nuclear war.”

These so-called conservatives are grievously and historically wrong. Here we expose and debunk their arguments for abandoning Ukraine and appeasing Putin’s Russia.

Right-Wing Lie #1: Ukraine is corrupt and illiberal and thus undeserving of American support.

Yes, there is corruption in Ukraine, but so what? Corruption exists in many countries, including the United States. But this is very different from saying a country is defined by its corruption.

In truth, Ukraine is a relatively new and fledgling democracy. Like many new and fledgling democracies, it has problems—including corruption—that it is working to overcome. For this reason it deserves our support.

If we held every country in the world to an impossible standard of utopian perfection, then we would have no foreign policy or engagement with other countries, since they all would fall short.

As for being illiberal, this is nonsense. Ukraine is fighting to be part of Europe, part of the West, which is defined by its commitment to (classically) liberal principles of personal autonomy, personal responsibility, and democratic self-rule.

Do Europe, America, and the West deviate from these principles in ways that are sometimes alarming and disconcerting? Does Ukraine?

Of course they do—we all do—but again: so what? If an impossible standard of utopian perfection is what must guide U.S. foreign policy, then we have effectively jettisoned the idea of a foreign policy.

Right-wing critics who complain about alleged Ukrainian corruption and illiberalism also miss the crucial clarifying context, which is Russia.

Indeed, the alternative to Ukrainian self-rule is not American-style democracy; it is Russian imperialism, which is orders of magnitude more illiberal and authoritarian than anything proffered by the Ukrainians.

Oscar Wilde famously said, “You can judge a man by his enemies.” So, too, with a country. Ukraine’s enemy is Russia, and that tells us a lot about what Ukraine is fighting for and against.

Ukraine is fighting against a truly corrupt and illiberal authoritarian dictatorship (Russia), and it aspires to be a liberal democracy that is an integral part of Europe and the West. Enough said.

Right-Wing Lie #2: Ukraine and Russia are enmeshed in a heated “border dispute” that does not implicate American national security

Calling Russia’s war on Ukraine a “border dispute” is like saying the American Civil War was about “regional differences.” Both assertions are literally true, but they obscure far more than they reveal.

In truth, Ukraine is fighting for its nationhood and its very existence as a free and sovereign country. The so-called border dispute exists only because Russia seeks to erase from the map any and all Ukrainian borders.

This is a dramatic moral difference that talk of a “border dispute” hides or conceals. In the same way, talk of “regional differences” obscures the larger-scale moral truth that the American Civil War was about slavery first and foremost.

As for the American national security interest in Ukraine, it is real and significant.

The truth is: America is an international commercial power, with a clear and demonstrable stake in the international order. To allow Russia to subsume Ukraine would be to invite America’s enemies to do the same (illegally seize sovereign territory) in other parts of the world.

Think China vis-à-vis Taiwan, for instance.

Moreover, U.S. foreign trade with Europe dwarfs our trade with any other region and is a driver of American prosperity. The idea that the United States can be indifferent to the fate of Europe in the 21st Century ignores the economic facts of life, the military facts of life, and the importance of alliances to keeping Americans safe and secure.

Right-Wing Lie #3: Ukraine is not America’s concern, it is Europe’s problem; and it is a diversion from our real 21st Century strategic challenge, which is the rise of China.

Again, in a world where millions of Americans travel and do business internationally, the idea that we can indifferent to the fate of Europe simply is not credible. And the idea that the Chinese will not draw lessons and inspiration from any Western appeasement of Putin in Ukraine is delusional.

In truth, Russia and China are aligned, formally and on paper. So by ensuring Russia loses in Ukraine, we weaken the Sino-Russian alliance and send a powerful signal to Beijing about Western resolve in the face of aggression.

Right-Wing Lie #4: Putin’s Russia is not an enemy of the United States; it is a potential ally whom we foolishly risk losing because of our misplaced concern for Ukraine.

This is unadulterated nonsense. In fact, well before Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Putin had demonstrated, by his words and his actions, that he viewed the United States as an enemy.

For this reason, Russia has worked assiduously and unceasingly to undermine American national security interests—in Syria, Iran, and the Middle East; within Europe and NATO, Taiwan and the South China Sea; in the United Nations and other international bodies; and on social media (Twitter and Facebook).

A few throwaway lines about cancel culture, woke ideology, and LGBT designed for gullible American and European conservatives does not make Putin’s Russia a potential U.S. ally.

In truth Putin’s Russia is clear and demonstrable enemy of the United States. Thus inflicting a catastrophic defeat on Russia in Ukraine will help to weaken one of our nation’s most significant and implacable adversaries.

Right-Wing Lie #5: Whatever the merits of aiding Ukraine, the United States cannot afford to spend tens of billions of dollars more on another “endless war.” We already are $30 trillion in debt. On this path lies financial ruin, which will truly devastate American national security.

True, the national debt is a very serious problem that must be addressed. But the idea that it is caused by excessive military spending, let alone excessive aid to Ukraine, is simply untrue.

The United States spends less on a defense as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product than it did during the Cold War. Meanwhile, entitlements—Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security—have been skyrocketing and consuming an ever-increasing share of the federal budget.

Entitlement spending, not military spending—and certainly, not aid to Ukraine—is what is driving America’s growing debt crisis.

For greater context, aid to Ukraine amounts to tens of billions of dollars in a federal budget that is trillions of dollars. And it is money well spent to safeguard the rules-based international order that drives American prosperity.

Ukraine, moreover, is not asking for Americans to fight and die on its behalf. Instead, Ukraine is asking for armaments and battlefield intelligence.

We aid Ukraine now to forestall and prevent a worse crisis later, which will cost us much more, potentially, in dollars and lives lost should Russia win and Ukraine lose.

Right-Wing Lie #6: The war in Ukraine is another “endless war” that we should exit before it needlessly saps our blood and treasure.

Projecting the American experience in Iraq and Afghanistan onto Ukraine is a big mistake. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, Ukraine is a European country with a relatively advanced and capable military that has no need for American combat troops to fight on its behalf.

In fact, recent Ukrainian battlefield successes demonstrate that the country’s military can and will inflict a catastrophic defeat on Putin’s Russia—provided the West maintains its support and assistance.

And so, we can see a clear end to the war, a time when (within the next 9-18 months, most likely) all Russian troops are expelled from all of Ukraine, including Crimea.

Right-Wing Lie #7: The biggest danger right now is that America “escalates” the conflict in Ukraine, thereby risking a “nuclear war” with Russia. This is madness! We must step back from the brink and find ways to “deescalate” the conflict.

This is an emotional appeal that defies reason. Escalation sounds bad, but what it actually means is accelerating our shipment of arms and munitions to Ukraine, so that the Ukrainians can successfully drive the Russian invaders out of their country.

This is a good and necessary thing, not a bad and dangerous thing.

As for the risk of “nuclear war,” this is another emotional appeal that defies reason. Any time you are confronting a nuclear-armed state (which Russia is) there obviously is a risk of nuclear war. But that risk is negligible if the United States and NATO have a real and credible deterrent, which they do.

Moreover, the real risk is not a strategic nuclear war, which would threaten cities in Russia and the United States, but rather a regional nuclear war in Ukraine involving tactical or battlefield nukes.

A regional nuclear war in Ukraine would be bad, obviously; but it is not nearly as bad or as dangerous as a full-fledged strategic nuclear war that could endanger Washington, D.C. and Moscow.

Finally, Russia derives no military advantage from using nuclear weapons in Ukraine. And any Russian nuclear strike would require the connivance of hundreds of individuals in the Russian military and civilian chains of command. Such connivance is unlikely to say the least.

So the idea that Putin could launch a nuke in a fit of pique or because his “back is against the wall” is silly. As Timothy Snyder points out:

States with nuclear weapons have been fighting and losing wars since 1945, without using them. Nuclear powers lose humiliating wars in places like Vietnam and Afghanistan and do not use nuclear weapons.

Putin’s Russia today will be no different.

Or, if it is different, it will be so in a small and militarily insignificant way. Putin will detonate one or more tactical nukes to try and scare the world and intimidate the West into backing down. Sorry, but that won’t work—nor should it.

Right-Wing Lie #8: America should force Ukraine and Russia to negotiate now and reach a compromise solution that will end the war.

This sounds good. Who, after all, doesn’t want to end this horrendous war, which has wrought so much death and destruction on Ukraine? But what, exactly, is there to negotiate? And, at this point, what could a “compromise solution” possibly mean?

Russia wants to conquer and subsume Ukraine. Ukraine wants to be free and independent of Russia. This an irreconcilable difference that cannot be negotiated or compromised away.

Russia either will take Ukrainian territory or it will be driven from Ukrainian territory. The only thing Ukraine can compromise on, after all, is its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Thus the problem with forcing Ukraine to negotiate now is that it means Russia wins and Ukraine loses.

That is and ought to be a nonstarter.

The bottom line: authentic American conservatives support Ukraine. They recognize that critical America national security interests are at stake, with ramifications that extend far beyond Ukraine. Failure, they realize, is not an option.

Right-wing populist imposters, by contrast, are stooges for Putin. They don’t understand the crucial nexus between Ukraine, Russia, and American national security.

Consequently, their criticism of American foreign policy a vis-à-vis Ukraine is grievously and historically wrong. Their objections to Ukraine and to American support for Ukraine cannot withstand critical scrutiny.

In truth, America First necessarily means Ukraine wins and Russia loses.

Feature photo credit: So-called America First conservatives (L-R): Ned Ryun, Laura Ingraham, and Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis (Ret.) via a Fox News screenshot.

Why We Should Retain Confederate War Memorials and Statues

Why We Should Retain Confederate War Memorials and Statues

By John R Guardiano on June 24, 2020

To simple-minded critics trying to score cheap political points, the statues and monuments are all about “racism” and “white supremacy.”

To historians with a deeper and more profound understanding, it is all about recognizing the debt that we owe our ancestors.

Is there any good or legitimate reason to honor and celebrate soldiers who fought for the South in the Confederate States Army? Or is doing so simply a reflection of “racism” and “white supremacy”?

This is the crux of the issue that hangs over the movement to remove Confederate War memorials and statues.

To modern-day political and cultural elites, the answer is obvious: Because the Civil War was fought over slavery, racism and white supremacy necessarily impugn the Confederates. Nothing more need be said. The monuments and statues must go.

As Max Boot puts it:

When we celebrate Confederates, we do so because of their racism. By contrast, when we celebrate other great Americans, from Jefferson to Theodore Roosevelt, we do so despite their racism. That’s a crucial distinction that should not be lost in the heat of the moment.

Boot is a military historian who has written some fine works of military history. But the distinction that he draws here is ludicrous, utterly ahistorical, and in defiance of all reason.

In fact, Boot should know better than most why there is and ought to be an honored place in the pantheon of American history for the Southern soldiers of the Confederacy and why we ought to honor them with statues and memorials.

Martial Valor. The reason, obviously, has nothing to do with racism and white supremacy. Instead, it has to do with the courage, skill, valor, and tenacity of the Southern soldiers.

Their boldness, bravery, and derring-do against a larger, better-equipped, and more plodding Union Army determined to unimaginatively grind them into extinction was truly laudatory and heroic.

Indeed, as James Webb points out in his superb book, Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America:

The Southern army was a living thing emanating from the spirit of its soldiers—daring, frequently impatient, always outnumbered, often innovative, relying on the unexpected, and counting on the boldness of its leaders and the personal loyalties of those who followed.

The Northern army was most often run like a business, solving a problem. The Southern army was run like a family, confronting a human crisis.

The South, Webb explains,

saw 90 percent of its adult male population serve as soldiers and 70 percent of these became casualties, some 256,000 of them dead, including, astoundingly, 77 of the 425 generals who led them.

The North, by contrast, lost 365,000 soldiers and 47 of its 538 generals, a casualty rate in each case less than half that of the South.

The men of the Confederate Army gave every ounce of courage and loyalty to a leadership they trusted and respected, then laid down their arms in an instant—declining to fight a guerrilla war—when that leadership decided that enough was enough.

Slavery. But weren’t the Southerners fighting for an evil cause, slavery, and doesn’t that necessarily mean they dishonored themselves and are unworthy of our respect and admiration?

In a word, no. As Boot well knows, one of the main tasks of an historian is to understand the actions of historical figures through their eyes and within the context of their time.

While it is indisputably true that the Civil War was fought over slavery, it is equally true that the vast majority of Southerners did not own slaves and did not see themselves as fighting on behalf of slavery.

In fact, less than five percent of Southerners owned slaves; and, according to historian John Hope Franklin (quoted by Webb):

Fully three-fourths of the white people of the South had neither slaves nor an immediate economic interest in the maintenance of slavery or the plantation system.

“To tar the sacrifices of the Confederate soldier as simple acts of racism, and reduce the battle flag under which he fought to nothing more than the symbol of racist heritage,” Webb writes, “is one of the great blasphemies of our modern age.”

Resisting Aggression. “Why, then, did he [the Southern soldier] fight?”

Again, Webb explains:

It might seem odd in these modern times, but the Confederate soldier fought because, on the one hand, in his view he was provoked, intimidated, and ultimately invaded, and, on the other, his leaders had convinced him that this was a war of independence in the same sense as the Revolutionary War.

For those who can remove themselves from the slavery issue and examine the traits that characterize the Scots-Irish culture, the unbending ferocity of the Confederate soldier is little more than a continuum.

This was not so much a learned response to historical events as it was a cultural approach that had been refined by centuries of similar experience.

The tendency to resist outside aggression was bred deeply into every heart—and still is today.

For readers unfamiliar with what Webb means here, he is referring to the historical experience of the Scots-Irish. They had been fighting for centuries dating back to Roman times, when their Celtic ancestors refused to submit to Roman conquest, choosing instead to “die on the battlefield with sword in hand.”

The Scots-Irish eventually made their way to America, where they retained a ferocious sense of independence, pride and self-sufficiency. And, because of their distinguishing warrior ethos and history, they formed the backbone of the U.S. military, from the time of the American Revolution through the Civil War and even today.

“The bulk of the Confederate Army, including most of its leaders, was Scots-Irish, while the bulk of the Union Army and its leadership was not,” Webb writes.

“No one but a fool—or a bigot in their own right,” he adds—“would call on the descendants of those Confederate veterans to forget the sacrifices of those who went before them, or argue that they should not be remembered with honor.”

Distinctions. Ironically, Boot prides himself on making “fine distinctions” to determine whether someone should be honored with a statue or memorial.

“The rule of thumb,” he says, “should be that those who contributed a great deal to the development of our country deserve to be recognized, however flawed they were as human beings.”

That sounds reasonable. Yet, Boot seems clueless about the genuinely great contribution to our country made by the Scots-Irish and other white Southerners who fought in the Confederate Army.

Their contributions—to the American military specifically to American culture more generally—were and are, as Webb well describes, deeply felt and long-lasting.

Evil. Moreover, although he prides himself on making “fine distinctions,” Boot makes no distinction between the American South and Nazi Germany. Both are evil, he says.

But of course, the United States is not now and never was Nazi Germany, and the American South was and is part of the United States.

There are, needless to say, huge differences, ideologically and morally, between a country (Nazi Germany) engaged in genocidal world conquest and a region (the American South) seeking to resist (Northern) domination and retain its independence while holding on to an institution (slavery) that had been practiced and accepted for millennia, worldwide and since ancient times.

This is not to suggest that slavery was anything less than an abomination. Instead, it is to say that historical perspective, context, and understanding are necessary, important and required—and Boot, an accomplished historian, should understand this.

As Webb points out:

The greatest disservice on this count has been the attempt by these revisionist politicians and academics to defame the entire Confederate Army in a move that can only be termed the Nazification of the Confederacy…

The syllogism goes something like this: Slavery was evil. The soldiers of the Confederacy fought for a system that wished to preserve it. Therefore they were evil as well, and any attempt to honor their service is a veiled effort to glorify the cause of slavery…

It goes without saying—but unfortunately it must be said—that morality and decency were traits shared by both sides in this war, to an extent that was uncommon in about any other war America has fought.

Webb quotes the esteemed historian Henry Steele Commager:

The men in blue and gray… had character. They knew what they were fighting for, as well as men every know this, and they fought with a courage and tenacity rarely equaled in history…

Both people subscribed to the same moral values and observed the same standards of conduct. Both were convinced that the cause for which they fought was just—and their descendants still are.

In short, we can argue about the merits of this or that particular statue or memorial. However, there should be no doubt that the men who fought for the South in the Confederate Army deserve our respect and admiration.

They deserve to be honored, commemorated and memorialized. And a country that appreciates its inheritance and recognizes the sacrifices of generations past should understand this.

Feature photo credit: Jim Webb (left) via Politico and Max Boot (right) via the Washington Post.

Mike Pompeo’s NPR Tirade Shows How Trump Has Turned the GOP’s Rising Stars Into Politically Damaged Goods

Mike Pompeo’s NPR Tirade Shows How Trump Has Turned the GOP’s Rising Stars Into Politically Damaged Goods

By John R Guardiano on January 24, 2020

One of the saddest and most disappointing things about the Trump administration is how it has tainted some Republican officeholders who, by all accounts, should be the party’s rising stars and perhaps even its future presidents and vice presidents.

Case in point: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. The former congressman from Kansas’s 4th Congressional District served three terms in the House of Representatives before Trump picked him to serve as his CIA Director and, subsequently, Secretary of State.

Pompeo graduated first in his class at West Point, served in West Germany as an armor officer with the 4th Infantry Division, and then graduated from Harvard Law School. Together with two West Point friends, he founded a successful aerospace manufacturing company before serving as president of Sentry International, an oil drilling manufacturing firm.

In Congress, Pompeo was a widely respected conservative legislator admired for his brains and insight on defense and foreign policy matters. But as Secretary of State, Pompeo has felt a palpable need to Trumpify himself, so to speak, by being angry and nasty toward journalists who ask him tough but fair questions.

Of course, as a congressman, Pompeo never seemed to vilify the media; but in Trump’s Washington, being a non-belligerent in the culture war against an independent and sometimes adversarial press is not an option.

Pompeo knows that one of the best ways to connect with his boss is to demonize the fourth estate and rail against so-called fake news. Thus he does so and in Trumpian fashion.

Pompeo also explains and defends Trump administration foreign policy by incessantly and gratuitously taking swipes at the Obama administration.

This is unseemly and unbecoming, and it has become tiresome; but Pompeo knows that the best and perhaps only way to persuade Trump to do anything is to convince him that Obama did the opposite. Hence the constant disparagement of all things Obama.

Still, despite his manifest efforts to ingratiate himself with his boss, Pompeo has been relatively constrained and contained. Until now that is, when he seems to have blown a gasket, so to speak.

Indeed, Pompeo quite literally blew up at National Public Radio (NPR) reporter Mary Louise Kelly after she had the effrontery to ask him a timely and topical question about Ukraine during an exclusive, one-on-one interview.

Specifically, Kelly asked Pompeo whether he owed former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, an apology for failing to defend Yovanovitch against attacks by Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and others. It was a completely fair and legitimate question that Pompeo should have anticipated, since his failure to defend Yovanovitch and other State Department officials caught up in the Trump impeachment has been in the news for months now.

But Pompeo clearly resented the question, refused to answer it, and cut the interview short. He then became angry and belligerent, while giving voice to his inner Trump. Kelly told Ari Shapiro, the host of NPR’s All Things Considered, what happened after the interview ended. MSNBC correspondent David Gura summarized Kelly’s exchange with Shapiro in a tweet:

Pompeo’s little tirade will no doubt earn him plaudits in the Oval Office; however, it reflects very poorly upon him and on President Trump. We expect, or at least should expect, a certain professional etiquette and decorum in our elected leaders. Indeed, as the President of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, well put it:

“I thought it was the responsibility of the Secretary of State to explain to Americans why they should care about Ukraine, not to berate a journalist asking legitimate questions about his lack of support for foreign service officers acting professionally.”

The Trump era, moreover, will soon end; and, when it does, voters will be looking for political leaders prepared to break from the buffoonery and incompetence of the present occupant of the Oval Office. By debasing himself in order to remain in Trump’s good graces, Pompeo is disqualifying himself in the eyes of many voters.

To paraphrase Barry Goldwater in a different context: Independent-mindedness in defense of decency is no vice, and servility in the pursuit of vulgarity is no virtue. That’s something our Secretary of State might wish to consider as he contemplates his own political future.

Feature photo/illustration credit: Paul Rogers/The New Yorker.

Placing Trump’s Response to the Coronavirus in Historical Perspective

Placing Trump’s Response to the Coronavirus in Historical Perspective

By John R Guardiano on March 18, 2020

Presidents Kennedy, Carter, and Reagan were each responsible for monumental policy failures. Yet, they emerged from these crises with their honor and integrity intact.

We cannot, sadly, say the same of President Trump.

To appreciate how wrong and contemptible President Trump’s lies and evasion of responsibility are re: his administration’s weak and tardy response to the coronavirus, it is helpful to review how other America presidents have responded when they erred and failed at times of national crisis.

Kennedy. Here is what President Kennedy said after the Bay of Pigs debacle:

There’s an old saying that victory has 100 fathers and defeat is an orphan.

I’ve said as much as I feel can be usefully said by me in regard to the events of the past few days. Further statements, detailed discussions, are not to conceal responsibility, because I’m the responsible officer of the government… and that is quite obvious—

But merely because I do not believe that such a discussion would benefit us during the present difficult situation.

Kennedy was not excessively self-critical, and he did not wallow in self-abasement. However, he did man up and forthrightly accept responsibility for the Bay of Pigs debacle.

The American people respected Kennedy for owning up to his failure, forgave him, and rallied to his side with a spectacular 70-percent-plus approval rating. The country moved on.

Carter. Here is what President Carter said after the botched Iranian hostage rescue mission aka Operation Eagle Claw:

Late yesterday, I cancelled a carefully planned operation which was underway in Iran to position our rescue team for later withdrawal of American hostages, who have been held captive there since November 4. Equipment failure in the rescue helicopters made it necessary to end the mission…

I made a decision to commence the rescue operations plans. This attempt became a necessity and a duty. The readiness of our team to undertake the rescue made it completely practicable.

Accordingly, I made the decision to set our long-developed plans into operation.

I ordered this rescue mission prepared in order to safeguard American lives, to protect America’s national interests, and to reduce the tensions in the world that have been caused among many nations as this crisis has continued.

It was my decision to attempt the rescue operation. It was my decision to cancel it when problems developed in the placement of our rescue team for a future rescue operation. The responsibility is fully my own.

Carter ended up losing the 1980 presidential election in a landslide to Ronald Reagan, in no small part because of the Iranian hostage debacle. However, in the aftermath of the failed hostage rescue attempt, Carter’s support did not collapse.

To the contrary: a Gallup poll conducted roughly a week later (May 1, 1980) showed Carter with a 51-36 percent lead over his Democratic primary challenger, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.).

Carter, moreover, would go on to narrowly lose the Michigan Caucuses to Kennedy, 48-46 percent, before winning 11 of the next 12 primaries en route to capturing the Democratic Party presidential nomination.

Again, the American people were quite forgiving of presidential failure. They understood that, despite whatever disagreements and doubts they had about Carter, he was nonetheless a good and decent man trying his level best to do right by them and the country.

Reagan. Here is President Reagan acknowledging to the American people that, despite his intentions to the contrary, his administration did, in fact, sell arms for hostages to Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism:

My fellow Americans, I’ve spoken to you from this historic office on many occasions and about many things. The power of the Presidency is often thought to reside within this Oval Office. Yet it doesn’t rest here; it rests in you, the American people, and in your trust.

Your trust is what gives a President his powers of leadership and his personal strength, and it’s what I want to talk to you about this evening.

For the past three months, I’ve been silent on the revelations about Iran. And you must have been thinking, “Well, why doesn’t he tell us what’s happening? Why doesn’t he just speak to us as he has in the past when we’ve faced troubles or tragedies?”

Others of you, I guess, were thinking, ”What’s he doing hiding out in the White House?”

Well, the reason I haven’t spoken to you before now is this: You deserve the truth. And, as frustrating as the waiting has been, I felt it was improper to come to you with sketchy reports, or possibly even erroneous statements, which would then have to be corrected, creating even more doubt and confusion.

There’s been enough of that.

I’ve paid a price for my silence in terms of your trust and confidence. But I have had to wait, as you have, for the complete story.

Notice how Reagan emphasized presidential trust and candor, and the importance of speaking truthfully to the American people. Notice, too, that he felt the need to apologize for not being communicative enough! (Of course, they didn’t have Twitter back then.)

Reagan explained that he had appointed a special review board to investigate what had happened, and that the board had just issued its findings.

Let’s start with the part that is the most controversial. A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that is true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.

As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated in its implementation into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to Administration policy and to the original strategy we had in mind.

There are reasons why it happened but no excuses. It was a mistake.

I undertook the original Iran initiative in order to develop relations with those who might assume leadership in a post-Khomeini Government. It’s clear from the board’s report, however, that I let my personal concern for the hostages spill over into the geopolitical strategy of reaching out to Iran.

I asked so many questions about the hostages’ welfare that I didn’t ask enough about the specifics of the total Iran plan…

As I told the Tower board, I didn’t know about any diversion of funds to the contras. But as President, I cannot escape responsibility…

Now what should happen when you make a mistake is this: You take your knocks, you learn your lessons and then you move on. That’s the healthiest way to deal with a problem.

This in no way diminishes the importance of the other continuing investigations, but the business of our country and our people must proceed…

You know, by the time you reach my age, you’ve made plenty of mistakes, and if you’ve lived your life properly, so you learn. You put things in perspective. You pull your energies together. You change. You go forward.

My fellow Americans, I have a great deal that I want to accomplish with you and for you over the next two years, and, the Lord willing, that’s exactly what I intend to do. Goodnight and God bless you.

Reagan’s Triumph. And God Bless President Reagan. He did, in fact, go on to deliver one of the greatest and most historically consequential speeches in world history: at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, Germany, June 12, 1987.

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

The walls were torn down; Eastern Europe was liberated; the Soviet Union was defeated; and the Cold War was won. America, meanwhile, enjoyed continued peace and prosperity; and Reagan finished up his second term a highly popular, successful, and respected two-term president.

Now, compare that to how President Trump has handled the coronavirus. NBC News White House correspondent Geoff Bennett has compiled a timeline of Trump’s key remarks dating back to January when the coronavirus first emerged in the public consciousness:

To this disgraceful list we should add other damning Trump statements or admissions. NBC News reports:

Asked Friday at his press conference by NBC News’ Kristen Welker whether he should take responsibility for the failure to disseminate larger quantities of tests earlier, Trump declined.

“I don’t take responsibility at all,” he said.

Trump also responded testily to a question from another reporter about a decision made by the administration in 2018 to disband the White House’s National Security Council Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense — a unit sometimes referred to as the White House pandemic office.

Trump called the question “nasty” and replied, “I didn’t do it.”

“You say we did that, [but] I don’t know anything about it,” Trump said.

In addition to having insisted for weeks that he had the outbreak under control, Trump has also propagated personal beliefs about the coronavirus that contradict those of veteran health officials and experts.

Then today, Trump tweeted this bald-faced lie:

This tweet would be laughable were the matter not so serious, with tens of thousands of American lives hanging in the balance.

Again, as we have reported here at ResCon1, Trump’s China ban was the one praiseworthy decision that he made early on in this crisis. However, it was hardly a game changer, because it never was combined with rapid and comprehensive testing to prevent community spread of the virus.

Forgiveness. In any case, mistakes and errors are forgivable and can be excused. In fact, as our history shows, the American people are quite forgiving of presidents who make mistakes, acknowledge their error, and seek forgiveness.

What is unforgivable, though, is refusing to acknowledge error and then compounding the error by lying repeatedly about it. And that, unfortunately, describes the all-too-characteristic behavior of Trump. George Conway captures this character flaw well:

But responsibility? Never. Ever the blameless narcissist, Trump always insists that the buck stops wherever convenient—for him, personally.

For Trump, success always has a single father—himself. Failure has a hundred—everyone and anyone else: The media. The Democrats. The “deep state.” Disloyal staffers. Prosecutors. Judges.

Anyone who doesn’t do his bidding or sufficiently sing his praises.

And the common thread between his taking credit and shifting blame? Trump’s standbys: Lying, deceit and exaggeration. All have come into play throughout his presidency, and all now have come home to roost.

Feature photo credit: Associated Press via the Los Angeles Times.

For the Most Part, the 2020 Election Is Not About Trump or Biden

For the Most Part, the 2020 Election Is Not About Trump or Biden

By John R Guardiano on September 27, 2020

Is a presidential election a personality contest between two men—or a clash of two political tribes with divergent views on public policy? Are you voting for someone you like—or for hundreds of people you may never see, known or hear from, but who may dramatically affect your future?

To a disconcerting extent, presidential elections are popularity contests. Voters make an intensely personal decision. They eschew ideology and public policy to vote for the man (or woman) they like best and believe is best prepared to lead the nation in the next four years.

I say disconcerting because while the man or woman at the top obviously matters, and while their leadership abilities (or lack thereof) definitely matter, he (or she) is just one person. And our government is far too big, unwieldy, and complex to be run or administered by just one man.

The reality is that a vote for president is a vote for hundreds of people and scores of policies that, to a surprising degree, operate independently of the president, or with his simple approval or assent.

Tax Reform, for instance, had Trump’s imprimatur, but was crafted by Congressional Republicans well before Trump even came on the political scene.

Thus when you voted for Trump, you were voting for scores of people—in Congress, the Trump administration, in think tanks, lobby groups, and the federal bureaucracy—who gave substantive meaning to Trump’s pledge of tax reform and who made tax reform a reality.

Trade. Likewise on trade. Trump promised to “get tough” with China by ending unfair and discriminatory Chinese trade practices. But it wasn’t Trump who formulated these specific public policies and who actually negotiated with China’s communist government.

Instead, it was Robert Lighthizer, Steve Mnuchin, Peter Navarro and other public policy experts who spearheaded this effort and negotiated the deal.

Political Parties. The point is not that Trump doesn’t matter. The point is that he matters a lot less than you might realize if you understand how our government works and how public policy is formulated and implemented. Yet, the media (and most voters, frankly) are fixated on Trump and his childish and obnoxious behavior.

I get it. Trump is the president, after all.

Still, part of being an informed and educated adult is recognizing that we’re not in high school anymore, and we’re not voting for the prom king or queen. The presidential election should not be a popularity contest; it should be a contest of ideas.

The reality is that any president, Democrat or Republican, will inevitably reflect the political tribe from which he comes and with which he affiliates. This means that voters must look beyond the man and the personality to the political party, its thought leaders and ideological agenda.

The Supreme Court. Consider, for instance, Supreme Court appointments, federal judgeships and the judiciary. Here, Trump has taken his cues from Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) and the Federalist Society.

In fact, if you want to understand Trump’s judicial appointments, you’re much better off listening to McConnell and the Federalist Society than you are listening to Trump. The president, after all, is shallow and incoherent; McConnell and the Federalist Society are thoughtful and coherent.

Biden is more substantively engaged than Trump, but no less a reflection of the party and movement that guide and direct him. In fact, given his advanced age and obviously waning physical and mental abilities, Biden is arguably more of a political puppet than Trump.

Radical Democratic Agenda. Moreover, the energy and intellectual ferment in the Democratic Party today is clearly on the extreme left, as the party has embraced radical plans to:

restructure the judiciary;
end the use of fossil fuels, including a ban on fracking;
decriminalize illegal immigration;
abolish the Electoral College;
make Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia bona fide states, each with two U.S. Senators; and
inexorably extend the government’s takeover of the healthcare system through “Medicare for All.”

Biden may or may not agree with all of these radical plans. (We don’t know for sure because Biden has been lying low, hiding in his basement, saying very little of substance, and campaigning as little as possible.) But whether he agrees or not with his party’s extreme left agenda is largely irrelevant.

Biden is a good and loyal Democrat who will sign whatever bills House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) and Charles Schumer (D-New York) send his way—just as Trump has been a good and loyal Republican who has signed whatever bills McConnell and then-House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) sent his way when the Republicans controlled Congress.

The bottom line: there is a lot more on the ballot this fall than simply two opposing candidates.

There are two opposing political parties, two divergent political philosophies, and two teams of candidates vying for control of the Senate and the House. And there are scores of policy analysts and public policy administrators who work for these two opposing teams or political tribes.

Trump and Biden may be the faces that you see, but there are a lot more faces—and arguably more important faces—behind the scenes working to shape America’s future; and, depending on who wins the election, they may get their chance.

Understand this and please vote accordingly. Policy, not personality, is what matters most.

Feature photo credit: The Shtick.

The Questions No One Dares to Ask About ‘Systemic Racism’ and ‘Police Reform’

The Questions No One Dares to Ask About ‘Systemic Racism’ and ‘Police Reform’

By John R Guardiano on June 14, 2020

Before we rush forward to enact new legislative “reforms” we should step back to ask important and searching questions.

Excuse me, but may I ask a question? Or rather, a series of questions?

Oh, I know that no one today has much time for questions: because the loudest voices, in our newsrooms and out in the streets, are too busy telling us what the answers must be.

And, unlike the activists, the politicians, the pundits, the sports stars, and assorted other know-it-alls, I don’t pretend to have all the answers. However, I do have some pertinent—and perhaps unwelcome and inconvenient—questions to ask.

May I?

Thank you. I won’t take much of your time. I promise.

Federalism

1. Should the federal government micromanage state and local police departments and law enforcement agencies?

2. Does federalism matter, and might federalism help us determine which reforms work and which ones don’t?

Legislating Police Practices

3. Do we have a problem with specific police practices, such as chokeholds and no-knock warrants?

Or, instead, do we have a problem with specific police officers, such as Derek Chauvin, who misuse and misapply those practices?

4. Did Officer Chauvin kill George Floyd with a choke hold or by pressing his knee into his neck?

5. If the problem is specific police officers such as Chauvin, then why focus on stopping certain practices? Why not focus on recruiting better officers, training them better, and screening out bad officers?

6. Rather than ban or proscribe certain police practices, might we do well, instead, to train officers to use better, less dangerous, and more effective practices by which to subdue and control suspects?

7. Will legislation designed to outlaw or ban specific police practices actually end police brutality or make much of a difference? Or will bad police officers still find ways to commit egregious acts of wrongdoing?

8. Fox News host Sean Hannity has promoted non-lethal weapons that will “incapacitate violent or threatening subjects” without killing them.

Hannity says non-lethal weapons in the hands of the police are a way to balance the need for robust and proactive policing while simultaneously averting the excessive use of police force and wrongful deaths.

Does Hannity have a point, and should not the use of non-lethal weapons rank high on the police reform agenda?

‘Systemic Racism’

9. Is our problem “systemic racism” or human nature and human frailty?

If the latter, is it possible to legislate or change human nature and human frailty? Or will we still inevitably have incidents of police brutality and excessive police use of force?

10. If our problem is “systemic racism,” then why did the police kill more unarmed white suspects in 2019 (nineteen) than unarmed black suspects (nine)?

Why did unarmed black victims of police shootings represent just 0.1 percent of all African-Americans killed in 2019?

11. If our problem is “systemic racism,” then why is a police officer “18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer”?

12. Does “systemic racism” explain why the vast majority of African Americans are killed by other African Americans, and why, overwhelmingly, the victims of black crime are innocent African Americans?

13. An increasing number of police officers are black, Hispanic, Asian and other minorities, as are big-city police chiefs. Many departments—including the New York City and Los Angeles police departments—are majority minority.

Are these police officers and departments, too, plagued by “systemic racism”?

14. If, indeed, the police are statistically more inclined to police or confront African Americans, and sometimes on specious grounds, is this necessarily because of racism? Or might disparities in criminal conduct among different racial and ethnic groups have something to do with it?

15. Is there any other country than the United States of America where blacks have achieved more and enjoyed greater opportunity and more equitable treatment?

16. In the past 20 years, America has elected and reelected a black man as President of the United States, had two black secretaries of state, two black national security advisers, and at least a dozen black, Hispanic, Asian, and Indian governors, lieutenant governors, and senators.

Does this not refute the notion that ours is a country imbued with “systemic racism”?

‘Black Lives Matter’

17. If the protesters really believe that “black lives matter,” then why do they show little or no concern and passion for the lives of black teenagers and children murdered by black criminals in the inner city?

18. Why are there no “take-a-knee” protests and high-profile, high-vis funerals for black police officers killed by violent thugs?

19. We hear much about the historical legacy of racism and how it haunts law enforcement, and American society more generally, even today. Okay, but has anything changed for the better in the past 50 or 60 years, and can we also acknowledge this history and its relevance to the current debate?

20. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are considered landmark legislative achievements on the road to racial equality.

Ditto the 24th Amendment to the Constitution (also ratified in 1964), which prohibits poll taxes or any other tax that infringes upon a citizen’s right to vote.

The Fair Housing Act of 1968, likewise, prohibits racial discrimination in the sale, rental and financing of housing. Did this and similar legislation, as well as the 24th Amendment, achieve anything substantive and long-lasting?

21. America across the board—in government, corporations, public and private agencies—has instituted affirmative action programs to assist disadvantaged blacks.

Federal, state, and local governments, likewise, have spent trillions of dollars over a period of decades to assist disadvantaged Americans, black and white.

Is this evidence of a country that doesn’t believe “black lives matter”?

22. Polls consistently show that Americans are far less racist today than they were 50 or 60 years ago. Do these polls reflect reality, or are people lying to pollsters about how they really feel?

‘Militarization of the Police’

23. Is there any evidence that the so-called militarization of the police has resulted in more killings and bad community relations?

What if better armed police actually have had the opposite effect? Will policymakers and pundits then call for increased “militarization of the police”?

24. When the police receive equipment from the U.S. military, is this equipment assigned to every police officer within a law enforcement agency, or just specialized units such as SWAT teams?

25. Within police departments, is there a role for SWAT teams and should these teams be heavily armed and equipped?

26. Does the so-called “militarization of the police,” especially during introductory induction training, contribute to any shared sense of camaraderie, pride, and esprit de corps among cops? And, if so, might this help promote professionalism and good conduct?

27. Counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan emphasized protecting the indigenous population and exerciseing real restraint in the use of force.

Are there useful lessons here for our police? And, if so, doesn’t greater “militarization of the police”—meaning greater DoD-police cooperation and training—make sense?

‘Defund the Police’

28. Former NYPD Police Commissioner Ray Kelly notes that about 95 percent of all police budgets are for personnel costs. So would not “defunding the police,” or reducing police budgets, mean fewer police and less of a police presence on the streets?

29. Given that blacks in the inner cities are the most victimized by violent crime, would not “defunding the police,” or reducing police budgets, hurt them the most?

30. Heather Mac Donald observes that “the most urgent requests [for a proactive police presence] come from the law-abiding residents of high-crime neighborhoods”; and that she’s seen these requests “time and again in the dozens of police-community meetings [that she has] attended.”

Moreover, she writes, “the percentage of black respondents in a 2015 Roper poll who wanted more police in their community was twice as high as the percentage of white respondents who wanted more police.”

Do these black citizens matter, and should their concerns be listened to and heeded?

31. Incidents involving the mentally ill, the psychologically maladjusted, domestic disputes, spousal abuse, juvenile delinquency, and drug addicts can be dangerous, with the threat of violence ever-present.

Given the clear possibility (and sometimes likelihood) of violence, then, does it really make sense to have unarmed social workers and not police officers deal with these type incidents? What happens if social workers who respond to these type incidents are killed as a result?

‘Qualified Immunity’

House Democrats have unveiled a bill that would abolish “qualified immunity” for police officers—on the grounds that this “undermines police accountability and encourages bad behavior.”

But qualified immunity is rarely invoked and revoking it is a recipe for police inaction, according to Ray Kelly, former head of the New York City Police Department.

32. Who’s right: House Democrats or Ray Kelly?

33. What is the greater risk or danger: that police will withdraw from the streets and cities because they fear lawsuits, or that police will respond too aggressively and with excessive force because they need not fear a lawsuit?

34. What does the data tell us?

Honest, Good-Faith Debate

33. Is there any evidence that the so-called reforms being pushed will actually save black lives? What if the so-called reforms will do the opposite?

34. Can we discuss these issues fairly, honestly and dispassionately? Or must we, instead, dispense with fairness, honesty and dispassion because “this time’s different”?

Excuse me? “Am I done?” you ask? Yes, well, I understand that I have exceeded my time and perhaps overstayed my welcome. I have many other questions, and perhaps I can ask those at another time.

But with all due respect, it seems to me that before we legislatively chisel the protesters’ preferred answers into the legal equivalent of Mount Rushmore, we ought to ask some important and searching questions.

I offer these up only as a starting point. We have, dare I say, a lot more to think about.

Feature photo credit: Refinery29.com.

Vivek Ramaswamy’s Dangerous and Demagogic Foreign Policy Views

Vivek Ramaswamy’s Dangerous and Demagogic Foreign Policy Views

By John R Guardiano on August 12, 2023

The glib millennial would have the GOP abandon its commitment to international leadership, forsake Ukraine, and appease Putin.

Thirty-eight-year-old Vivek Ramaswamy has never been elected to any political office—federal, state or local—and his half-baked ideas about America foreign policy show why he should be kept far away from the Oval Office.

Ramaswamy’s big idea is to turn Russia against China by ending American support for Ukraine, pledging that Ukraine will never become a member of NATO, and renewing economic ties with Moscow. This, he argues, is “a reverse maneuver of what Nixon accomplished with [Chinese dictator] Mao [Zedong] in 1972.”

Of course, Ramaswamy’s idea is ludicrous and unworkable: because despite whatever paper promises Russian dictator Vladimir Putin might make in order to fulfill his dream of conquering Ukraine, Russia and China today have strategic interests that coincide.

China and Russia. Both countries are opposed to the American-led, rules-based, liberal international order. And nothing America can do other than surrender, internationally, will appease or placate Putin’s Russia and Xi Jinping’s China.

By contrast, back in 1972, Mao’s China and Soviet Russia were already strategic adversaries that viewed each other with suspicion and alarm. The Sino-Soviet split had occurred more than a decade earlier, in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

“…Frequent border skirmishes between the Soviets and the Chinese verged on all-out war,” notes history.com.

The situation today, obviously, is very different. Russia and China have put their historic differences in the rearview mirror to combat what they see as the greater and more immediate threat: the United States. Hence their 2022 “no limits” partnership or pact.

In short, Ramaswamy’s big idea is a pipe dream. It will never happen—or, if it does happen, it will prove as endurable and prophetic as Neville Chamberlain’s 1938 pledge, “peace for our time.”

The cost and collateral damage, meanwhile, will be deep-seated and profound. Ramaswamy’s attempt to appease Putin and forsake Ukraine will rupture NATO and probably result in the alliance’s demise as frontline states in Eastern Europe and the Nordic region rebel and vow to go their own way.

As for Asia, Ramaswamy promises to “deter China from annexing Taiwan by shifting from strategic ambiguity to strategic clarity.” But appeasing Putin will alarm and frighten American allies in Asia, who, consequently, will doubt the resolve, staying power, and commitment of the United States.

And with good reason. Ramaswamy says the United States should promise to defend Taiwan “until 2029 but not afterward.” By 2030, he argues,

we will have full semiconductor independence from Taiwan; significantly reduced economic independence on China; stronger relationships with India, Japan, and South Korea; and stronger U.S. homeland defense capabilities to protect against cyber, super-EMP, and nuclear attacks.

In other words, by 2030, America finally can withdraw, militarily and diplomatically, from Asia and Europe and revert back to fortress America, defense of the homeland, and protection of the Western Hemisphere.

Disaster. This would be a geo-strategic disaster for the United States. It would cede leadership of the world to China and Russia, who would now write the rules that other countries would be forced to follow and obey while America hid behind its phantom moat in the Western Hemisphere.

If we were living in 1723 or 1823, such an approach might be tenable. But it’s 2023. Americans are too engaged in the world, economically and commercially, to revert back to a foreign policy of fortress America.

Our economy, which depends heavily on international trade, will suffer in a world led and shaped by China and Russia, not the United States.

Demagoguery. Equally bad, Ramswamy engages in rank demagoguery to explain and defend his foreign policy of appeasement.

The Biden administration may be aiding Ukraine, he says, “to make good on a bribe from a nation whose state-affiliated company paid off the President’s son,” Hunter Biden.

Never mind the utter lack of evidence to support this nonsensical charge. And never mind that virtually all of Europe, too, has acted to aid Ukraine after it came under savage and unprovoked assault from Russia.

Ramaswamy also demagogically asserts that America must adopt his foreign policy of appeasement to avert “a potential nuclear war with Russia.” Never mind that, throughout the Cold War, the United States averted nuclear war precisely by checking and not appeasing Russian aggression.

The bottom line: Vivek is too naive, too inexperienced, and too gullible to trust with the reins of American power. He would surrender American international leadership to the likes of Xi and Putin. He would abandon and forsake our allies in Europe and Asia.

He would bring America home when Americans increasingly are going abroad. And he would revert back to a foreign policy of fortress America in a world in which isolated fortresses cannot long survive and prosper.

Simply put: Ramswamy’s dangerous and demagogic foreign policy views make him entirely unfit to be President of the United States.

Feature photo credit: YouTube screenshot courtesy of Fox News Sunday.

America First—In Ukraine, Asia, and Elsewhere

America First—In Ukraine, Asia, and Elsewhere

By John R Guardiano on February 6, 2022

Some on the Right have learned the wrong military lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Congressional Republicans overwhelmingly believe the United States should support Ukraine and check Russian imperialism. However, there are a few noisy pols, egged on by a small contingent of conservative journalists, who beg to differ. Why?

Because they are isolationists or non-interventionists who recall the Iraq War and vow “never again.”

Fox News host Tucker Carlson, for instance, told the New York Times that his skepticism about U.S. efforts to support Ukraine stem largely from “regrets about his own role in promoting the Iraq War.”

The American Conservative’s Helen Andrews, likewise, laments “seeing a lot of the good-old neocons, like, the same folks from the Iraq War, coming back and getting back in the saddle again, and saying exactly the same things that they did last time.”

Their rhetoric now, she warns, “is not that different from what it was in the Iraq War.”

This skepticism of U.S. military intervention is understandable given the unsatisfactory conclusion of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. What, then, ought to be the lessons learned from these two most recent conflicts and how do they apply to the situation now unfolding in Ukraine?

Nation-Building. First, nation-building is difficult and laborious and ought not be undertaken unless we are prepared for many years, and perhaps decades, of military and diplomatic engagement.

But here’s the thing: Ukraine is not Iraq or Afghanistan. It is far more advanced and developed.

A functioning nation-state and a legitimate government already exist. These do not need to be built from scratch. We are not trying to create something new and unique; we are trying to assist something old and established.

Military Occupation. Second, military occupation of a country can precipitate adverse political repercussions, which can be self-defeating—especially if the ultimate goal is simply to eliminate a threat and leave.

But here’s the thing: no one is proposing that the United States invade or occupy Ukraine.

U.S. Military Advisers. Third, small numbers of U.S. military advisers embedded with indigenous forces are a decisive force multiplier. They can dramatically improve indigenous military capabilities and strengthen their will to fight and win.

Afghanistan. The most vivid and memorable example of this, of course, was the initial war in Afghanistan (2001), where small numbers of CIA officers worked closely with the Northern Alliance to drive the Taliban from power.

The Afghanis did most of the fighting and dying; but their military capabilities and will to fight were immeasurably strengthened by the presence of U.S. military advisers.

This same dynamic played out at the end of the war in Afghanistan.

By President Trump’s final year in office, the United States had withdrawn just about all of its troops from Afghanistan, but crucially, retained a small contingent of advisers who helped to buck up the Afghan national military.

Again, the Afghans did almost all of the fighting and dying.

True, this did not result in a classic military victory; however, it did achieve a modus vivendi that kept the Taliban at bay. And many informed military observers, such as Bing West, believe this modus vivendi could have been sustained indefinitely at minimal cost.

The defeat of ISIS, likewise, was achieved with U.S. military airpower and U.S. military advisers playing a crucial support role for Kurdish and Iraqi forces, who did almost all of the fighting and dying.

Since at least 2015, the United States and its NATO allies have advised and trained with Ukraine’s military, albeit on a very limited and circumscribed basis, and far removed from the front lines of combat.

A more robust and strategic military advisory role could be a decisive force multiplier, just as it was in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This does not mean, obviously, that the United States should invade or occupy Ukraine. Nor does it mean that the United States should wage war on Russia.

What it does mean is that the United States should forward deploy to Ukraine and Eastern Europe critical military personnel and weapons systems to buck up our allies and strengthen their military capabilities.

This is the essence of deterrence. It is what Ronald Reagan meant by “peace through strength.”

Lessons Learned. So yes, there are important lessons to be learned from our recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, they are not the lessons of isolationism and non-interventionism that some on the Right seem to have internalized.

Instead, the lesson is this: while the United States can be too heavy-handed militarily, it also can be too averse to military engagement, and neither extreme is wise or good.

For without American military engagement, nothing good in the world ever happens. Our enemies take advantage of our absence to promote a world order that harms our interests and benefits them.

Middle Course. For this reason, we must steer a middle course between isolationism or non-interventionism and military invasion and occupation.

We must remain militarily engaged on the frontiers of freedom—in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, and the South China Sea—to keep our enemies, the enemies of freedom, on their heels, at bay, and on the defensive.

America: first, last, and always.

Feature photo credit: Tucker Carlson, courtesy of The Independent, and Helen Andrews, courtesy of HerAndrews.com.

154 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”

The Court broke important new ground when it struck down New York’s discriminatory COVID19 public health restrictions.

Share this:

In the wake of Bostock v. Clayton County, conservatives are disappointed and fearful. Here’s why they should temper their pessimism and perhaps even be optimistic.

Share this:

They don’t understand the crucial nexus between Ukraine, Russia, and American national security.

Share this:

To simple-minded critics trying to score cheap political points, the statues and monuments are all about “racism” and “white supremacy.”

To historians with a deeper and more profound understanding, it is all about recognizing the debt that we owe our ancestors.

Share this:

Share this:

Presidents Kennedy, Carter, and Reagan were each responsible for monumental policy failures. Yet, they emerged from these crises with their honor and integrity intact.

We cannot, sadly, say the same of President Trump.

Share this:

Is a presidential election a personality contest between two men—or a clash of two political tribes with divergent views on public policy? Are you voting for someone you like—or for hundreds of people you may never see, known or hear from, but who may dramatically affect your future?

Share this:

Before we rush forward to enact new legislative “reforms” we should step back to ask important and searching questions.

Share this:

The glib millennial would have the GOP abandon its commitment to international leadership, forsake Ukraine, and appease Putin.

Share this:

Share this: