The Federal Republican

"...In the political context, it can be advantageous for Democrats to support America’s war effort in all of its theatres, as it will help them to establish long-needed credibility on national security issues which has plagued their presidential prospects since the collapse of the Cold War consensus. In addition, sustaining the war effort and achieving victory will ultimately be contingent upon overall public support, which is in turn contingent upon political support coming from our leaders in government. And, being in a necessary war against the terrorists, the tyrannies that enable them, and the Islamist ideology which they embrace, the sooner we achieve victory, the sooner our forces can come back home... Assuming the majority is sincere in wanting to bring an end to hostilities, indeed, in wanting to bring peace to the region, they must embrace victory as a goal... There is a great chance that, if the Democrat majority is a growing one, they may have to take the reins in the greater war on terrorism via the presidency after 2008, and they must make a decision if they have the will to take the fight to the terror states. For, a tacit allowance and willful ignorance of terrorism and the states which sponsor it is an invitation for those states to escalate their efforts to, amongst other evils, destabilize Iraq, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, and Saudi Arabia, to destroy Israel, and continuing to wage devastating attacks against the free peoples of the world entire... The choice is theirs, and it may ultimately be the coalition’s last chance to sustain the offensive we are on, for if Democrats are elected in 2008 on the notion that the war on terrorism is merely a limited engagement militarily that should primarily be dealt with diplomatically and via law enforcement, woe unto us all."

"...Securing Iraq sooner rather than later has become as much a political necessity as a military ideal in American debate, which seemingly is demanding instant results in a struggle where none may be in the offering. Though there are undoubtedly many things that may be done to improve security in Iraq, and the coalition in concert with our Iraqi partners are developing the framework for that so that the MNF will eventually not be necessary in the future, nobody has offered any reason to believe that the results we desire can be achieved in a few short months, let alone within the timeframe of President Bush’s second term. Addressing public discontent over the war effort becomes much trickier to verbalize than merely the reordering of U.S. military strategy inside Iraq, because we must be clear that we are not simply trying to popularize a war effort which may be more difficult than the American people may like. Strategy should not be changed because the dimension of time does not comply with impatient politicians’ and pundits’ wishes for perfection... We must be clear if we are escalating our efforts. But we must not put a time frame on it. Do not say 'temporary.' Timelines for escalation make goals as impossible to achieve as timelines for withdrawal..."

"...Prime Minister al Maliki took the time to settle a debate that has been waged in Washington for some years now: is Iraq a theatre in the war on terrorism? ... Some [Democrats] have even gone as far as to deny that Iraq has anything to do with the war on terrorism, despite Hussein's regime's previous sponsorship of terrorism and the current attacks waged by terrorists against the people of Iraq. Democrats apparently hope to simultaneously convey the message that they are out front in wanting to prosecute the war on terrorism and then deny its most important front. From a translated portion of the Prime Minister's speech, he stated, "I know that some of you here question whether Iraq is part of the war on terror..." in which he directly reached out to those critics, and he sought to leave no doubt how he views this debate: "It is your duty and our duty to defeat this terror. Iraq is the front line in this struggle, and history will prove that the sacrifices of Iraqis for freedom will not be in vain. Iraqis are your allies in the war on terror..."

"...The Iraqi people deserved today's vote of confidence by the House, and yesterday's vote in the Senate, that the unequivocal policy of the United States is to stay the course and see this war through to victory. Iraq may very well become one of our greatest allies in this war, and we must be mindful of that country's needs and what they say they require as we conduct our own domestic political debate on our role there. We do not turn our backs on our allies, and we must send a distinct message to those representatives who voted against today's resolution that Iraq is indeed the central front in this war against terrorists and tyrants. Calling this question is not a political stunt, as has been alleged, rather engaging the politics of revisionism, denying historical facts, and declaring American defeat in the midst of recent victories is."

"In the midst of a major offensive against al Qaeda in Iraq, coalition forces, led by the U.S. military and intelligence network, delivered a crushing blow yesterday to that terrorist network by eliminating Abu Musab al Zarqawi, his spiritual advisor, and several other members of his entourage in an air strike by F-16's. This great victory for the Iraqi people, and the free world, promises to begin to bring an end to the reign of terror which al Zarqawi had waged against Iraq and the MNF, and is a testament of the patience and determination of our brave servicemen and women who still stand in harm's way in the war on terrorism. Their hard work, along with our Iraqi allies, deserves the credit for bringing justice to the enemies of a free Iraq, and cannot be undermined or taken away by politicians and pundits who would seek to downplay its implications. This victory gives hope to the Iraqi people, who know that their enemies are not untouchable, and that their allies will stand by them in this long war. Of course, perhaps the dust had barely settled on al Zarqawi's corpse as calls for the U.S. to pull out of Iraq were renewed..."

"...Simple rhetoric will no longer sell to the conservative base. This is tremendously important to touch upon: conservatives are the base of the Republican party. They are the ones who won the elections of 2000, 2002, and 2004. They are unlike what in contemporary parlance we call "leftists", the vocal left-wing of the Democrat party, whom never win elections. One principle must be agreed upon at the outset, as Republicans consider their power and how much they like it: they will never win without the (growing) conservative base which has been developing for well over a generation. To think otherwise is to ignore what culminated in the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, and why it happened. They must not let it slip away. Whether conservatives will continue to support the Republican party, and the very important agenda which our nation must continue to implement, will in many ways be determined by how well Congress governs between now and election day. It is most certainly not too late for the party to change its fortunes, and indeed as this writer hopes to relate in this piece, that there are several opportunities for the party to turn the balance back in their favor. The creeping malaise that has Republicans running for high ground will be their undoing, as they have missed opportunity after opportunity to address the issues of the day. It is no more simple than talk show superstar Sean Hannity has been relating to his audience in recent weeks: Republicans must demonstrate resilience, fortitude, and leadership on the issues which our nation faces..."

"Before the war on terror and tyranny was expanded into Iraq in 2003, the overarching conventional wisdom was that Hussein's Iraq retained WMD stockpiles and that these were being hidden from the United Nations and the international community, and this view was shared by all of the world's major intelligence agencies, including the U.S., UK, France, Russia, and Germany. And after the liberation of Iraq by the coalition of the willing, the conventional wisdom shifted and it became believed by many that Iraq did not retain the WMD, and that the frustrated efforts of the coalition and the Iraq Survey Group to locate the WMD inside of Iraq was one of the greatest intelligence failures ever, that the war was a mistake, and even in some quarters that the intelligence had been concocted. Of course, some of the more militant opponents to the war who insist that this theatre in the war on terror is based on a lie never could quite explain how it was the President of the United States managed to get all of these intelligence agencies to "cook up" the proof, while conservative critics complained that the shenanigans at the UN Security Council had given Hussein's regime the time it needed to spirit away the WMD and that the failure to find the WMD in Iraq did not disprove the claims of the intelligence agencies..."

"...Under the September 18th congressional authorization for the use of force, the President "is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons..." One vital aspect of waging war is gathering intelligence on potential targets, and that is precisely what this program was doing, and should continue doing. The information being gathered by the National Security Agency under this program creates actionable intelligence which is being used in the war effort. There is no reason its functions should have been disclosed to the public, when secrecy is precisely what intelligence gathering depends on. Whether or not an attack is imminent, in our war effort against transnational terrorism, gathering intelligence on potential attacks, those who would perpetrate such attacks, and those individuals connected to both is an activity which must and will continue in spite of disclosures of those activities. Protecting the lives of American citizens is our government's foremost responsibility, and without that protection, our liberty will quickly lose its security."

"...Ultimately, it is the Iraqi people, their elected representatives, and their brave, volunteer forces in Iraq that will defeat the enemy in Iraq. Perhaps we should ask them if they believe that Iraq is a front in the wider war on terrorism? Additionally, pursuant to our international obligations enumerated in UN Security Council Resolutions, we have a responsibility to maintain peace and stability inside of Iraq for the time being. We have a duty to our new friends in Iraq, and as we consider our role there over the immediate future (say, the next six months), we must carefully assess what Iraq requires from the international community in the way of providing security. If they require our help, do we not have a moral and legal obligation to help? Perhaps critics of the war effort have taken their rhetoric too far in an effort add logic to their claims that Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism. History denies their premise, and dismisses their logic, and in an effort to ensure victory in the war, it is the people of America who must, by way of free elections, remove representatives from office who would endanger our national security and international peace and stability by facilitating a premature withdrawal of military forces from Iraq before the job is done. Obviously, we the people have a role to play as well in ensuring victory, and it is appropriate for our representatives in Washington to continue to force this debate on Capitol Hill, so that we will know which of them favor victory, and which ones favor retreat. If the opposition cannot even acknowledge that Iraq is a front in the war on terror, they do not deserve their offices. On the eve of the coalition and the Iraqi people's great victory, we must not be advocating for a retreat, for that would most assuredly be a tremendous setback in the greater war on terror, and could even make victory ultimately impossible.'"

"Short of controlling the weather, there is not much that could have been done to prevent the catastrophic hurricane strikes that have devastated the Gulf Coast in the past month. However, there has been much criticism leveled at all levels of government for a slow response effort in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, in particular, the will of authorities to expedite the evacuation of individuals and families from New Orleans before the hurricane hit, and after it did, their capability to move thousands to safety in the most efficient manner and to maintain civil order. Clearly, the mandatory evacuation should have come before the levees broke and flooded the city, and the importance of preempting a disaster's arrival, especially one which has a few days warning such as a storm, has only been highlighted by the successful evacuations that took place in Houston as Hurricane Rita approached. Of course, not all disasters can be predicted, like the weather with any reasonable certainty, and it is those unforseen events, such as an attack, an earthquake, or a tsunami, which will in the future require an immediate response effort in order to save lives. What is clear is that we should have moved faster, and that we can move faster in the event of another catastrophe... This truth has led several people, including the President, to question whether the military ought to take the lead role in disaster response efforts. On September 25th, at a briefing in Texas, President Bush stated: 'The other question, of course, I asked, was, is there a circumstance in which the Department of Defense becomes the lead agency. Clearly, in the case of a terrorist attack, that would be the case, but is there a natural disaster which -- of a certain size that would then enable the Defense Department to become the lead agency in coordinating and leading the response effort. That's going to be a very important consideration for Congress to think about.'"

"...This is a vital national security interest of the United States. Reforming the international body of the United Nations carries with it a tremendous responsibility to remember history's and humanity's failures to make such treaty-making organizations work. The failure of the League of Nations to effectively preempt fascism and militarism is well-known. Today, still genocides are carried out, and yet the United Nations is as ineffectual ever and not even willing to acknowledge that there are genocides being carried out! This is premised on the notion that if one does not call it a genocide, then one does not have to enforce the laws which are supposed to prevent it. The body is actually debating what terrorism, as a term, means. They lack an international fighting force as was originally envisioned by its founders, and instead the only hope for enforcement is by coalitions of the willing. Resolutions are crafted which when posed to a rogue state, achieve mixed results, and usually lack enforcement or the credible threat of the use of force. It gives to those rogue states a presumption of innocence even when the crimes committed are already great. It sits on issues which should have been heard and resolved already. Its member states selectively subscribe to the Charter's tenants..."

"...Laws are made, properly so, by the people's duly elected representatives. They are enforced, properly so, by the President and the officers of the executive branch. If either of these branches exceeds its powers, so defined in the Constitution, the judicial branch, properly so, applies the supreme law of the land. But, what if the judicial branch exceeds its power? What then? ... It is more than a gross distortion of our Constitution for the Supreme Court to declare for itself the absolute authority to define liberty. This is not a power granted by the Constitution. Penumbras, indeed. The right definition of liberty rests with our Creator, not men in robes, and I shall not pretend to know its full meaning. However, I will propose that the power to define liberty under law most properly resides with the people's representatives. Not to take away rights already established by the supreme law, but rather, merely the power to posit rights into our laws, consistent with all articles of the Constitution. There have been Civil Rights acts, numerous in origin, predating the 20th century. Let there be more. And let there be no mistake where the legislative power, in this our democratic republic, resides. Let our laws, and our rights, be well-defined, and if the people are not satisfied, they can elect representatives which better guarantees their rights under law. The notion that rights are only contained in the Constitution, and that these are the only rights which may be protected, of course, is a gross misrepresentation of the original intent of the Constitution, and a dishonest reading of its Ninth Amendment. In other words, to state that ultimately the Judicial branch has the power to enumerate rights is a certain recipe for a tyranny of few. Furthermore, the idea that our rights may only be defined by meting out justice in our adversarial judicial system is a sure path to judicial supremacy, and restricts the authority of the people. It guarantees not the rule of law, but the rule of lawyers. One nation under decree..."

"...To turn our backs on the Iraqi people, or to suggest that a pullout occur without defending Iraq, is to equivocate on our commitment to the people there. We must state clearly that America will never allow freedom to fail in Iraq. We will not throw this country to the killers who would presume to be the tyrants. The terrorists' goal is related not only to exacting revenge on the Iraqi people and the foreign troops, but in undermining our political will at home to carry out the mission... We must be steady in our resolve, and we need to remind ourselves of what the mission is: to secure a free and democratic Iraq, no matter what. The measure of progress is the state of freedom and democracy in Iraq, and whether or not the people's liberty is secure. So long as the free government functions effectively, and establishes equal rights for all citizens, we can measure very significant progress in our efforts. I believe that we must have faith in the democratic process in Iraq, and we must understand that an entire people is dependent upon our capability to protect them. Freedom is not safe in this world without American vigilance, and we must support the mission and see it to its completion..."

"...If Iran and North Korea calculate that we do not possess the political will to deal with them by force, why would they ever disarm? Not even the credible threat of the use of force achieved disarmament and compliance by the former Iraqi regime of her treaty obligations, with a massive buildup of military power in the Persian Gulf and the promise of serious consequences from the United Nations. Even to the end, did not Hussein calculate that we would flinch – the UN certainly flinched when it came to authorizing force when it could have prevented the need for war – and that he would keep power for another day? Or worse, did he not care that war would come? And worse still, is the enemy today calculating that political divisions in America and weakness in the United Nations – which has simultaneously resulted in the failure of something as simple as a confirmation of a new UN ambassador when we desperately need to press our interests there, and demonstrated that the international community was incapable of even managing the sanctions which were enacted against Iraq (and instead produced the oil for food scandal) – shall all inevitably cause America to buckle to the dictates of their strategic desires? Or worst of all, even if the credible threat of the use of force were present, would they care?"

"As the national debate over immigration reform unfolds, and as Congress considers proposals from both of the political parties, such as the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act, it also must consider two key problems that exist which make enforcing existing immigration laws impractical, and which shall in the future make enforcing any such laws problematic. The present situation at the borders and points of entry allows thousands of unidentified individuals to enter the country every year and perpetuates a crisis of sovereignty in which the government can never be completely certain of its residents, and no accurate census may ever be taken. Indeed, the people have every right to expect that the homeland shall be secured, and that more efficient means of managing immigration shall be achieved by setting total population awareness as a priority, or at least as a goal to move towards. Another problem confronting the enforcement of any immigration laws is a lack in many instances of local cooperation, in which sanctuary laws give illegal immigrants a free pass when it comes to being identified... Any reform which does not address the steady stream of illegal traffic that crosses the border, and does not mandate enforcement of immigration law at all levels of the government, however well-intentioned, will ultimately not succeed at achieving total population awareness..."

"Continuing his articulation of both the practical and moral dimensions of the spread of freedom and democracy globally, the President marked his Second Inaugural with the stirring declaration of America's founding principles. He is able to understand the wisdom and rightness of America's mission to spread political liberty and the choice of self-government to peoples that have not known it, that freedom and independence is a requirement for security, and that self-determination does not mean to leave dictators to their own designs. Freedom's expansion serves our vital interests as a nation, and upholds our greatest ideals. As President Bush stated, 'We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world... America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one...' This links both the traditional schools of realism and idealism, and certainly proclaims the idea that our safety and our freedom are inextricably linked. Our security depends on our freedom and independence, our constitutional system of federalism, republicanism, limited government, and the rule of law. Ultimately, our lives depend upon not only our belief in liberty, but in the practice of our liberty under law. That freedom serves both the ideals and interests of the individual translates into the idea that freedom also serves both the ideals and interests of entire societies... This, on its face, requires an end to tyranny."

"Two opposing strains of conventional wisdom hold that, in Iraq, we did not move fast enough to turn over power to the Iraqi people, and that we've moved too fast in helping the Iraqi people to implement national elections which will result in an elected assembly which shall draft the permanent constitution, and that those elections (scheduled for January 30th) should be indefinitely postponed until the security situation is drastically improved. Both cannot be true, but in the former, the wisdom further informs that we would not have the problems we have today in Iraq, with the competing insurgencies in the north and south, if we had turned over power rapidly, as we did in Afghanistan. Pretty optimistic. In the latter, the criticism leans more towards the idea that the Iraqi people will not be ready to commit to and to implement democracy, that elections will be illegitimate without broad participation, and that until the security situation improves, political institutions cannot be constructed. Quite pessimistic. In this piece, this author will care to wager that while both alternatives share hints of a more successful strategy, they both fail in realizing that the middle ground between the two is where we presently stand, and that the former would not necessarily have delivered the rosy scenario which is promised, and that the latter would bring an unprecedented tragedy forth. The test should be if the drawbacks posed by each would be better than the setbacks which we have presently faced..."

"...The stakes could not be higher, for these reasons, it is incumbent upon the American people to once again rally to the cause of freedom, and to honor the mission of spreading democracy around the world. The will and resolve of the people to win this war must be bolstered, and it is imperative that our leadership in Washington make the resolution to unite our people. Nothing has ever been more important in recent history, and no longer lasting legacy could be left than to have honored the ideals upon which our nation was founded by succeeding in our mission. The extremist terrorists are trying to shake our will, the defeatists are playing along in concert with their common goal, and based on the criticisms of our efforts from both the left and right, it's working, because our will as a people is being shaken. Our leadership must believe that we've got the right mission. From here on in, our ultimate success in the war on terrorism is going to depend upon our will and resolve to see through the mission of transforming societies that have suffered under tyranny into free societies. If the American people do not support the effort, then hope may be broken. This author had hoped that the President's re-election with a majority of the popular vote had proven that a majority of the American people believed in the course we are on: that freedom can transform societies. There are even deeper implications which are troublesome if freedom fails abroad. If natural rights are discredited, then so too will the philosophy that our nation was founded upon. We must not fail, for our very freedom depends on it. You either believe in natural rights or you do not... The fate of freedom is in your hands."

"...The framework for a just society should be guided by the pursuit of the truth of what is right and wrong, just as the formula for an expeditious existence must be guided by the pursuit of the truth of what is in one’s own interests. Whether one chooses morality or prudence, rights or interests, he or she will always be guided by reason, the ability to discern the truth. If one is free and lives in a free society, and is both wise and moral, perhaps actions taken and ideas presented will serve ends which are both right for all and expeditious for the self. Perhaps, one could find the virtue in prudence, and the wisdom of morality. As in a free society, both our rights and interests are to be protected under law because both are at stake. There is necessarily a contract between the individual and the whole of society, a pact of steel, to take up arms in the defense of freedom, and an agreement based on trust not to use one’s liberty to intrude upon another’s. A free society defines its security based upon how well the life and liberty of the individual is protected from within and without..."

"The crisis of definition brought about by judicial activism threatens the very meaning of the law, and of our rights, as our conceptions of liberty are warped to mean new things. Our most important strength as a nation is the Federal Constitution, its continuity, and its inherent rule of law. It limits the exercise of power, and clearly with judicial activism there is an example of a grave abuse of the supreme law of the land. The problem with judicial activism is not its intent, which is to protect rights, it is the practice of which erodes the public’s confidence in the courts... [O]ur rights must be enumerated and defined by the law, and interpreted with an original understanding as to the intent of the law. Congress should debate and pass laws governing the enumeration of additional rights as it takes place in the judicial branch, or perhaps, prohibit such enumeration in any branch but the legislative. The latter option, giving to the legislative branch the power to legislate our rights, may be the most promising remedy. .. Clearly articulated, the problem of not necessarily knowing what one’s rights are at any given moment, as they are subject to judicial definition, means that what the judges can give, they can also take away. There is no provision which prevents the Supreme Court from reversing prior rulings, and therefore nothing which prevents them from articulating rights today, and eliminating them tomorrow. Rights not clearly defined can fade from judicial memory, or be changed arbitrarily under the guise of judicial review. America should support legislation in Congress, or even a constitutional amendment, that will eliminate the danger of judicial tyranny, and bring the interpretation of the laws back under the authority of the Constitution..."

"...America has sent a clear message to our leadership in Washington, and has also sent a bold signal to the whole world, that we will not be intimidated by the hateful, murderous ideology which we confront and seek to defeat. Gone are the days where America will not act in kind against those who have repeatedly attacked us, our friends and allies, and our overall interests and values. Gone are the days when America would encourage freedom and democracy in some areas of the world, but not others. Gone are the days where our wherewithal to defeat terrorism would be in question. Because of the leadership of President Bush over the past four years, and the leadership which we expect for the next four years, the American people have handed him a mandate, and expect that beyond the Great Election of 2004, we will work as hard as is practicable in the war on terror and tyranny to ensure victory."

"I had thought that instead of making this final column before the election about the issues of the campaign, having extensively covered many of them over the past year, it might be better to look at the electoral college as enumerated in Article II, Section 1 of the Federal Constitution, and justified in The Federalist No. 68 by Alexander Hamilton: "...the people of each state shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such state in the national government, who shall assemble within the state and vote for some fit person as president. Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the seat of the national government, and the person who may happen to have a majority of the whole number of votes will be the president. But as a majority of the votes might not always happen to centre on one man and as it might be unsafe to permit less than a majority to be conclusive, it is provided, that in such a contingency, the house of representatives shall select out of the candidates, who shall have the five highest numbers of votes, the man who in their opinion may be best qualified for the office..." Hamilton guarantees that this process "affords a moral certainty" that the president shall have the "requisite qualifications" to win the election in the several States. I also believe that the electoral college affords a practical certainty that a majority of the eligible voters will be represented by the president who earns a majority of the electoral votes..."

"Charles Duelfer, in delivering testimony to Congress on Wednesday and the Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD, found that while no militarily significant weapons of mass destruction stockpiles have been found, that the regime's capabilities in these areas remained in place, and could have been started quite rapidly towards reconstituting the programs which develop these deadly weapons. From the report's key findings: "Saddam [Hussein] so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted... Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities..." Since the regime's overarching goal was the removal of the sanctions, they did not overtly develop weapons of mass destruction, and the programs laid dormant for a later date when international pressure would not be brought to bear..."

"As a political matter, this election, our choice for the leadership of the free world, is about more than simply upholding and preserving our Federal Constitution. It is more than just guaranteeing a republican form of government to every State in the Union. It is more than only preserving our rights under law, including life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Indeed, we do accomplish all these things by taking part in our virtuous form of government, by choosing to elect our representatives. But this election is still about something more. It is a thought, a dream, really. The American Dream. That this country was not founded by an accident, that all people are indeed created equal, and that perhaps, our mission in this world was to do our best uphold these ideals, and to make them practical. That by enabling every citizen to take part in the system, by preserving limited government, the rule of law, and the principles of freedom and democracy, our rights would best be preserved. That by encouraging equal liberty for men and women abroad, by making a sacrifice for the greater good of humanity, to liberate entire peoples from oppression, we would be remembered in history... Our own history is indeed a proud one, though it was not without birth defects. Slavery was an obvious contradiction to our ideals, and the Republican Party was founded with the ideal that we would uphold and expand liberty, and abhor bondage. The concept of liberation is known in the great President Lincoln, the first Republican president. The Battle Hymn of the Republic praises freedom: “as He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free…” And yet, freedom is not free, is it? Men have died to make us all free. Freedom comes with a heavy price, the cost of which has always been too much to bear. Freedom may be maintained for very wise and practical reasons, it should be upheld for very moral and right reasons, and yet it must also be protected from within and without. Today, we are risk from dangers both at home and abroad. We must defend ourselves, and our way of life from tyrants and terrorists..."

"...With a multitude of independent states, not necessarily tyrannical in nature, the question of leagues or of union inevitably arises. By separating from the British Empire, the American colonies managed to form a confederation that could win the war by providing for the common defense of the independent States, and through this common end against a common enemy, constitute a government that would prevent the problems and dangers posed by tyranny. Since America covered a large swath of territory, and it was thought inevitable that she would expand, a means of settling land disputes was necessary for the new confederation. Eventually, a standard means of dividing new territories, and constituting new States was necessary, and as such, the Federal Constitution was agreed upon in 1787. Federalism as devised shared sovereignty between both the national and State governments, and the concept of dual-sovereignty emerged for the citizens of the Union. A federal republic meant that each state and the national government were guaranteed a representative form of government - which was the best at protecting rights. Through this transition, the United States won her independence, established security between the several States under the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, and maintained peace because of the Union itself. Thus, a people could maintain their freedom and independence without having to worry about the other States from violating the sovereignty of a single State, and through this guarantee assure that relations between the States would be coordinated through the branches of government so devised. Potential disputes between the States now had a just arbiter which could adjudicate between the competing claims either between a pair of States, or a State and the Federal Government, or either the State or Federal Governments and the citizens..."

"...Free and wise people do not embrace aggression and terror, and instead we choose progress and life. We condemn the acts of tyrants and terrorists to take away our rights, in particular, are most important right, that of life. Free and wise peoples do not pursue the deliberate murder of innocent civilians as a matter of state policy. We do not squelch the right to dissent. We protect the lives, liberties, and properties of all of our kin. And we do share, as does much of the world, the ideals that have founded a culture of freedom in this modern era. We know that the protection and expansion of natural human rights globally will make the world, and America safer. We know that the institutions found in republican and democratic forms of government best protect those rights from the boot of arbitrary coercion. And we know that, as an institutional priority, security is often necessary to safeguard and expand those rights, and inevitably, it is through freedom that we will find peace and security..."

"And he rose from the ashes of our darkest hour,
The phoenix of truth, the promise of justice, to dry our tears.
He cradled us all, under his wings; our fears subside.
He gathers the spirits of the ages.

"From the ashes we rose, the pillars of light, to show our love.
The candles we light; the memories of those will never die.

"And when the darkness looms on the horizon,
Brave the winds and let your spirit thrive.
Life is full of tribulation's legacies,
Love is strong and hope never dies."

"...Edmund Burke, the great conservative philosopher, once stated, "Evil happens when good men do nothing." Just as true today as it was when he stated it some 200+ years ago. We must act for the sake of our national interests, international peace and security, and out of a sense of moral obligation. The path of inaction is the wrong way. We cannot win this war with a laissez-faire policy. There is no invisible hand which can defend freedom and defeat fear. It is free men and women, acting in concert and holding true to the values and principles of freedom and democracy that will win this war. We must all spread the institutions of truth and justice globally. We must spread the message that all humans are equal in the eyes of their Creator. Free and independent nations, not under the boot of tyranny and arbitrary coercion, that believe in the sovereignty of the people and the accountability of government, will win this war. The principles of constitutionalism, limited government, and the rule of law are the just (i.e. right and practical) vehicle for establishing institutions of security which protects life, politics which protect equal liberty, and capital economy which protects private property and the pursuit of happiness. As a good people, we have the obligation to do something. I believe the best we may do is to help spread freedom and democracy to peoples which have not had the proper chance to pursue their potential. This is the path to victory. And we have an obligation, as human beings who believe in civilization, to win this war."

"...Then, as now, Mr. Kerry accused the U.S. government of being complicit in committing war crimes. I had promised myself that I would not write about the Vietnam War again during the course of this election, and to be fair, this piece is not about that conflict. This piece is about a pattern of behavior where the Democratic nominee for president is politicizing war crimes. Has he excused, and is he excusing war crimes? Has he impugned, and is he impugning the honor of 99.9+% of those who are serving that have not committed war crimes? Has he politicized, and is he politicizing war crimes yet again? You be the judge. In my opinion, far from having the buck stop at personal responsibility, Senator Kerry is excusing the crimes of others and instead pinning responsibility on the Secretary of Defense who has done so much for this country, and frankly, he should know better. This is one candidate who deserves all of the condemnation he has coming to him. Despite his honorable service in the military, his record since then is not worthy of the presidency, and his press release today is just a small example of that. This is a man who is willingly, and has willingly, in a sense, helped out the enemy despite all appeals to prudence and good judgment. Just as he has the right to make such statements, we have a right to question his judgment."

"...Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi militia has taken positions in Najaf, and have taken control of one of the most holy sites there, the Imam Ali Mosque. While the fighting in Najaf has captured most of the media spotlight, and most analyses have focused on whether it is permissible to fire on holy sites, these short-sighted views fail to focus on a larger picture. It appears that destroying or storming the mosque is precisely what the enemy is attempting to bait the Iraqi security forces, and the multinational forces (MNF), into doing for far more cynical, strategic reasons. The recent fighting is in many ways a wake-up call for the Iraqi people and demonstrates that they have a vital stake in achieving a free and stable civil society, and that the Iraqi people must take a leading role in achieving this. A unified federal, republican, pluralistic, and democratic Iraq, composed of Shi'a, Sunni, Kurds, and others is the antithesis of what the enemy wants to happen. Their goal presently is to provoke a civil war between the various ethnic and religious elements of Iraqi society, and undermining this goal is essential towards achieving inevitably a tremendous victory in the war on terror..."

"...The sole pursuit of one's own self-interests may be thought to lead to personal Happiness, but this particular pursuit carries with it no moral considerations. Selfishness is most certainly not a virtue. The pursuit of self-interested Happiness should never violate any of the contracting parties' rights to Life and Equal Liberty if that pursuit is to be considered just. Equal Liberty protected on an individual basis protects and thus must take priority over the Pursuit of Happiness. Contracts are necessary between consenting parties, either made verbally or in writing. The truth must be told in making any sort of contractual arrangement. In such a manner, our rights are assessed and protected, and the practice of Happiness does not interfere with the consenting parties' exercise of equal rights. The pursuit of one's interests, when such considerations are made, do not interfere with the other parties' claims to right. If those rights are violated, then justice is required... Prudence and morality are competitive claims in determining justice, and as such it is both necessary and proper for a conception of justice to be based on a balance between self-interests and the common good. Since there can be both moral ends, and moral means, and self-interested ends, and practical means, certain types of just choices must be limited to one of two assessments: 1) whether the application of moral ends is practicable in the real world, and thus would not harm any of the contracting parties' interests, or 2) whether the prudent ends are morally right in their conduct, and thus would service the common good..."

"...While Democrats have last week consistently stated that we should never go to war because we want to, but only because we have to, they criticize the necessity of taking preemptive action against Iraq, which was a state sponsor of terrorism that had pursued and previously used WMD, and was in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions. Further, they consistently refer to the case of Hussein's Iraq as a different war from the war on terrorism, claiming it to be a distraction from the war against al Qaeda. This ignores the past and present danger of terrorism inside Iraq..."

"...Under this principle, the truth should be known to all except when it A) poses a threat to the peace and security of society and to the lives and liberties of the people, in which case the governing body (i.e. the state) identifies and documents all information so as to make it reasonably available to certain positions and offices open to all, and made publicly available when the certainty of the threat is fully realized and proven based on a preponderance of the evidence, or B) infringes upon individual liberties as articulated in the Federal Constitution. In other words, the truth should be known to our civil government when there is a substantial danger to society and to the lives of the citizens in order to best protect the citizenry, and the truth should be hidden from all when it violates personal liberties, in particular, one’s reasonable expectation of the freedom of privacy from intrusive means and measures that would bring about harmful consequences..."

"...Providing for the safety of a wise and free people is the first necessity to direct our attention to, and as such security is the first priority in order to provide for the preservation of peace and tranquility, security against dangers from foreign powers, and security against dangers from domestic causes. It is my opinion that the appropriate protection of life is completely necessary, that all citizens are equally entitled to it, and that it as a principle, security is the government's first and foremost responsibility..."

1) Truth

2) Justice, Natural Law, and Natural Rights

2a) Life

2b) Equal Liberty

2c) Property and the Pursuit of Happiness

3) Freedom and Independence (Sovereignty)

4) Constitution, Limited Government, and the Rule of Law

5) Rights are Protected by these Institutions

5a) Security Protects Life

5b) Politics Protects Equal Liberty

5c) Capital Economy Protects Property and the Pursuit of Happiness

"In order to accept some of the chief criticisms of expanding the war on terror into Iraq, one has believe that confronting the terror enemy only provokes more terrorism, and that non-intervention and even appeasement do not. One has to believe that Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror, and that by liberating that country from Hussein's regime, we have only enraged terrorists in and around Iraq. One has to maintain that Iraq was not pursuing nor possessed weapons of mass destruction, and that finds of unaccounted for weapons and undeclared program-related activities did not pose a danger. One has to believe that in order to enforce UN Security Council Resolutions (i.e. international law, or the law of nations), the Security Council must approve, and must ignore that the federal Constitution clearly gives to Congress in Article I, Section 8 the power to 'define and punish ... offences against the law of nations...' One has to believe that the coalition enforcing the just demands of the world poses a danger to security, and that Hussein's noncompliance and breach of those resolutions does not. One has to believe that the liberation was carried out "unilaterally," and that the contributions made by over thirty nation-states, and the hard work of the Iraqi people to regain sovereignty, are not enough. One has to believe that the murderous acts of terrorists are representative of the will of the Iraqi people, and that the establishment of the interim constitution and the restoration of sovereignty are not. In short, one has to suspend most if not all considerations of reality..."

"...Our commitment to the nations we liberate is rock-solid. The new Republic of Iraq has requested that foreign troops remain to aid in establishing security and in training Iraq's security forces. It is necessary that the American people join in this commitment by lending their moral support to this just mission of spreading freedom and democracy to the Middle East... The history of freedom has not been an easy transition. A day doesn't go by where somewhere there are people who still live in bondage. Bad ideas and ideologies still remain popular. Even though the free world knows that freedom and democracy are worth defending, and that a republican form of government is the best means to defending liberty institutionally, not all people enjoy freedom. Totalitarianism still has a foothold in the history of mankind, and to have it merely contained is insufficient with regard to advancing our own values of liberty and self-government. Bad sovereigns must be confronted, and they must be defeated. Hussein is a sure example of this. Whenever tyrants fall, the cheers and happiness of free people are heard. The people of America must realize that they have great power to change history, and to quote a famous superhero's uncle, with great power comes great responsibility."

"...Asking a suspected criminal or arrestee his/her identity is reasonable, not unreasonable. The fourth amendment only protects against unreasonable searches and the like. And identifying oneself does not incriminate oneself, which the fifth amendment protects against, even if that person has a warrant out for their arrest. The evidence that brought about the warrant incriminates the person, not that person's identity. If and when the judiciary revisits this issue, they would be well-advised that disallowing identity-checks at stops, like at airports, on the basis that it might give the police "a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense..." would be ill-advised, would severely limit the ability of the government to protect this country from threats both foreign and domestic, and would not even be in the spirit of constitutional law... Is there a "right" to remain anonymous? From whence does it come from? Is it a natural right? Is there any precedence for it? There is no such thing as a right to anonymity, and that's what's really being argued for here. This has nothing to do with testifying against oneself. This has to do with hiding one's identity. Just like one cannot find the word "privacy" in the Bill of Rights, one cannot find the word "anonymity," either. It indeed takes some penumbras to find this so-called 'right.'"

"...Iran, since it sponsors terrorism, cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, for such weapons in the hands of terrorists would obviously put the killers in a position to commit blackmail on a scale never seen before, or to attack with no warning on a genocidal scale. The twin threats of terrorism and the development of nuclear programs when coupled together cannot service peaceable ends, and do not add to security in the region and around the world. They pose a danger that must be confronted and defeated before it is too late. Unless Iran drastically corrects her course, and routs the terror enemy and submits to a rigorous inspection regime of her nuclear programs, the world must assume the worst."

"...The Cold War did end, with those who love freedom being the victors, and the introduction of democratic institutions in the former Soviet satellites, and in the Russian Federation which was founded after the USSR dissolved on December 25th, 1991. Economic dissolution within the Soviet Union was one of the major factors which led directly to the independence movements of the satellites, and much of Gorbachev's work towards the end of the USSR was spent in holding the society together... This process would have likely taken far longer without President Reagan's efforts and policies which directly challenged the ideological underpinnings of communism. The Soviet economy could not sustain annual defense expenditures, which sapped much of Russia's resources, and the challenge posed by the United States was responsible in many ways. By turning back communism around the globe, the United States under President Reagan's leadership won the Cold War, and proved the utility of freedom and democracy, and the vibrant economy that is brought about by such opportunities to engage in political liberty and the people taking a role in participating in governmental decisions. Freedom won out, and in this sense, Russia and the former Soviet satellites were victors, too. Because President Reagan remained committed to the march of freedom, democracy spread globally in a relatively short amount of time. This march continues, and as we mourn the passing of an icon, we must too celebrate and honor his historic achievements. Winning the Cold War is his legacy, and his example shall inspire us for many generations to come. The march continues, Mr. President, and we love you. We shall never forget your contribution to the history of freedom..."

"As we as a nation observe the honorable sacrifice that has been made over the past two centuries by the United States military, I am reminded that it is right for citizens to pay their respects in their own way, and towards that end, that enjoying the fruits of our freedom may be the most fitting tribute to those that have sacrificed their lives, to those who have put their lives in harm's way and survived, and to those who presently take the risk that comes with defending our homeland, our values, and our liberties. We should thank our service men and women, the work they do keeps us safe, and as we support them, we must also recognize the importance of the mission of defending the free world. The good work that our military does often finds Americans far away from home, liberating whole nations, creating the security necessary for freedom to blossom, and in working with the good people of those nations to build free institutions. This is the greatest work that can be done in a world where tyranny still exists, and such service makes it possible for freedom to spread into regions where it has not been as thoroughly enjoyed as we know it here in America. As citizens, it is our duty to not only support those in the service, but also to support their mission, which is to defend the freedom that God gave all of us..."

"To those whom have attempted to discredit the justification for expanding the war on terror into Iraq, the discovery of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq has provided quite the opportunity for defeatists and revisionists to collectively insert their feet into each other's mouths. Coupled with the threat of terrorism within Iraq, the find of any WMD demonstrates that the claims put forward by Hussein's regime that "There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq!" were quite false, and that the danger of such weapons being handed off to terrorists was quite real. Hussein has been found to have been in further breach of his international obligations than was previously objectively known, though it is clear that such violation was already well-documented, and that further finds will only add to the weight of evidence already being brought to bear. The question had not, and has not been about whether or not the WMD existed, for they most certainly did, but what had Hussein's regime done with the weapons. Were they buried, destroyed, dispersed, or exported? Were they handed off to terrorists?"

"...Just as we punish our own citizens when crimes are committed, we shall punish the enemy for its unjust acts. For the law of nations to apply, it must be administered regardless of nationality, or lack thereof. The greatest asset which terrorists possess is the inherent lack of accountability to any justice, a statelessness which offers amnesty for the cruelest of acts. It is up to all states to confront the challenge, to pursue these war criminals whose chosen tactic is the elimination of civilian life. The enemy is often brutal, and acts without compunction nor any accountability to justice..."

"...We do not celebrate these abuses. They are criminal, beyond redemption, and rightly condemned by our government and by the people. Publishing the photos, in my opinion, is irresponsible and humiliating for those who have been abused. We ought to respect the rights of those who have been abused, as well as the rights of the accused. It is irresponsible because it may jeopardize the prosecutions of those responsible for the acts, and it gives ready-made propaganda for those who would seek to undermine the efforts of the coalition in the war on terror. It is humiliating because of the nature of the photographs, which portray sadistic and perverted acts of abuse. If I were a victim of such abuse, and it had been photographed, and I had a choice of whether or not to have those images displayed publicly, I would choose to not be humiliated. To be clear, the place for these photographs is in the court of law, where they can and should be used as evidence. This can be done without making a public spectacle of the cruel acts which were perpetrated by a few sadists..."

"...In comparison, while Senator Kerry may wish to state that the President has not done enough to win the war on terror, can he simultaneously create the impression that we have done too much, such as in liberating Iraq from the grip of terror brought about by Hussein's regime? Can he articulate a strong message for national and homeland security and also court the votes of Democrats that did not support the liberation of Iraq? If the impression for voters is that a vote against President Bush is a vote against the war in general, then Senator Kerry has problems, namely, that he still needs to articulate his message. He supports the war on terror, but is that the impression he leaves with the electorate? Does Senator Kerry speak for his party? It appears that the Senator's own message is being clouded by the interests of his own base, and therefore that makes the decision of changing horses midstream a hard sell."

"...Since Hussein's Iraq fell to the coalition forces, and the insurgency began, media outlets have consistently attempted to portray the actions of the few as representative of the will of the Iraqi people. To what end does portraying a massive uprising serve other than to demoralize the American people's resolve to stay the course? Moreover, critics of the war effort want to demonstrate that the current uprising was not planned for, and may as well be as a result of poor "post-war" planning. (Never mind that the war is not over.) No, the violence is not as a result of the actions of murders, but for the lack of a plan. Of course!"

"Conventional wisdom, offered by several political analysts, has stated that the outcome of the presidential election of 2004 hinges on perhaps two issues: 1) how well or poorly the economy is doing, and 2) how well or poor the situation in Iraq is. "It's the economy, stupid!" has become a token phrase we all know well, from the election year of 1992, however, we will not focus on the intricacies of that issue here. For the purposes of this piece, we shall focus on the second issue, that of the situation in Iraq, and in extension, Afghanistan. This conventional wisdom states that if the situation in the war on terrorism is destabilized and chaotic, in Iraq and Afghanistan, if troops and civilians are being murdered, that then President Bush will pay a price at the polls come November. This assumes that the American people will not re-elect the President if casualties remain a consistent factor in this election year, which clearly then makes the specific issue the tragic deaths of coalition troops, foreign civilians, and the Iraqi people at the hands of insurgents and terrorists..."

"...The ability to criticize sitting public officials is essential to there being a free nation. However, we do not threaten our public officials with violence if our goals are not immediately fulfilled. We work hard on issues with which we disagree, we debate vigorously with our opponents, but we do not resort to violence between them. Despite our differences, a free people works together to meeting the essential needs of society, that of providing safety, liberty, and prosperity. Each is essential to the presence of freedom in general, and security is the priority, for without proper protection of life, there will not be any opportunity for the fruits of liberty to grow. Democratic and republican forms of government are dependent upon peaceful discourse between political factions, without threats of violence, because then those interactions may be free and peaceful, without harming others' liberties. The ability for power to change hands makes any debate meaningful, and it is up to all people to participate in that debate so as to best ensure a bright and prosperous future for the fate of any nation..."

"...Commissions which investigate what could have been done to prevent attacks which already have taken place can and should be useful towards putting in place new procedures which are superior to past policies. However, what should be done to defend against future attacks is the larger question, and it is to our elected officials that we must look to for leadership. The debate centers on this larger question, and the choice we will make in our election this year will include competing visions for America's security. We do know that the present administration will not rule out the use of preemptive force against threats. No one can doubt that the path we are on is strong, and that the leadership being provided at the highest level is essential to the actions we have already taken to eliminate terrorism. The war on terrorism will take many forms, and it will include many battles. It will not be fought solely on the battlefield, and it will be long. What is clear is that is that we must confront the danger, before attacks take place, and long before those attacks become imminent. In the post-9/11 world, America's posture towards threats in general has and should have changed, and our forward strategy for eliminating terrorism, breaking up weapons proliferation networks, removing state sponsorship of terrorism and other safe havens through diplomatic, military, legal, and other avenues have all taken place as a direct result of the attacks which took place. We should not be surprised that our strategy today is vastly different from the one which was pursued before the attacks of that particular day took place. The difference between what we could have done to prevent attacks which already have taken place is, and what we should be doing overall to eliminate terrorism are distinctions that we should all make. We deserve a debate about the latter as we consider the former."

"The only thing consistent about Senator John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) is that he is inconsistent. Backing off statements he made on March 16th, where he said, "I have heard from people, foreign leaders elsewhere in the world who don't appreciate the Bush administration and would love to see a change in the leadership of the United States..." which landed him key endorsements from Spain's newly elected Prime Minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, and Malaysia's former Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamad, now Senator Kerry's campaign is singing a different tune. In a statement released this past Thursday, March 18th, campaign advisor Rand Beers insisted that "[i]t is simply not appropriate for any foreign leader to endorse a candidate in America's presidential election. John Kerry does not seek, and will not accept, any such endorsements." So, while it is apparently appropriate to tout foreign leaders whom do not approve of U.S. policy, so long as their names are kept private, it is inappropriate for foreign leaders to publicly endorse Senator Kerry. No wonder he wouldn't name names: that would have been inappropriate. Based on the Senator's prior statements, one would have thought he would be happy about landing such endorsements! But, nope, apparently other foreign leaders have gone too far by publicly stating their support. In other words, it's okay for foreign leaders to play a role in a presidential election campaign, so long as they talk behind our backs..."

"In the most damaging gaffe of his political career, Senator John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) recently proclaimed at a fundraiser in Fort Lauderdale, Florida: "I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly but, boy, they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this. You've got to beat this guy. We need a new policy'." Senator Kerry apparently believes that in his run for the Presidency, the opinions of unnamed foreign leaders should influence the American people's decision at the polls this year, because his policies, similarly unarticulated, would be more popular with those leaders. Adding to the controversy, Senator Kerry has refused to name names. Now, here we have a serious candidate for the office of the President of the United States, who come January, 2005, will have swear to faithfully execute the office, and to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the federal Constitution of the United States, but the names of foreign leaders who he meets with are not any of our business, but how those leaders feel about U.S. policies at present are. This is most damaging to Senator Kerry because it fully displays his globalist agenda, and demonstrates how he would formulate policy, not based on the will of the people of his own country, but based on the relative popularity such decisions would have with foreign governments. According to Senator Kerry, when foreign leaders demand a new policy, apparently he will be ready at the helm to deliver, according to their wishes. His apparent willingness to defer decisions to foreign leaders should not surprise us, though, since they confirm other statements he has made..."

"Article IV, Section 1 of the federal Constitution clearly states that: "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." Under the "effect" clause, the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 is constitutional because of the power Congress retains under this section, to prescribe "what 'effect' one State's acts, records, and judicial proceedings shall have in another State." (Quoted from Summary and Analysis: Defense of Marriage Act at http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm ...) Using this power was necessary to prevent one State from defining marriage for the several States, however it does not prevent one State from defining marriage in the way it sees fit for its own sovereign borders. This section in the Constitution itself gives Congress the ability to work out potential disputes between each of the States, as with the Defense of Marriage Act, and does not give one State the power to define marriage law for all fifty States, anymore than it gives one State the power to define how elections are to be carried out in the several States. What it does give is to Congress, which is the power to prescribe the manner in which one State's legal acts, records, and judicial proceedings are to be recognized in the several States. What the Defense of Marriage Act does is protect State's rights, pure and simple..."

"...The ability and power of both the judicial and legislative branches to determine what those rights are is fundamental to defending those rights and in ensuring the equal protection of rights under the law. What is less clear is by what procedure should the courts determine what all the rights retained by the people actually are. Congress retains the power to make all laws that shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers enumerated under the Constitution. Therefore, justices should interpret what the law specifically states about judicial review and the proper process in the courtroom for determining what additional rights are protected by the ninth amendment, since Congress also has the power to enumerate certain rights, and also since it is clear the “interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts”, as was stated by Alexander Hamilton. Such a process defined by Congress for the judicial branch would be necessary and proper, since it is up to the courts to determine the constitutionality of acts of legislation. Therefore, it must be enumerated and defined by the law, and interpreted with an original understanding as to the intent of the law. Congress should debate and pass laws governing the enumeration of additional rights as it takes place in the judicial branch."

"...The sad truth is that those who are attempting to prove that America was "misled" are distorting the facts, and have more of an interest in reacquiring political power than in finding the missing stockpiles of WMD which we know Iraq had possessed. Yes, the world was misled... by the brutal and deceitful regime of Hussein's Iraq. What's worse is that these partisans are blindly attempting, some unwittingly, to revise history, and are willing to serve as apologists for a genocidal tyrant simply so they can play "Gotcha!" with national security. Saddam Hussein was a danger with the weapons, and he was a danger with the ability and intent to make the weapons. He was still in violation of the UN Resolutions, and Congress authorized the President, in an overwhelmingly bipartisan effort, to enforce those all-too-often-ignored Resolutions. The President made the right decision, and we must, in our efforts, fully account for the still-missing stockpiles for the safety and security of all. We should not be so ready to close the book on the extent of Iraq's network of denial and deception, and we should never be willing to leave the peace and security of an entire region up to the arbitrary dictates of one man. The efforts to disarm Hussein's Iraq were justified, and they deserve our collective support, as do the brave men and women in uniform who are risking their lives for you."

"...In today's post-9/11 world, a threat need not be imminent in order for it to be immediate, or present. The classic concept is an unnecessary restriction which does not apply to covert actions, such as those taken by terrorists, which are unconventional and are not visible until it is too late. The concept of immediacy applies in this case not to the visible preparation of armies or navies for invasion, as in the classic imminent threat concept, but rather to the present development of WMD capabilities, which when coupled with a state's ability and intent to finance terrorism in one's own region, is inconsistent with the norms of international of peace and security. In adapting the concept of imminent threat, a debate needs to be had with the sufficiency of waiting for a threat to become imminent before action is justifiable. In addressing present dangers to the peace, sharing a border with the enemy is not a prerequisite for military action. Even when threats have not been imminent, the U.S. has in the past taken action, justifiably so, in order to preempt threats and to prevent their further emergence..."