Peace Comes Only When Men Lead Lives of Merry Christmas

Jesus replied, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength; The second is this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these."
-- Mark 12: 29-31

Every year, near Christmas, atheists sue across the country to force removal of creche displays from the public lands. But what if the atheists are right? What if there is no God? How does one love a God who doesn't exit?

And if there is no God, how can there be divine law? (By definition, divine law is the law made by God and revealed to mankind). If God has never existed, how could he make law? And if there is no God, how could Moses, Christ, Mohammed have spoken in God's name? Were they charlatans? Delusional?

Then, too, if there is no God, then the command that we "love our neighbor as ourselves," cannot come from God. If there is no God, if there is good, it must be good for reason other than God having declared it so. Without a God, how can there be objective right and wrong? But, if there is no God, no divine lawgiver, and no divine law, what's left?

Who gets to specify what is good in His place? Imagine the dire consequences for society. Social justice -- premised on the belief that God has mandated that "we love our neighbors as ourselves" -- loses its divine underpinning. What is good, then, is determined only by one or more human beings.

Then too, associated with the concept of divine law is the corollary that God, in the after-life, rewards those who obey his laws, and punishes those who disregard them. If God doesn't exist, he can do neither (even if there is some sort of after-life)! Without an after-life, and rewards and punishments in that after-life, justice must take place before death -- or not at all. The gangster who murders and escapes prosecution during his lifetime, beats the rap -- if after death there is no God to punish his wrongdoings in the after-life.

In the Gospel of Luke (ch. 16) we find the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man.

"There was a rich man who ... dined sumptuously each day. And lying at his door was a poor man named Lazarus ... When the poor man died, he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man also died ... and from the netherworld, where he was in torment, he ... cried out, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me. ... I am suffering torment in these flames.'
Abraham replied, 'My child, remember that you received what was good during your lifetime while Lazarus likewise received what was bad; but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented.'"

Without God, without divine law, and without reward and punishment in the after-life, the Lazarus story is just an uplifting tale.

Of course, apart from divine law, there are the "laws" of nature and of physics. But they do not speak to morality or ethics.

They say nothing about that "thou shall not murder, steal or commit adultery." Further, if there is no God, even the Ten Commandments are of human origin.

The stark fact is that if God doesn't exit, then all laws have their origin in human invention, superstition or in naked power.

History has shown that the lawmaker is most often the person (or cabal) that has the army or the mob at his back. That power can reside in a religious leader, a king, nobles, the people or a portion of the people -- whoever has and is willing to use power. At that point, as there is no God, the emperor, the dictator, majority or the mob gets to say what is good, evil, fair, unfair, just, or unjust. And of course, as we see so vividly in the middle east, might appears to make right.

If the atheists are right, might makes right, and the ends justify the means. And even if they are wrong, if all men operate as if there is no God, the world becomes a jungle where the ruthless rule. It will be a world that even the most decent of atheists dread.

Religion, given its human component, comes with faults. And scientists tell us that God's existence cannot be proved empirically. But I choose to believe He exists.

I think the world is a better place because so many others also believe He exists, and, more importantly, live out their beliefs. If this Christmas, there is no "peace (on earth) to men of good will," it will not be the fault of those who love God and love their neighbors as they do themselves. You cannot love your neighbor as yourself and murder him, steal from him, or sell his children cocaine.

Peace comes only when men live lives of "Merry Christmas!" That is the benign message of the creche.

Posted Online: : Posted Online: Dec. 20, 2012, 10:54 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

Posted Online: Dec. 20, 2012, 10:54 am

x

If the Presidents Wants to Run off the Cliff, then Let Him

If  the Presidents Wants to Run off the Cliff, then Let Him

We are fast approaching the "fiscal cliff."

The president is playing hardball.

It is time for the House to play hardball, and to save the country. Here is the simple advice I would give Congressman Paul Ryan:

Dear Congressman Ryan:

Here is my plan to save the country by ending deficit spending.

1. Let President Obama "drive the bus" off the "fiscal cliff."
2. Then pass separate appropriation bills for only the things the House wants; e.g.:

a. A Social Security appropriation;
b. A Medicare appropriation;
c. A military appropriation;
d. An FBI appropriation.
e. Etc.

3. Make no appropriation for anything the House opposes. Agree to nothing else.

4. Force the president to accept or veto the things the country really needs.

The principle involved is simple. It can be found in the U.S. Constitution.

Article I, provides, "No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law." And before any bill (appropriation or otherwise) can become law, it must be passed by both the House and Senate. "

The principle, therefore, is that the president and the Senate cannot spend one penny, unless the House agrees to appropriate the money.

If the House decides to take control of the "purse" as it did in the early days of the republic, and as it did after the Civil War, all the president's grand schemes are checkmated. There may be adverse consequences. But the deficit problem won't be one of them. Nor will deficit spending.

And until we eliminate trillion dollar deficits, all other fixes are phony.

Posted Online: : Dec. 11, 2012, 1:41 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

What are Privileges and Immunities of U.S. Citizens?

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." -- 14th Amendment, U. S. Constitution

U.S. Supreme Court justices Felix Frankfurter and Hugo Black fought a running battle from 1947-1962 over the meaning of "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" provision of the 14th Amendment.

The battle lines were first drawn in the 1947 case of Adamson v. California. Adamson had been convicted of murder, and sentenced to death. He did not testify at trial. The prosecutor, as permitted by California law, commented on his failure to testify.

On appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court, Adamson argued "that the provision of the Fifth Amendment that no person 'shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself' is a (1) fundamental national privilege or immunity protected against state abridgment by the Fourteenth Amendment or (2) a privilege or immunity secured, through the Fourteenth Amendment, against deprivation by state action because it is a personal right, enumerated in the federal Bill of Rights."

California argued that that portion of the Fifth Amendment had no application to the states. The Supreme Court agreed.

Justice Black, in a strong dissent, argued that the 14th Amendment was intended to make the entire Bill of Rights applicable to the states. He believed they were the "privileges and immunities" in question.

"The first 10 amendments were ... adopted largely because of fear that (Federal) Government might unduly interfere with prized individual liberties.
"The people ... demanded a Bill of Rights written into their Constitution. The amendments embodying the Bill of Rights were intended to curb all branches of the Federal Government in the fields touched by the amendments-Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.

"The Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments were pointedly aimed at confining exercise of power by courts and judges. .... (Y)ears of arbitrary court action sprang largely from the past use of courts in the imposition of criminal punishments to suppress speech, press, and religion. Hence the constitutional limitations of courts' powers were, in the view of the Founders, essential supplements to the First Amendment, which was itself designed to protect the widest scope for all people to believe and to express the most divergent political, religious, and other views.

"But ...(i)n 1833, Barron v. Baltimore, ... this Court ... specifically held inapplicable to the states that provision of the Fifth Amendment which declares: 'nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.' ... (T)he Court there said that it could not hold that the first eight amendments applied to the states. This was the controlling constitutional rule when the Fourteenth Amendment was proposed in 1866.

"My study of the historical events that culminated in the Fourteenth Amendment, and the expressions of those who sponsored and favored, as well as those who opposed its submission and passage, persuades me that one of the chief objects ... was to make the Bill of Rights, applicable to the states. With full knowledge of the import of the Barron decision, the framers and backers of the Fourteenth Amendment proclaimed its purpose to be to overturn the constitutional rule that case had announced."

In a concurring opinion, Justice Frankfurter, took dead aim at his views:

"(Since) the incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment into the Constitution ... a period of 70 years, the scope of that Amendment was passed upon by 43 judges. ... (O)nly one ... (The first Justice Harlan, now considered one of the Court's greatest members) ever indicated the belief that the Fourteenth Amendment was a shorthand summary of the first eight Amendments ... as restrictions upon the powers of the States. Among these (the other 42) judges were not only those who would have to be included among the greatest in the history of the Court ... judges who were alert in safeguarding ... the interests of liberty and human dignity through law. But they were also ... mindful of ... of our federal system ... and therefore ... regardful of... the authority that was left to the States even after the Civil War. (T)hey did not find that the Fourteenth Amendment ... fastened upon the States procedural arrangements which, ... only those who are 'narrow or provincial' would deem essential to 'a fair and enlightened system of justice.' Palko v. Connecticut."

In subsequent cases, Justice Frankfurter took the approach that where state action "shocks the conscience, it violates due process," and no further provision of the Bill of Rights need be cited.

Frankfurter's test shocked Justice Black's conscience. Black argued that Frankfurter's test was "too vague," and substituted judicial whim for written constitution. Black also took dead aim at the danger to constitutional government inherent in Frankfurter's formula:

"Since Marbury v. Madison, was decided, the practice has been firmly established ... that courts can strike down legislative enactments which violate the Constitution. This process ... involves interpretation ... [I]nterpretation obviously may result in contraction or extension of the original purpose of a constitutional provision thereby affecting policy. But to pass upon the constitutionality of statutes by looking to the particular standards enumerated in the Bill of Rights ... is one thing; to invalidate statutes because of application of 'natural law' ... undefined by the Constitution is another. 'In the one instance, courts proceeding within clearly marked constitutional boundaries; in the other they roam at will in the limitless area of their own beliefs as to reasonableness and actually select policies, a responsibility which the Constitution entrusts to the legislative representatives of the people."

My next op-ed will deal with the collateral damage caused by Frankfurter's "selective incorporation" process.

Posted Online: : Dec. 05, 2012, 11:40 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea


Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

What Was the Author of 14th Amendment's Intent?

 

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." -- 14th Amendment, U. S. Constitution

I have written that I believe our Constitution and Bill of Rights must be construed consistently with the intent of the men who wrote them -- that is, according to their "original intent."

The Constitution became the Supreme Law of the land on June 21, 1788. In 1791, the first 10 Amendments (known as the Bill of Rights) were adopted.

But for those unfamiliar with Constitutional history, the 14th Amendment wasn't adopted until 1868, three years after the Civil War ended. So how should it be construed? Consistently with the intent of the men who drafted it in 1868, and with the intent of the Congress that approved it and sent it on to the states for ratification. But who were the drafters?

George Washington, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and others who drafted the Constitution had long passed from the scene, and had no input in the 14th Amendment. It was largely drafted by one congressman, a man whose name will probably be unknown to any person who reads this piece: Congressman John Armor Bingham, R-Ohio.

In the words of the Supreme Justice Hugo Black, "Congressman Bingham may, without extravagance, be called the Madison of the first section of the 14th Amendment."

To understand Black's praise, it is necessary to understand that the Bill of Rights was written to limit the powers of the federal government, not state governments. The Bill of Rights, from 1791 until 1868, afforded nobody any protection against actions by a state. Indeed, in 1833, Barron v. Baltimore, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for the court, specifically held inapplicable to the states the provision of the Fifth Amendment which declares: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The court said that it could not hold that the first eight amendments applied to the states.This was the controlling constitutional precedent when the 14th Amendment was proposed in 1866.

Here is how Rep. Bingham, who served on the Joint Committee for Reconstruction, explained his work product to Congress:

"I have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of the country. I have advocated here an amendment which would arm Congress with the power to compel obedience to the oath (to support the Constitution), and punish all violations by State officers of the bill of rights, but leaving those officers to discharge the duties enjoined upon them as citizens of the United States by that oath and by that Constitution ...

"I had read -- and that is what induced me to attempt to impose by constitutional amendments new limitations upon the power of the States -- the great decision of Marshall in Barron v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, wherein the Chief Justice said, in obedience to his official oath and the Constitution as it then was: 'The amendments (to the Constitution) contained no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments.' The Chief Justice also said, 'Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the power of the State governments they would have imitated the framers of the original Constitution, and have expressed that intention.'

"Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States. ...

"These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment."

Any fair reading of Rep. Bingham's remarks boils down to this: Chief Justice Marshall had ruled in 1833 in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights (specifically the first eight amendments thereof) had no application to the states. Congressman Bingham concluded that the rights guaranteed by the first eight amendments were the "privileges and immunities" of citizens of the United States.

He wrote the 14th Amendment to guaranty those "privileges and immunities" against state action, and to make the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to the federal government.

He sought to create no new rights. He merely advocated here an amendment which would arm Congress with the power to compel obedience to the oath to support the Constitution, and punish all violations by state officers of the Bill of Rights.

More of Congressman's Bingham's remarks, can be found in the appendix to Justice Black's dissenting opinion in Adamson v. California, where the majority construed the 14th Amendment according to its own "more enlightened" intent.

Only Justices Black and Douglas thought it should be construed consistently with the way the author of the amendment explained his proposed amendment to Congress.



Posted Online: : Nov. 23, 2012, 6:10 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea


Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

Abortion Is More than Just Another Social Justice Issue

I have often wondered how the German people continued to support Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party, as they came to learn the things he was doing.

I can only suppose their justification went something like this:

"Since Adolf Hitler took office, German unemployment has fallen substantially -- from six million in 1932 to one million in 1936. In addition, his government has embarked upon a massive infrastructure improvement program. If you take time to look, you will see the dams, autobahns, railroads and other public works constructed by this administration.

"The Fuhrer has instituted an array of social welfare programs designed to provide employment for every German citizen, and has instituted programs for social justice to insure a minimal standard of living for every German citizen. Before the Fuhrer, the unfortunate looked only to the charity of the individual; with his Winter Relief campaigns, the resources of the state are being put to use in feeding the poor and clothing the needy.

"The extermination of Jews is not the only important issue. To ignore the good -- the social justice -- that Hitler has done, and focus only on the extermination of a few Jews, and perhaps a few, a hand-full of mentally defectives, is to ignore Christ's social justice teachings that we care for the least of our brothers."

Add to the argument that another German might make, "That the churches should unequivocally denounce Hitler for what he is doing to the Jews, and the Gypsies, and the mentally handicapped."
I imagine that the rejoinder went like this:

"We do not want to be a nation of sheep who do not think for ourselves and weigh all the pros and cons of the various issues. I strongly feel that one needs to decide for oneself what issues are most important and for whom to vote. We certainly don't need the churches telling us how to think and how to vote."

Now substitute the phrase "abortion of fetuses" for the phrase "extermination of Jews," change the venue from Germany to the U.S, and fast-forward from the mid-30s to 2012.

What Hitler did to the Jews was "murder." The Jews were "human beings." Medically and scientifically, they were human beings.

They were as human as any other German. Only their religion was different. But even when they converted to the Christian faith, it made no difference. They were legislatively transformed into "sub-humans," stripped of the citizenship and rights, and exterminated.

Similarly, the human fetus developing within the womb is unquestionably -- from a medical and scientific perspective -- a "human being." And even if you deny that, if it is allowed to come to term, it will unquestionably emerge from the womb as a human being. It is only by deeming fetus in the womb "sub-human" that abortion (without serious justification) can be anything other than a killing which is "in the nature of" murder. (Note, that I am talking only about abortion, not contraception.)

My point is very simple. Human beings with well-(in)formed consciences cannot ignore the extermination or murder of their neighbors, whether they are Jews, Gypsies, the mentally impaired. From a medical and scientific standpoint all were humans, even if the mentally impaired were not "good poster children for the master race." And only those who ignored what their eyes should have seen, could argue otherwise.

Nor can human beings with well-(in)formed consciences ignore what abortion really is.

From a medical and scientific standpoint it is the killing of a human baby. That baby may not be fully developed. That may take nine months. But if not killed, it will emerge as a human, as fully human as you or me. And only those who ignore what their eyes should see, can argue otherwise.

The argument that the fetus is "no more than a part of its mother" is specious; the fetus contains the DNA of not only its mother, but its father as well. The mother's parts do not.

There is something askew with the argument that killing (or enslaving) other humans beings is just another "important" (social) issue. The argument that the government is doing "social justice" in providing the elderly with a pension, the poor with food stamps, and the unemployed with unemployment benefits, and that those things outweigh the extermination of Jews, Gypsies and the mentally impaired, or the enslavement of blacks, or the killing of children (fetuses) turns the notion of "social justice" on its head. Where was Hitler's "social justice" for the Jews when he "redistributed their wealth," sent them to concentration camps, and murdered them?

The reprehensible fact is that over 50 million fetuses have been methodically killed, and half our country doesn't care. But when somebody abuses a dog or kills a cat, the public is outraged. How many babies have to be aborted before the churches cry out?

Or must we look to Hollywood and politicians for our moral guidance?

Posted Online: :   Nov. 07, 2012, 3:02 pm   - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

Why This JFK Democrat Won't Vote for President Obama

I have always considered myself a John F. Kennedy Democrat.
I sat glued to the radio when he tried to win the vice presidential nomination. I rooted for him as he debated Richard M. Nixon on TV.
It is because I remain a Kennedy Democrat that I won't vote for President Obama. I can't for three main reasons.
First, I think the president is dead wrong on how to raises revenues and revive the economy. I also believe that Gov. Mitt Romney, who is following JFK's approach, is right. Here is what JFK said. (As you read it, recall Joe Biden's derisive remarks to Paul Ryan: "Now, you're Jack Kennedy").
"There are a number of ways by which the federal government can meet its responsibilities to aid economic growth.
"But the most direct and significant kind of federal action aiding economic growth is to make possible an increase in private consumption and investment demand -- to cut the fetters which hold back private spending.
"It could ... be done by increasing federal expenditures more rapidly than necessary, but such a course would soon demoralize both the government and our economy.
"The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system -- and this administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963.
"In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the federal government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.
"(A)ny new tax legislation enacted ... should meet the following three tests:
"First, it should reduce the net taxes by a sufficiently early date and a sufficiently large amount to do the job required.
"Second, the new tax bill must increase private consumption, as well as investment... When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid-off, investment increases, and profits are high.
"Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital.
"For all these reasons, next year's tax bill should reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes: for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital.
"Third, the new tax bill should improve both the equity and the simplicity of our present tax system. This means the enactment of long-needed tax reforms, a broadening of the tax base, and the elimination or modification of many special tax privileges.
"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget -- just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.
"In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. ... This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment.
"The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.
"I repeat: our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and a budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits: (a) a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy, or (b) a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and achieve, I believe -- and I believe this can be done -- a budget surplus. The first type of deficit is a sign of waste and weakness; the second reflects an investment in the future." -- JFK, address to the Economic Club, Dec. 12, 1962.
The second reason, I can't vote for President Obama is because he doesn't tell the truth, and sends his surrogates to lie for him. It began with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers and continues with every unemployment report that excludes those who have given up seeking employment, as well as the series of lies about Libya, etc. I no longer have any confidence that anything he tells the American people will be the truth. Mr. Obama is the Democratic equivalent of the Richard M. Nixon.
Finally, I am tired of this president's broken promises to fix important things: Medicare and Social Security. I am tired of class warfare, and of his blaming everybody but himself. And I will not accept as the "new norm" that America grows poorer and weaker, while China gets richer and more powerful with our money.
Jack Kennedy wouldn't, and I won't.
(As a result of the JFK/LBJ tax cuts, unemployment fell from 5.2 percent in 1964 to 3.8 percent in 1966. And taxes paid by individuals rose from about $45 billion in 1964 to $60 billion in 1967.)

Posted Online: :   Nov. 1, 2012 at 2:22 p. m.   - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

Time to Draw "Red Line" in Iran to Avoid a More Horrible War?

Gadaffi of Libya, no friend, had to go; he was threatening to kill his own people. Assad of Syria, no friend, kills in excess 30,000 of this own people; he gets to stay. Mubarak of Egypt, a friend, had to go; he was an undemocratic dictator.

The nicest thing anybody can say about the Obama/Clinton Mideast policy is that it is utterly incoherent. Consider the administration's drawing of "red lines."

The president has drawn a red line in reference to Syria's chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. Crossing that line will result in "enormous consequences" for Syria. But what about Iran?

On Aug. 21, President Obama said, "That's an issue that doesn't not just concern Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us. We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling in the hand of the wrong people. We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a 'red line' for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemicals moving around or being utilized. ... We have put together a range of contingency plans. We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the area that that's a red line for us. And that there would be enormous consequences if we starts seeing movement on the chemical weapons or the use of chemical weapons."

At the same time, the president cannot bring himself to draw a red line in reference to Iran's efforts to build a nuclear weapon of mass destruction. Compare the red line language, and the "enormous consequences" language concerning Syria with what the president has said about Iran and nuclear weapons.

"(The Iranian government) ... props up a dictator in Damascus, and supports terrorist groups abroad. ... it has failed to take the opportunity to demonstrate that its nuclear program is peaceful, and to meet its obligations to the United Nations.

"Let me be clear: America wants to resolve this issue through diplomacy, and we believe that there is still time ... But that time is not unlimited. We respect the right of nations to access peaceful nuclear power, but one of the purposes of the United Nations is to see that we harness that power for peace. Make no mistake: a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained. It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy. It risks triggering a nuclear-arms race in the region, and the unraveling of the non-proliferation treaty. That is why a coalition of countries is holding the Iranian government accountable. And that is why the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

It is sound policy for the U.S. to "do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." But it draws no red line short of Iran actually acquiring a nuclear bomb. Just how far will Iran be permitted to go before the "U.S. visits "enormous consequence?"

Do we know? Does Israel know? Does the world know? Do the Iranians know?
Why not draw the red line at a point where if we must strike Iran they will not have the bomb to retaliate?
The latest round of anti-American riot, should make it patently clear that the Mideast is a tender box. Islamist fanatics are coming to power throughout the region.

But what may not be clear is that today's Middle Eastern countries have weapons with more fire power than France, Britain or America had at the time they entered WWII. Already Syria and Iran have biological and chemical WMDs. Israel has the bomb. All have powerful jet fighters. We are on the verge of a Middle East war that could dwarf WWII.

Iran has threatened to eliminate Israel repeatedly. Syria, with its chemical and biological weapons, sits unstably across the the border from Israel.
Iran has supplied Hezbollah and Hamas with rockets to fire into Israel from Lebanon. Egypt is now in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. Libya is in chaos. Iraq is heading there. So is it hard to understand why Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has drawn his own red line?

In the 1930s, France was the strongest military power in Europe. Germany was disarmed. Treaties favored France. There were many places where France could have drawn the red line before Hitler's Germany could become al threat to France. When Hitler breached the Versailles Treaty and reinstituted conscription, France could have crushed the tiny German "army" and shipped Herr Hitler to Devil's Island at relatively no cost. When Hitler reoccupied the Rhineland, France could have smashed the then insignificant German "army," and hung Hitler.

Then, too, France could have mobilized with England and Russia to prevent Hitler from dismembering Czechoslovakia. Instead, she vacillated, allowed Germany to rearm and crush France in six weeks.

The president was right to warn the world that "a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained." He was right when he said, "It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy."

And he's right when he says, "It risks triggering a nuclear-arms race in the region, and the unraveling of the non-proliferation treaty." But he is wrong to allow Iran to refuse nuclear inspections without suffering "enormous consequences." While we vacillate, Iran may secretly finish its bomb, and then it may be too late to avoid a much more horrible war.

Posted Online: :   Oct. 25, 2012, 3:19 pm  - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea