“ORENDT-Cir-Flg Image”

Government is the agency that holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force. In a free society the government uses force only in retaliation, against those who start its use. This involves three main functions: the police; the military; and the courts (which provide the means of resolving disputes peacefully, according to objective rules).

From this we can conclude that we are justified in responding to aggression even if we are not the victims of it. It may be debatable that Saddam has initiated force against the USA. However, there is no doubt that he initiates force against his own people and Israel.

The following refers to Natural Law, which I will attempt to summarize.

Albert is walking down a lonely road and decides to take a rest. He lays down under some bushes a little ways from the road and rests.

Then Mallory approaches from the east and Bob from the west and intersect near Albert. Albert can observe Mallory and Bob, however Albert remains unobserved by both Bob and Mallory. Mallory attempts to rob Bob. Bob resists. At this point there is a split into two scenarios.

*1. Mallory gains the upper hand in the struggle and kills Bob and then robs him.

*2. Bob gains the upper hand and kills Mallory.

Later, Albert meets either Bob or Mallory in town. Should Albert fear Mallory? Natural law states the intuitive answer is yes. Should Albert fear Bob? Natural law states the intuitive answer is no.

This illustration applies independent of any government or even the existence of government. In fact it applies to a caveman society. It illustrates the inalienable right to life and consequentially property.

Not all cultures are equal

Despite what you might hear from the left wing or the National Education Association (NEA). Western (“white”) cultures are markedly superior to Third World cultures. This has nothing to do with how the people dress, or the kinds of fine and performing arts they create. It has everything to do with Natural Law, the unwritten laws that govern all human behavior.

Natural Law is a universal set of principles that governs all human behavior: Our effectiveness is predicated upon certain inviolate principles, natural laws in the human dimension that are just as real, just as unchanging, as laws such as gravity are in the physical dimension. These principles are woven into the fabric of every civilized society and constitute the roots of every family and institution that has endured and prospered.

Principles are not invented by us or by society; they are the laws of the universe that pertain to human relationships and human organizations. They are part of the human condition, consciousness, and conscience.

The lesson of history is that to the degree people and civilizations have operated in harmony with correct principles, they have prospered. At the root of societal declines are foolish practices that represent violations of correct principles. How many economic disasters, intercultural conflicts, political revolutions, and civil wars could have been avoided had there been greater social commitment to correct principles? (Stephen Covey, Principle-Centered Leadership, 1991, 18-19)

The Declaration of Independence applies Natural Law to human rights: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution, which are the ultimate foundation of our country’s laws, rests on Natural Law. The Bill of Rights includes:

Freedom of nonviolent expression (freedom of speech)

Freedom of religion (as opposed to putting Christian missionaries on trial for their lives as the Taliban did, or prescribing execution for converts as is done in Saudi Arabia and the Sudan)

The right to keep and bear arms for defense of family, self, and country

Freedom from unreasonable (without a warrant or probable cause) search

The right to not give evidence against oneself

The right to trial by a jury of one’s peers (as opposed to a king, or a religious Sharia court)

Freedom from cruel and unusual punishments (like amputation of limbs, stoning, and crucifixion, all of which are practiced in the Arab world)

Freedom from involuntary servitude (slavery, which is still practiced in the Arab world, e.g. in the Sudan)

Natural Law is so important that Asian Indians deify it as Dharma, “The Right Way.” It’s Tao (the Way) to Chinese, and Do (same as Tao) in Japan. China, a Third World dictatorship, is ruled by tyrants as opposed to Taoists or Confucian scholars. Hindus say that Dharma protects those who uphold it and destroys those who go against it. In fact, the definition of Natural Law allows an objective definition of good and evil. Whatever supports and upholds Natural Law is good, whatever goes against it is evil.

Any culture that upholds Natural Law and protects natural human rights to life, liberty, and property can be considered (to use Kipling’s term) “white” no matter what the actual race of that culture’s practitioner happens to be. Any culture that defies Natural Law and undermines natural human rights is dysfunctional, inferior, and ”’evil.”’

“Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the ”’right”’ to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the ”’right”’ to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, ”’not”’ of respect for the nonexistent ‘rights’ of gang rulers.” — Ayn Rand [written before the collapse of the Soviet Union]

It is the moral right (if not the duty, since putting this into practice requires soldiers to risk their lives) of Western Civilization to destroy and replace any evil culture it encounters, i.e. any culture that goes against Natural Law. This does not mean that the culture’s practitioners (at least not the common people) should be harmed. They are victims of the evil culture. In 2001, for example, Afghans pointed out quite rightly that most of them were not terrorists. They were instead concentration camp inmates, and the Taliban were the guards. Examples:

Destruction of the Mainland Chinese government would give ordinary Chinese their natural human rights to worship (or not) as they choose, to express themselves nonviolently without the risk of being massacred as they were in Tiananmen Square, and freedom from compulsory abortions.

Deposing or destroying the Saudi Royal Family would emancipate half the country’s population (the women) and give every ordinary Saudi his or her natural human right of freedom of religion. It also would free every ordinary Saudi from the whims and caprices of religious Sharia courts, and replace these with rule of law.

Overthrowing the Sudan’s government would eliminate slavery of Black Christians, as well as religious persecutions.

Deposing Saddam Hussein would benefit 90 percent (or more) of the Iraqi people.

The logic of the above argument looks rock solid to me. However, I may have missed something.

Did I?

”’To see Congressman Neil Abercrombie’s original article, see:”’ “Considering Iraq”

“John Orendt Bio Sidebar”

“ORENDT-Cir-Flg Image”

Government is the agency that holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force. In a free society the government uses force only in retaliation, against those who start its use. This involves three main functions: the police; the military; and the courts (which provide the means of resolving disputes peacefully, according to objective rules).

From this we can conclude that we are justified in responding to aggression even if we are not the victims of it. It may be debatable that Saddam has initiated force against the USA. However, there is no doubt that he initiates force against his own people and Israel.

The following refers to Natural Law, which I will attempt to summarize.

Albert is walking down a lonely road and decides to take a rest. He lays down under some bushes a little ways from the road and rests.

Then Mallory approaches from the east and Bob from the west and intersect near Albert. Albert can observe Mallory and Bob, however Albert remains unobserved by both Bob and Mallory. Mallory attempts to rob Bob. Bob resists. At this point there is a split into two scenarios.

*1. Mallory gains the upper hand in the struggle and kills Bob and then robs him.

*2. Bob gains the upper hand and kills Mallory.

Later, Albert meets either Bob or Mallory in town. Should Albert fear Mallory? Natural law states the intuitive answer is yes. Should Albert fear Bob? Natural law states the intuitive answer is no.

This illustration applies independent of any government or even the existence of government. In fact it applies to a caveman society. It illustrates the inalienable right to life and consequentially property.

Not all cultures are equal

Despite what you might hear from the left wing or the National Education Association (NEA). Western (“white”) cultures are markedly superior to Third World cultures. This has nothing to do with how the people dress, or the kinds of fine and performing arts they create. It has everything to do with Natural Law, the unwritten laws that govern all human behavior.

Natural Law is a universal set of principles that governs all human behavior: Our effectiveness is predicated upon certain inviolate principles, natural laws in the human dimension that are just as real, just as unchanging, as laws such as gravity are in the physical dimension. These principles are woven into the fabric of every civilized society and constitute the roots of every family and institution that has endured and prospered.

Principles are not invented by us or by society; they are the laws of the universe that pertain to human relationships and human organizations. They are part of the human condition, consciousness, and conscience.

The lesson of history is that to the degree people and civilizations have operated in harmony with correct principles, they have prospered. At the root of societal declines are foolish practices that represent violations of correct principles. How many economic disasters, intercultural conflicts, political revolutions, and civil wars could have been avoided had there been greater social commitment to correct principles? (Stephen Covey, Principle-Centered Leadership, 1991, 18-19)

The Declaration of Independence applies Natural Law to human rights: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution, which are the ultimate foundation of our country’s laws, rests on Natural Law. The Bill of Rights includes:

Freedom of nonviolent expression (freedom of speech)

Freedom of religion (as opposed to putting Christian missionaries on trial for their lives as the Taliban did, or prescribing execution for converts as is done in Saudi Arabia and the Sudan)

The right to keep and bear arms for defense of family, self, and country

Freedom from unreasonable (without a warrant or probable cause) search

The right to not give evidence against oneself

The right to trial by a jury of one’s peers (as opposed to a king, or a religious Sharia court)

Freedom from cruel and unusual punishments (like amputation of limbs, stoning, and crucifixion, all of which are practiced in the Arab world)

Freedom from involuntary servitude (slavery, which is still practiced in the Arab world, e.g. in the Sudan)

Natural Law is so important that Asian Indians deify it as Dharma, “The Right Way.” It’s Tao (the Way) to Chinese, and Do (same as Tao) in Japan. China, a Third World dictatorship, is ruled by tyrants as opposed to Taoists or Confucian scholars. Hindus say that Dharma protects those who uphold it and destroys those who go against it. In fact, the definition of Natural Law allows an objective definition of good and evil. Whatever supports and upholds Natural Law is good, whatever goes against it is evil.

Any culture that upholds Natural Law and protects natural human rights to life, liberty, and property can be considered (to use Kipling’s term) “white” no matter what the actual race of that culture’s practitioner happens to be. Any culture that defies Natural Law and undermines natural human rights is dysfunctional, inferior, and ”’evil.”’

“Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the ”’right”’ to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the ”’right”’ to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, ”’not”’ of respect for the nonexistent ‘rights’ of gang rulers.” — Ayn Rand [written before the collapse of the Soviet Union]

It is the moral right (if not the duty, since putting this into practice requires soldiers to risk their lives) of Western Civilization to destroy and replace any evil culture it encounters, i.e. any culture that goes against Natural Law. This does not mean that the culture’s practitioners (at least not the common people) should be harmed. They are victims of the evil culture. In 2001, for example, Afghans pointed out quite rightly that most of them were not terrorists. They were instead concentration camp inmates, and the Taliban were the guards. Examples:

Destruction of the Mainland Chinese government would give ordinary Chinese their natural human rights to worship (or not) as they choose, to express themselves nonviolently without the risk of being massacred as they were in Tiananmen Square, and freedom from compulsory abortions.

Deposing or destroying the Saudi Royal Family would emancipate half the country’s population (the women) and give every ordinary Saudi his or her natural human right of freedom of religion. It also would free every ordinary Saudi from the whims and caprices of religious Sharia courts, and replace these with rule of law.

Overthrowing the Sudan’s government would eliminate slavery of Black Christians, as well as religious persecutions.

Deposing Saddam Hussein would benefit 90 percent (or more) of the Iraqi people.

The logic of the above argument looks rock solid to me. However, I may have missed something.

Did I?

”’To see Congressman Neil Abercrombie’s original article, see:”’ “Considering Iraq”

“John Orendt Bio Sidebar”

There is sugar in your candies, cookies, drinks, cereal and most other foods you eat. It is even in some toothpaste and medicine. If the United States would support a free market, then the prices of imported goods such as sugar would go way down. The free market means buying or trading goods with whomever you want, without regulations or taxes on your goods. I am going to show you how the free market would help us, using the example of sugar.

The price of sugar in the United States is about 22 cents per pound, but in the Philippines it is only about 7 cents per pound. That is almost one third of the price of sugar in America! Suppose, you have 3 dollars, and you want to buy some sugar. Do you want to spend 3 dollars or 1 dollar for the same amount? If you spend the 1 dollar, you have 2 dollars left over to buy other things.

The only problem is, the government won’t allow it. It is a crime to buy more than a regulated amount from outside the United States. You can be sent to jail and called a smuggler if you bring in too much sugar. Some people say that if we are allowed to buy sugar from outside the United States, then all of the money will leave America. But actually, if we spent the 1 dollar out of the United States, then we would have 2 dollars to spend on other American goods.

Yes, I know that the precious 1 dollar left the country, but is that really so bad? The government sends billions of dollars in foreign aid, to countries like the Philippines, every year. If the Filipinos could earn a dollar selling sugar to us, then maybe they wouldn’t need a dollar of our aid. This could help end poverty in the Philippines. In any case, they could spend that dollar back to America, to buy farming tools to help them develop.

Did you know that some farmers, who can’t profit by selling legal products, such as sugar, switch to selling illegal products, such as drugs. If those farmers could profit from legal products, they might not risk their lives in the drug industry.

Why does the government want the prices so high? Well, I don’t know, but stopping us from buying from other countries is not enough. They even pay farmers to destroy crops!

All of this hurts us, the consumers who have to pay higher prices, and us, the taxpayers, who have to pay higher taxes. I plan to write letters to our lawmakers and urge them to change this harmful policy. Please help me.

”’Kenli Schoolland is a 7th grade student at Punahou School, and the daughter of well-known free market author and professor of economics at Hawaii Pacific University Ken Schoolland.”’

My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned.

The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again — because we are not dealing with peaceful men.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq’s neighbors and against Iraq’s people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.
The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.

Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq. America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations. One reason the U.N. was founded after the second world war was to confront aggressive dictators, actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace.

In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act, in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687 — both still in effect — the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will.

Last September, I went to the U.N. General Assembly and urged the nations of the world to unite and bring an end to this danger. On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm.
Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council’s long-standing demands.

Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.

In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq, so that disarmament can proceed peacefully. He has thus far refused. All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals — including journalists and inspectors — should leave Iraq immediately.

Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free.

In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.

It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attacked and destroyed. I urge every member of the Iraqi military and intelligence services, if war comes, do not fight for a dying regime that is not worth your own life.

And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, “I was just following orders.”

Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it. Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty, except the certainty of sacrifice.

Yet, the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so. If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end. In desperation, he and terrorists groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible. And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.

Our government is on heightened watch against these dangers. Just as we are preparing to ensure victory in Iraq, we are taking further actions to protect our homeland. In recent days, American authorities have expelled from the country certain individuals with ties to Iraqi intelligence services. Among other measures, I have directed additional security of our airports, and increased Coast Guard patrols of major seaports. The Department of Homeland Security is working closely with the nation’s governors to increase armed security at critical facilities across America.

Should enemies strike our country, they would be attempting to shift our attention with panic and weaken our morale with fear. In this, they would fail. No act of theirs can alter the course or shake the resolve of this country. We are a peaceful people — yet we’re not a fragile people, and we will not be intimidated by thugs and killers. If our enemies dare to strike us, they and all who have aided them, will face fearful consequences.

We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities.

The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth.

Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations — and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.
As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.

The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace.

That is the future we choose. Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent. And tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility.

Good night, and may God continue to bless America.

On October 10, 2002, I voted against House Joint Resolution 114, a measure which grants the President a blank check to launch a war in Iraq.

We all recognize that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and that he is a dangerous enemy. The question is whether President Bush