Given news reporting about Republicans causing a government shutdown at the end of the month as a Trump election strategy, I decided to check the progress on passing appropriation bills for FY25.
Republican controlled House: all 12 bills have passed committee, 5 bills have passed on floor votes, 1 bill failed floor vote.
Democrat controlled Senate: 11 of 12 bills have passed committee (this is surprisingly good progress for Senate by historical standards), 0 bills have had a floor vote.
As usual the fake news is partisan propaganda instead of facts. While the Senate is better than the past, it is behind the House in progress as is its norm.
The official process is for the House and Senate to create separate bills based on spending levels set in the prior budget resolutions. First, the appropriation bills must pass the assigned subcommittee before approval of the full appropriation committee. Next, each chamber will vote on their version of each appropriation bill separately. As there will be differences between each chambers’ bill, a joint conference committee will resolve the differences by negotiation. After, each chamber votes on the reconciled bill. If passed by both houses, then the appropriation bill is sent to the president for signature. Each of the 12 appropriation bills would complete the same process separately.
This official process is broken as party leadership in the Senate generally refuses to vote on individual appropriation bills.
Why isn’t the official process followed? Democrats seek to create an appropriations crisis and government shutdown to increase domestic discretionary spending by offsetting cuts to defense spending. If the Senate allowed separate bills to pass they could not rob one to pay another.
Why continue the pretense of committee work? The committees do work out details and special exceptions. More importantly to the politicians, the committee work helps the parties raise campaign contributions.
Thus instead of following the official process we are in the publicly hated process of continuing resolutions, omnibus bills, and government shutdown crisis as Congress’ chosen means of funding government programs.
Several years ago, the Left was excited by tearing down Civil War memorial statues; this year they have so far made two assassination attempts against a presidential candidate as if the US were Mexico.
Last year, I drafted a few hundred fiction stories; this year I have been editing. Below is the draft of the beginning of a novel that I am developing about a future Second American Civil War.
***
This story has not happened yet; however, today, too many advocate ideas and actions plunging us towards our second civil war.
How will the war begin? Most think the death of innocents. Yet, ideas ignited the conflict long before; symptoms manifested soon after.
Perhaps the desecration and destruction of old statues memorializing the first American Civil War weakened the inhibitions caging the dogs of war. Activists for political rebirth painted those weathered testaments as shameful monuments to human depravity. While claiming stolen valor for defeating a slavery long dormant, those activists undermined the actual symbolization endowed by the statues’ creators, a promise to never have brother kill brother again.
Following the historic war, those grieving lost sons, brothers, husbands, and fathers joined together to raise memorials to the human cost of a war which killed more Americans than any other. Obedient to forms of the past, statutes of horsed generals Grant, Lee, McPherson, and others stood as sentinels against repeating the bloodletting again. Unlike the past, such monuments incorporated the men who served and died under the horsed leader, the lost men for whom their surviving families grieved. Some factories, wasted previously producing the armaments of war, repurposed to manufacture solitary soldier statutes suitable for memorializing the dead American soldiers, whether they had fought for the Union or the Confederacy.
Absent such reminders of the price of political violence, a decadent and increasingly ignorant populace enflamed politics as bloodsport again. Harsh words between partisans grew into blows, leading to shots, before causing death. Like a weak Buchanan, the progressive and conservative political leaders both fanned the flames while ignoring the approaching tempest. A flywheel of injustice and grievance turned faster and faster with growing momentum as a political circus had replaced a sober reflection upon substantive political problems.
The activists who sought to create a new reality by toppling the establishment instead released the horrors of the past, previously only held back by fragile retaining walls. Far from their live-action-roleplay defeating slavery’s legacy, these activists unleashed enslaving the vanquished to the victors and the victors to the memories of their own necessary but abhorrent deeds. Ares strode the land again with a sickle to harvest the corpses of the nation’s youth one stroke at a time.
The events in this tale occur in a future Second American Civil War. A confederation of city states, the Rebels, fights Unionists of the federal government. This premonition begins after years of bloody war, in an obscure rebel-controlled sector of the Ohio military theater where a Union commander known to the rebels as The Butcher had recently achieved unexpected Union victories.
On the abandoned battlefield of a recent rebel defeat, a young female rebel medic searched. This habit had become her lonely quest ever since the day her little brother had failed to return from a skirmish, which took his life. Her oversized uniform, bulky utility belt, and large med bag exaggerated her diminutive stature.
In her left hand, she held a small bag of rocks for defense against nature. She no longer feared so much the crows, turkey vultures, and black vultures who feasted around her on the corpses of her fallen comrades. So much larger than the pigeons of her childhood in the city, these scavenging birds lacked the danger to her of a swarm of rats or a pack of feral dogs appearing to consume the dead. Before the war, human hubris assumed itself the top of the food chain; in battle death, men rejoined the food chain as the prey of not only birds, rats, and dogs, but also the occasional coyote, fox, raccoon, or opossum before consumption by bugs and bacteria.
As a pro-choice independent voter I got hassled the other day for not supporting Kneepads Harris.
“Abortion rights are important but they are not the only rights being restricted. I am pro-choice on all issues not just one. An election selection is about priorities & accepting that whomever is elected in current year that they will seek to violate someone’s individual rights in some way. Otherwise neither is the only choice,” I identified the obvious.
“Trump is going to institute a nationwide ban on abortion,” she thoughtlessly repeated an echo of the partisan media.
“Republicans are projected at 51 Senate seats. Unless they had more than 60, such a bill will never pass Congress. So even if Trump was lying about not supporting a national ban, he can’t get such a bill passed,” I instructed about basic legislative process.
“But without Roe, states are making all abortions illegal,” she claimed.
“Increasingly restrictive abortion laws in some states are in line with European norms. Further they can be easily evaded by traveling to another state or getting a prescription via delivery. So I might not like it, but other individual rights violations are much more restrictive,” I judged.
“But what about your daughter’s rights to an abortion,” she asserted as an anti-trump card. I bit my tongue at the low attack before replying, “Abortion is still available to them. Our state hasn’t changed the law. With Dems control in the state house that isn’t changing soon. Plus, worst case scenario, abortions will remain available just over the river.”
“Fine,” she exhaled in disgust while refusing to accept anything less than my submission to the hive mind, “but you have to think about the other women who can’t get an abortion.”
“Best case those women don’t care when my rights are violated but more likely they advocate for it. But I won’t hold a grudge…they can move to another state to get better laws. Huge numbers have been leaving California & New York to flee other rights violations by Dems. Yet there aren’t a huge number of women in states with bad abortion laws moving to other states. Some rights violations must be more intrusive on people’s lives than others,” I observed.
Choking up she asserted, “I have been working for women’s issues all my life.”
“Women have other rights to consider besides abortion. But let’s put it in your terms and focus on ‘women’s issues,’ I began.
First I addressed the rise of female slavery in the US, “Whistleblowers, including testifying before Congress, have claimed that the Biden Admin has been working with Mexican cartels to traffic women & children as slaves within the US.”
Next I informed about female compulsory service to the government, “Meanwhile, Dems in the Senate have advanced legislation to make women register for the draft, so not her-body-her-choice on compulsory military service in combat.”
Pivoting I highlighted single women’s complaints about their futures, “On the economic front, Dems restrictions on individual rights have constrained commerce to the point that single women complain they can’t find a financially acceptable man for marriage.”
In light of falling marriage rates, I added context, “Forecasts are that more than 1 in 3 women will fail to achieve her personal goal of having a husband and children.”
I summed up, “Single women, who have overwhelmingly supported Dems, may have to prioritize. In the next four years, what is more important to her, promises of less restrictions on abortions or increasing her chances of marriage? About 5% of women don’t want marriage, let them have their choice; however, most do but too many fail to realize her choice in part as a consequence of her votes.”
Many people that I respect are calling for a massive retaliation from Israel against Iran after Iran’s missile and drone attack on April 13. While I disagree, Israel will do what it will do. I think that context has been dropped leading to an overreaction.
Having called for the US to attack Iran since 1979, I don’t see yesterday’s attack as being cataclysmic. Reported damage includes an injured 10 year old girl and ineffective damage to an airbase.
While I agree that ending the Iranian regime is the crux of de-escalation of instability in the region, now is an inopportune time. Europe is obsessed with Ukraine while the US has higher priority issues in east Asia. Thus Iran remains as a low priority for the West with focus on containment and occasional efforts at détente.
For the sake of argument, what can Israel do immediately against Iran if the US doesn’t lead? Without going green glass, Israel has limited capability to strike Iran directly with missiles and bombers. Depleting such resources would make them unavailable against Hamas and Hezbollah. Further such attacks risk retaliation from Iran which would further degrade Israeli missile defense capabilities.
At this time, it is better for Israel to not be tricked by Iran into being distracted from its Gaza mission against Hamas. Israel has already had a 6 month mobilization just to pacify Gaza, which remains incomplete. Meanwhile, Israel is busy deterring Hezbollah when in the past Israel failed to take out Hezbollah in a one-on-one fight. Currently strained to fight on one front while holding on another front, Israel doesn’t have the capacity to open a third military front against Iran. Thus in context, in the near term, Israel’s best strategy is to defeat Hamas, Iran’s proxy, while holding off Iran’s other proxies in Lebanon and Syria.
In the longer term, after Hamas has been ended, Israel can retaliate against Iran. Such an attack should scale in a way that cripples Iran’s ability to project power against Israel either by proxies or missile/drone attack. Ukraine has demonstrated the effectiveness of drone attacks against oil infrastructure. From a ship in the Gulf of Oman, Israel could launch a swarm of drone attacks to cripple Iran’s economy by hitting critical constraints in Iran’s oil infrastructure: ports, pipelines, refineries, and storage facilities.
Obviously, Israel attacking Iranian oil infrastructure is contrary to the US’ important interests related to the free flow of commerce in the region, but so are Houthi (Iran’s proxy) attacks on Red Sea shipping. However, Israel will act in Israel’s interest when the US fails to lead, or leads irresponsibly as the feckless Biden Administration has. While I generally focus on the US’ many interests, I can’t pretend that other countries will not pursue their own vital interests when their people are threatened by military force.
This brief Israel versus Iran case study is useful in that it points out that reality limits capacity, even of US military power. If we don’t plan to start throwing around mushroom clouds to solve our foreign policy problems, we need to understand that the US military is structured to fight in only one war theater while holding in another as was demonstrated by Afghanistan and Iraq. In the 80s, Secretary of State Schultz and Secretary of Defense Weinberger would have conflicts when State wanted to threaten more than Defense could do. In today’s woke-crippled US military, we have a similar problem of utopian overpromisers in State getting the US into more messes at the same time than Defense can solve by destruction.
Extra point: In fairness to those calling for an immediate and robust Israeli retaliation against Iran, here is an example of their argument:
Since Israel invaded Gaza in response to Hamas’ 10/7/2023 terrorist attack, many Americans have been questioning the US role in the war. Specifically, why should we be involved at all?
So far, US support to Israel has been limited to military aid, intelligence sharing, and staging forces in the area to prevent an escalation of the conflict to include counterattacks from other countries against Israel. Additionally, the US has provided humanitarian aid to Gazans. Diplomatically, the US has been inconsistent in a fashion that undermines US interests in the conflict.
While the US has many relevant interests let me focus on the two that are vital: international terrorism and nuclear proliferation. US interests are hierarchical: vital, important, tertiary. Our humanitarian interests are tertiary (lesser value but still of value) so I will not discuss. Only our vital interests are so important that the US would go to war, but will prefer to achieve without using our military power.
Hamas is a terrorist organization. While some may disagree, officially the US has recognized Hamas as a terrorist organization since 10/8/1997. Further, the US has an official national interest in ending international terrorism. Hamas is an international terrorist organization with ties to Iran and operations around the world including the US. For an overview of official US interests see National Security Strategy 2000.
Israel’s war aim is to end Hamas. Thus Israeli success achieves US interests related to international terrorism by ending an officially recognized terrorist organization.
When al Qaeda adopted a franchise model for expanding the War on Terror beyond US military resources, as a force multiplier, the US adapted by providing financial aid and training to governments facing terrorism threats so US forces would not be diluted by spreading conflicts. Our current financial and military aid to Israel in their invasion of Gaza is a continuation of that policy. Instead of Israel getting special treatment, they are getting less than we have given other countries in significant ways because they need less aid.
Frankly without technical and financial aid from the US, Israel could not be as precise in many of their attacks so there would be more civilian casualties in Gaza. Contrary to critics’ propaganda, without US aid Israel would still be in Gaza with the same objective, see what Israel did to Beirut in the 80s.
Some may say that the US shouldn’t be fighting international terrorism and shouldn’t be helping Israel end Hamas. However US foreign policy isn’t rendered de novo based upon feelings. US policies are a bipartisan continuity directed by precedent and agreements. Such is not immutable but should be changed based in principles instead of whim or feelings or the opinion poll of the moment.
Consider Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon in which they drove out the PLO. During the invasion, Reagan’s advisor Mike Deaver got weak kneed and weepy eyed over the brutal Israeli bombardment of Beirut; he threatened to resign if Reagan didn’t make the Israelis stop. Consequently an evacuation by the PLO to Libya was negotiated and executed. Thus all of those killed subsequently by PLO/Fatah, Hamas, and other Palestinian terrorist organizations are the fault of a man unwilling to stomach the brutal work required to end a terrorist organization. After the PLO evacuated, moderate Arab leaders emerged in the West Bank and Gaza. What happened to those peaceful moderate leaders? The Palestinian terrorists killed them, which led to the return of the PLO and subsequent civil war between Fatah and Hamas for control of international humanitarian relief resources and money.
We should learn from the failure and deaths from the US previously restraining Israeli efforts to end an Arab terrorist organization.
Let’s talk about the elephant in the room: nuclear weapons vs. from the river to the sea.
Hamas’ objective is to conquer Israel and kill the Jews. How do you negotiate with that? In the name of moderation and compromise, should Hamas get to kill half the Israelis? For Hamas, violence will not stop until Israel is destroyed. Israel believes Hamas when the terrorists say this, but useful idiots do not. This is not a conflict in which both sides can win; either one wins, they both lose, or a stalemate peace-process-war continues with more dead civilians on both sides. The peaceful outcome with the least collateral damage is Hamas destroyed by Israel.
Let’s assume Hamas wins. Israel has nuclear weapons…shhhh, it is a secret that everyone knows. Does the US want a terrorist organization with ties to Iran to have nuclear weapons? That is potentially a green glass scenario with the US at war.
One of the overarching reasons for US interventions in the world is to prevent nuclear proliferation. Despite setbacks, the US has been better at doing so than one would have expected after the US lost its nuclear monopoly. Even the threat of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan relates to US’ nuclear non-proliferation vital interest. If Taiwan doesn’t trust in US protection, they may restart their research program into nuclear weapons. If Taiwan is conquered because the US was unreliable, both Japan and South Korea could quickly become nuclear armed states.
Back to Israeli nukes in Hamas’ hands. How long before a terrorist organization like Hamas would use that weapon? How long before Iran acquired the nuclear technology from Hamas? Consider that Iran has nuclear scientists but Hamas doesn’t so they would call in the Iranians immediately.
The US giving aid to Israel in this conflict will not only advance the US’ vital interest in ending international terrorism but reduce the risk of further nuclear proliferation. With US vital interests at stake and the Israelis doing the fighting, aiding Israel against Hamas is putting America first.
Selfish Citizenship 
