William Cinfici

Pro-Life Progress in American States and Europe

2012-01-27T11:24:00.002-05:00

     At the start of the 40th year since the infamous Roe v. Wade decision by the United States Supreme Court that overturned state laws against abortion, there is some good news to report in both the American states and in Europe.

     The number of state laws approved in 2011 restricting abortion more than doubled, according to Americans United for Life. The group declared Louisiana the most pro-life state in the Union, followed closely by Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Nebraska and Arkansas. Pennsylvania was the only northeastern state in the top half. I had posted last month in Corbett Signs Several Bills into Law in Corbett Signs Several Bills into Law, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2011/12/corbett-signs-several-bills-into-law.html, on the approval of a law regulating abortion facilities like other surgical centers. The Keystone State, where the number of abortions performed continues to decline, is now considering a law requiring people seeking abortions to view ultrasounds of their fetuses before receiving an abortion, as other states require, for informed consent.

     The 47-member Council of Europe declared euthanasia always to be prohibited, according to the Conservative News Service. Calling abuses violations of human rights, the body ruled against all forms of drug-induced homicide or suicide, as well as the removal of feeding tubes, CNS reports. The Council urged the right to life to be respected always whenever there was a doubt, according to CNS. Member states with weak protections of the right to life, such as Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and Switzerland, are urged to review their laws in order to comply with the ruling, CNS reports. Member states elect members of the Council’s parliament.

Commentary on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' Resignation

2012-01-26T13:16:00.002-05:00

     United States Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) resigned from the House of Representatives yesterday in order to focus on her recovery from an attempted assassination attempt a year ago.

     Giffords' moving letter of resignation was read to the House, as she still suffers from a speech impediment after being shot in the head, and presented to Speaker John Boehner at the rostrum. In the letter, she expressed her desire to seek election to the House upon her recovery. Giffords received a standing ovation from the members of both parties.

     Alas, the resignation effectuates the intent of the would-be-assassin by removing her from Congress. However, Rep. Giffords, was at least able to return to the House for several months and, as her recovery gradually progresses, she may yet again. If she does, Americans will again cheer her, as her personal victory over her wounds would also be a triumph of representative government over unnecessary political violence.

Joe Paterno, Rest in Peace

2012-01-22T16:12:00.000-05:00

     Joseph Vincent Paterno died today at the age of 85 in State College, Pennsylvania. The winningest Division I college football coach in history was also famous as a supporter of academics.

     Paterno was born in 1926 in Brooklyn, New York into an Italian-American family. He served in the Army during the Second World War and graduated from Brown University in 1950.

     Pennsylvania State University named Paterno its Assistant Football Coach that year, where his former college coach was Head Coach. Paterno succeeded him as Head Coach in 1966, winning 409 games over the course of his career, including many bowl games and winning two national championships (1982 and 1986) for the Penn State Nittany Lions. He holds numerous coaching records and won many awards.

     Paterno was known for promoting academics, insisting that his athletes do well in school. The successful results of his efforts have been measured.  Paterno's legacy across the United States in this regard alone has been enormous, as he became a model for what is expected of athletic coaches.  I can attest, for example, as a former School Director, that I voted to hire coaches in the Joe Paterno mold.

     Paterno strongly supported philanthropic efforts, particularly ones that supported academics at Penn State. He was a conservative who delivered a speech on behalf of his friend, George H.W. Bush at the 1988 Republican National Convention. Paterno also spoke at an event during the Columbus Quincentenary in 1992 in Reading, Pennsylvania, which held one of the largest celebrations in the United States. He reflected on his pride in his Italian heritage and the values it gave him.

     Despite his great professional and personal record, Paterno was dismissed as Penn State Head Coach in 2011, although he remained a professor at the school, because of an alleged child molestation incident involving a former assistant coach and a minor above the age of reason in 2002, which was one incident among a larger scandal involving that assistant coach.  Paterno was told of the incident (i.e. hearsay), although not of a specific crime, which he nevertheless relayed to campus officials, including one in charge of the campus police. Those officials failed to follow through adequately. The State Attorney General's office declared that the Penn State Head Coach had acted in accordance with the law. Nevertheless, the University's Board of Trustees relieved him as Head Coach, in part because of its concern that he would no longer be able to perform his duties effectively because of the scandal.

     Paterno's reputation has been sullied unfairly by those who misrepresent the significance of the scandal. People have a duty to report a crime (i.e. if they are witnesses), but not hearsay (what someone else says he witnessed), especially if what one hears does not specify any crime. We are not responsible for the failure of officials to perform their duties, as we are not expected to follow up with them. Otherwise, a much higher standard applies to one specific type of crime, at least, than for any other type of crime, both in terms of reporting and in what further responsibility one has to follow up. It would be a scary proposition that witnesses and even those who learn of hearsay would be held responsible for inaction by law enforcement.

     It is difficult not to see typical left-wing iconoclasm directed at Paterno, as the image of someone, especially a Catholic conservative, who promoted the value of education and character must not be allowed by liberals to stand. It is the duty of conservatives to defend other conservatives who promote virtue whenever they come under assault from the left, but it is an even greater duty to stand for the virtues themselves.

     Joe Paterno successfully coached thousands of athletes and inspired countless other students, athletes and coaches. May his legacy continue to inspire people to achieve academic and moral success.

Obama Praises Monti's Actions

2012-01-19T22:43:00.000-05:00

     United States President Barak Obama has again praised Italy, this time referring to the fiscal and economic actions of Prime Minister Mario Monti, according to ANSA, the Italian news agency.

     I had posted of Obama's praise for Italy's fiscal reforms and economic strength at the end of the premiership of Silvio Berlusconi in my November of 2011 post, European Monetary Union Update: New Governments for Greece and Italy, http://www.williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2011/11/european-monetary-union-update-new.html.

     ANSA reports that Obama referred to the “strong spirit of historic friendship” between the United States and Italy. The American President also expressed his great respect for his Italian counterpart, Georgio Napolitano, according to ANSA.

     The praise from the United States is helpful in encouraging investor confidence in Italy in particular and Europe in general amidst the crisis in the Eurozone, of which Italy is of critical significance. Despite growing fears over Greece and Portugal, bond prices are reflecting an increase in confidence in the Italian budget and economy, which, in turn, decreases Italy's borrowing costs.

The Obama Administration Should Declare Missile Defense Is Intended to Defend against Both Iran and Russia

2012-01-18T18:42:00.002-05:00

     The Obama Administration has again stated its planned missile defense system for Europe is intended to defend against the threat of nuclear missiles from Iran, not Russia, in order to assuage Russian concerns that the shield could undermine its nuclear deterrent. The United States and its NATO allies should publicly declare that as long as Russia is led by an authoritarian ex-KGB Communist leader and possesses thousands of nuclear warheads, the American-built missile defense system is intended to defend against Russia, as well.

     As I explain in my post from September of 2009, Obama Betrays Allies, Appeases Russia, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2009/09/obama-betrays-allies-appeases-russia.html, the Obama Administration is allowing its consideration of Russian concerns to determine its placement of missiles in Eastern Europe.

     The U.S. abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the former Soviet Union under President George W. Bush. The treaty had barred missile defense. President Ronald Reagan’s proposed missile defense system and its research and development during the Cold War was critically important to defeating the Soviets. Bush implemented a domestic missile defense and planned to implement one in Eastern Europe to defend NATO, which President Barak Obama scrapped because of Russian objections. Bush also concluded a treaty with Russia for both the Americans and Russians to eliminate a large number of nuclear warheads. The treaty was ratified by both sides.

     Obama concluded a smaller treaty with Russia, which has also been mutually ratified, that further reduces warheads. The Obama Administration, while reassuring the Russians that the U.S. has no hostile intent toward Russia, should focus on responsible nuclear disarmament that maintains the American deterrent through a robust program of modernization and testing. It could work with the Russians on missile defense without sacrificing American interests or those of its allies. Among those interests are the right to avoid intimidation by an increasingly aggressive Russia.

     Regardless of any potential threat from Russia, the concern about the threat from Iran must supercede Russian concerns, as the Islamist Shi’ite Iranian regime, unlike atheistic Communists, believes in martyrdom through suicide attacks on “infidels.” But the proximity and massive capability of Russia's nuclear arsenal cannot be ignored, even in diplomatic speech. Although the U.S. should avoid unnecessary provocations of Russia while the two continue to cooperate in other matters, it must make it clear to the Russians that it will act in its interests.

The Corbett Administration Is Right to Include Assets in Measuring Wealth

2012-01-14T19:42:00.000-05:00

     Under the Administration of Republican Governor Tom Corbett, Pennsylvania will include assets, in addition to income, in measuring people's wealth for the purpose of determining eligibility for food stamps. The move, which bucks a trend accross the American Union, is permissible under the federal law that establishes the welfare program.

     The Commonwealth will deny food stamps to any otherwise eligible applicant with over $2,000 in cash in a bank or who owns a second car worth over $4,500. The inclusion of assets as part of the means-testing to determine eligibility for food stamps was dropped by the Democratic Administration of Governor Ed Rendell. In accordance with the policy of the Obama Administration to increase the number of food stamp recipients, the asset threshold has been eliminated in many other states, or at least has been raised.

     The Corbett Administration has adopted a policy of cracking down on welfare fraud to reduce spending in order to avoid tax increases. See also my post, Governor Corbett Signs Pennsylvania's Budget and Welfare Reform Legislation from July of 2011: http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2011/07/governor-corbett-signs-pennsylvanias.html. The possession of significant assets by food stamp applicants is cited by critics as an example of waste, fraud and abuse, as the assets prove that the applicants can afford to feed themselves.

     Liberal supporters of welfare hysterically criticized the decision to reestablish an assets threshold to means-teast food stamp eligibility because it will remove thousands of recipients from the welfare rolls.  A seemingly reasonable counterargument has been raised that the assets threshold discourages people from saving for emergency, but this criticism misses the point that the emergency intended to be covered by the program is strictly a lack of money for food, not additional emergencies. People are not entitled to someone else's money, especially if they do not need it for what it was intended.

     The larger reason I posted about this decision is that it reflects common sense that wealth should be measured based upon both income and assets, and not only annual income. For example, we define a “millionaire” as one who has a million dollars, not one who earns a million dollars in gross income annually. The federal government, however, defines poverty strictly in terms of income, thereby falsely categorizing many people as “poor” who are relatively wealthy in assets, especially when compared to the poor or even the middle class of foreign states. A rich person who has a relatively bad year is no more poor than a poor person who has a relatively good year is rich. A person's ability to save and manage money is part of the overall determination of one's wealth and is an independent factor in the macroeconomy. Thus, an increase in mismanagement does not reflect a downturn in the economy and vice versa.

     Although there is less income temporarily in the current economy, it is important not to overstate the amount of poverty there is by failing to account for the increase in the standard of living of the poor. The comparison of income data from year to year (adjusted for inflation) is helpful in discerning the rising or falling of the economy, but the figures always overstate the poverty of individuals.  The federal definition of poverty additionally overstates poverty by failing to account for differences in cost of living in different states that make the purchasing power of a dollar different from state to state.

     Liberals see more poverty than there really is in order to justify more welfare. Thus, they not only have a bias toward overstating it when conservatives are in power in order to oppose conservative policies, but also even when liberals themselves are in power. The exaggeration of the amount of poverty also reflects general leftist opposition to the free market and support of more socialist policies.

     Conservatives should praise Pennsylvania for its leadership and its example should be followed across the Union, not only for determining the eligibility for food stamps or other welfare programs, but in other regards, as well. They would also be making the case that the free market in America, not welfare statism, has produced wealth as never before in human history and improved the standard of living dramatically for Americans.

2012 Star-Spangled Banner Commemorative Coins Include the Return of “Liberty”

2011-12-31T12:07:00.002-05:00

     The United States Mint has announced designs for silver dollar and gold ten-dollar coins to be minted in 2012 commemorating the bicentennial of the War of 1812 and the writing of the “Star-Spangled Banner” by Francis Scott Key during the Battle of Baltimore/Siege of Ft. McHenry in 1814.

     The obverse of the silver dollar coin will feature “Liberty” waving the Star-Spangled Banner, the large flag of fifteen stars and stripes that remained flying over Ft. McHenry despite the bombardment by the British. Key was inspired by the incident he observed aboard a British ship to pen the poem that was set to music and became the national anthem. In the background of the coin is an image of the fort. The visually-striking reverse is filled with the waving flag, over which the legends are inscribed – an unusual design, in that it has no field, only the device.

     The allegorical figure of Liberty, inspired by the Roman goddess “Libertas,” appeared on the obverse of all early American coins, as she did on many Roman coins. She last appeared on circulating U.S. coins in 1947 on the Liberty Walking Half Dollars (1916-1947), but classic images of her have been minted again on various bullion and commemorative coins since 1986. Not including images of the Statue of Liberty, which are currently on Presidential Dollar coins, the last new design bearing an image of Liberty to appear on a commemorative coin was in 1996, on the National Service Dollar, which was a design based upon the work of Augustus St. Gaudens for a private medal over a century ago. Thus, the significance of the Star-Spangled Banner Commemorative Dollar is that it bears the first new design of Liberty to appear on any U.S. coin in 16 years and the first totally original design specifically designed and engraved for an American coin since the Lynchburg, Virginia Sesquicentennial Commemorative Half Dollar in 1936. See also my post from April of 2009, Commentary on Current U.S. Coins, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2009/04/commentary-on-current-us-coins.html, in which I explain the Founding Fathers’ preference for images of Liberty, as opposed to portraits of leaders.

     The gold ten-dollar coin features a scene of a naval battle during the War of 1812 on its obverse. On its reverse are the fifteen stripes suggesting the waving Star-Spangled banner and fifteen stars; over it is inscribed the words “O say can you see” in Key’s handwriting.

     You may view the designs and specifications of the Star-Spangled Banner Commemorative Coins at the following link: http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/commemoratives/?action=2012StarSpangled.

Conservative Analysis of the 2012 Omnibus Appropriations Bill

2011-12-26T14:37:00.000-05:00

     United States President Barak Obama signed the nearly $1 trillion 2012 omnibus appropriations bill into law. The act authorizes spending for 10 cabinet departments and the Legislative Branch.

     The appropriations bills for the other four departments was signed a few months ago, which resulted in a savings of nearly half a billion dollars.

     Although there was much media focus on the deal worked out with the Republican-led House of Representatives to extend the payroll tax cut for two months until a full-year extension could be worked out and also to extend unemployment compensation, there were several other provisions of interest to conservatives.

     The bill contains $95 billion in spending cuts, including a delay in the environmental regulation of coal dust. There will be many cuts in domestic spending, as well as additional savings will come from the military drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

     Conservatives were most successful in the policy riders they were able to attach to the bill, such as an expedition of the granting of permits for off-shore oil drilling, some curtailment of Interior Department land-grabbing powers, repealing regulations restricting the purchases of incandescent light bulbs, banning federal needle exchanges and prohibiting federal abortion funding in the District of Columbia. Additionally, the bill continues not to fund the Internal Revenue Service to implement Obama’s federalization of health insurance and the transfer of terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to the U.S. mainland. Another rider forces the President to decide whether to expand the Keystone gas pipeline.

     A number of other riders conservatives attempted to insert into the bill were rejected by the President in the deal. Although the spending cuts in this compromise are small relative to the size of the federal budget, they represent continued progress in cutting spending without raising taxes. There will be major controversies next year, during the election campaign, over the extension of the Bush tax cuts, reducing domestic spending, averting massive defense cuts and the extension of the gas pipeline.

Corbett Signs Several Bills into Law

2011-12-26T10:43:00.000-05:00

     Since I posted that Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett signed the state budget without raising taxes and signed the welfare reform, tort reform and Castle Doctrine bills into law, he has signed a number of bills approved by the Republican-led General Assembly. Of these, in addition to signing the Commonwealth’s new redistricting plan into law, several are noteworthy.

     One law signed by Corbett bans texting while driving, while another loosens some regulations on the sales of alcohol. The Governor signed a bill to close loopholes in the law that requires the registration of sex offenders; the amendments will apply the existing law to out-of-state sex offenders and tighten the registration requirements for homeless offenders. The bill also makes it a felony for school teachers to engage in sex with students.

     Corbett also signed a law regulating abortion clinics like health-care facilities and requiring at least one random inspection per year. The law was prompted by the case of Philadelphia Dr. Herbert Gosnell who ran a “House of Horrors” abortion clinic where a woman died because of a grossly-negligent lack of proper health care and several babies were born alive and then murdered. The measure passed both houses of the legislature with large majorities and significant bipartisan support, but some liberals opposed it because they claimed the new regulations would be so onerous as to restrict access to abortion.

     It is revealing that liberals find regulations on legitimate businesses not to be excessively burdensome, but regulations to protect women’s lives they find excessively burdensome in the name of “women’s rights.” The liberal Democratic members who opposed the reasonable regulations in the bill claimed that the measure became politicized by becoming a referendum on abortion; it appears that their claim reveals the political reason for their opposition: their opposition to the right to life.

     Although the General Assembly concluded the first year of its two-year session with a flurry of legislative activity, several major issues, among others, remain under consideration: the Governor’s proposed Marcellus shale local impact fee and school vouchers and the plan by House Majority Leader Mike Turzai to privatize the state’s liquor stores.

The Italian Parliament Approves Monti’s “Save Italy” Fiscal Reforms

2011-12-22T11:13:00.008-05:00

     The Italian Parliament has approved Prime Minister Mario Monti’s proposed $40.5 billion worth of fiscal and economic reforms. The reforms are intended to reduce Italy’s debt while stimulating economic growth.

     As I have been posting, Italy had passed several rounds of austerity measures under Monti’s predecessor, Silvio Berlusconi, but has come under increased pressure by the European Union to do more both to cut its debt and to spur economic growth, as Italy, with its eighth-largest gross domestic product in the world, is the Eurozone’s firewall. It is on track to reduce its debt by 2013 or 2014, but suffers from meager growth, which has contributed to the lack of investor confidence in Italy’s ability to avoid defaulting on its debt.

     According to ANSA, the new measure, dubbed by Monti the “Save Italy” program, includes several measures intended to reduce debt, including a tax increase on luxury items and homes, an increase of the value added tax (Europe’s version of sales tax) and gasoline tax, and a crackdown on tax evasion. There will also be pension reform, the elimination of several government agencies and provincial government spending cuts, ANSA reported. Leading by example, Monti is personally giving up his salaries as Prime Minister and Minister of the Economy, according to the Italian news agency. On the economically stimulative side, ANSA also reports that there will be some deregulation and tax cuts for investors in Italian businesses and for businesses that hire the young and women and that declare their incomes fully (another anti-tax evasion measure), or that make energy-saving renovations or invest in infrastructure.

     Berlusconi’s center-right party, the largest in parliament, supported his successor’s proposal, as did the center-left and some in the center, with the Northern League being the most vociferous in opposition. ANSA reports, however, that Berlusconi has threatened to withdraw his party’s support of Monti if there are any more tax increases.

     Monti had announced ahead of time that following the passage of this further round of austerity, he will propose more measures that will be focused strictly on increasing economic growth.

“Partisan Bickering” vs. Debating

2011-12-20T20:37:00.000-05:00

     The liberal media and other commentators usually ascribe divisions within the United States Congress to “partisan bickering.” There is a big difference between bickering and arguing and especially between “partisan bickering” and debating, the latter of which is public discourse, either in a legislative body by representatives, or among the people.

     First of all, the divisions between legislators are usually ideological, not “partisan.” Even if there are narrow partisan interests involved, these are secondary to the underlying ideological principles that attract people to political parties in the first place. In other words, partisanship is a usually a facet of ideology, especially nowadays when the parties are less run by political patronage machines than by people who believe certain principles of government.

     Second, to accuse someone of “bickering” is to imply that he is being vituperative (i.e. unnecessarily argumentative) or petty (i.e. arguing about minor matters). It is misleading to describe major differences of opinion on serious issues expressed in public discourse, whether by elected officials or private citizens, as “bickering,” as the expression of such differences are seldom examples of being vituperative or petty. Legislators express their ideological disagreements about important matters because of the importance of the matter being debated and their personal conviction in their principles. Indeed, it is important to note that many bills pass unanimously without any controversy. With a few notable exceptions, it is their disagreements that tend to make the news.

     It is also noteworthy that often legislators’ differences of opinion are expressed civilly toward each other, regardless of how passionate they might express their opinions about the issue. Indeed, individual legislators may be working in opposition on one matter while working with one another on another matter. Therefore, they have an incentive to avoid unnecessary or overly personal argumentation, which is hardly characteristic of bickering, despite such characterization by the liberal media of even the most civil debates.

     The reason the media describe legislative differences of opinion as “partisan bickering” is itself a reflection of the liberal media’s ideological bias. The media believes that conservatives are wrong and that they should not, therefore, express opposition to liberalism. Expressing conservatism, the liberal media believes, cannot possibly be because of reasonable thinking, but because of partisanship or some personality fault (such as vituperativeness or pettiness); even being ideological is derided as a fault, if the ideology is one they oppose. Thus, to refer to legislative differences of opinion as “bickering” and especially as “partisan bickering” is to dismiss the validity of arguments by conservatives by essentially making an ad hominem argument. In other words, it is the liberal media’s way of trying to intimidate all conservatives from engaging in public discourse at all, let alone to advance their arguments and initiatives in a legislature, because even though the term “partisan bickering” appears to apply objectively to both sides, it really applies strictly to the expression of conservative principles.

*      *      *

     I write with personal experience as a former elected official who sat on a legislative/executive body that approved most resolutions unanimously, but generated the most media attention with a handful of issues of that produced sharp ideological division. In one instance, a Democratic member made a conservative suggestion in a committee, to which no one objected. When it came before the full body for consideration, however, some of the liberal members opposed the suggestion. Although there was overwhelming public support for our conservative position, some liberals in the media and elsewhere accused the body of spending too much time debating a matter they dismissed as insignificant (i.e. petty) because it was mostly “symbolic.” Yet it was not we, but the liberals who took up the body’s time arguing about it at all. Although relatively little time, in fact, was actually spent debating the matter (with most of it taken up by the liberals), the point is that no time would have been spent on it whatsoever had the other side agreed with us in the first place. But although it was the liberals who were spending the time on the matter, we were blamed by liberal commentators for wasting the body’s time. In other words, to the liberal media, a debate is something blameworthy – and only one side’s fault, at that, the conservative side. I note a contradiction as the matter must not have been as insignificant as the liberals claimed it was or else they would not have objected to our position as vociferously as they did and it would not have attracted as much media interest in it as it did.

     Thus, the incident revealed that liberals in office and in the media do not consider it appropriate that any time be spent considering the reasonable arguments of conservatives because they cannot conceive of any reasonableness of conservative arguments. Thus, they imply that we conservatives are being petty simply by expressing our opinions in public office, regardless of which side is the one actually taking up the time with its arguments, for only liberalism must advance, as all else they consider an obstacle to “progress.” The incident also revealed how liberals are intolerant of other opinions and generally believe they must resort to hominem arguments, like accusing people of “partisan bickering,” to advance their cause.

Vaclav Havel, In Memoriam

2011-12-18T17:30:00.000-05:00

     Czech playwright, dissident under Communism, triumphant statesman and human rights activist Vaclav Havel died today in the Czech Republic at the age of 75. His plays and other writings reflected his motto “Truth and love must prevail over lies and hate,” and focused on human dignity amidst oppression.

     Already renowned for his plays, Havel gained international fame for his dissidence after the Soviet crushing of the “Prague Spring,” the period of liberal Communist rule in Czechoslovakia, in 1968. His works were banned and he was imprisoned several times over the next two decades, once for over four years. It can be said that Havel was the Alexander Solzhenitsyn of Czechoslovakia.

     Havel was looked to by his countrymen as a leader with moral standing as the Communists began to suppress brutally the rising anti-Communist protests sweeping Eastern Europe, including Czechoslovakia, in 1989. He took a lead role in the peaceful opposition of what become known as the “Velvet Revolution.” After the fall of Communism that year, they playwright was elected President of Czechoslovakia.

     President Havel presided over the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the removal of Soviet troops from Czechoslovakia. He brought his state into the European Union and NATO and established its free market economy. Havel regretted that he could not bridge the divide between the Czechs and Slovaks. He resigned the presidency in 1992 in order to avoid presiding over the breakup his country into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Havel was then elected the first President of the Czech Republic in 1993, a post he held for ten years. It was a ceremonial position from which he unsuccessfully attempted to exercise moral influence. Havel supported the Liberation of Iraq, which ironically ended in victory the day of his death.

     Havel’s international prestige remained high, however, as we he was honored by many awards around the world. He wrote a number of books during and after his public service. After Havel left office, he wrote a memoir of his service and returned to writing plays. The playwright-turned statesman was involved with a number of human rights organizations that defended the oppressed around the globe, as well as the Victims of Communism Memorial (See my post from August of 2009, Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation Opens Online Museum, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2009/08/victims-of-communism-memorial.html).

     May Havel’s legacy of virtue and decency inspire all of us to oppose tyranny, which is an assault against the human person, and to stand for liberty.

U.S. Mission in Iraq Ends in VICTORY

2011-12-18T11:50:00.000-05:00

     The United State mission in Iraq has formally ended in victory. The Obama Administration points out some of the benefits of the mission, but declines to use the word “victory.” Someone has to use it: The Liberation of Iraq was a victory!

     As I posted in August of 2010, Operation Iraqi Freedom Ends in Victory, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2010/08/operation-iraqi-freedom-ends-in-victory.html, the U.S. overthrow a state sponsor of terrorism who was a regional bully, enforced United Nations resolutions, captured and destroyed hundreds of chemical weapons and materials for making additional weapons, liberated 25 million people from a brutal dictator and brought him and his regime to justice, defeated al-Qaeda and removed one of its chief arguments against the U.S. by being able to withdraw from Saudi Arabia, where 24 American troops had been murdered by Islamists before the war, on our own terms. The U.S. gained an ally in the War on Terrorism.

     The figure reported of 4,500 fatalities for American servicemen during the war includes several hundred non-combat deaths. The point I am making in mentioning this fact is that opinion polls before the war suggested the American people were willing to accept as many deaths to liberate Iraq as were lost on September 11 (nearly 3,000), meaning the total fatalities were only slightly over that number. The American people turned against the war, however, well before that number was reached, in part because only a few score were lost by the overthrow of the Baathist regime, which raised expectations the war would be relatively short and bloodless. In other words, the Bush Administration was victimized by its own early success. Also, the death toll must be judged with the consideration that an additional enemy was defeated in Iraq, namely al-Qaeda.

     The economic cost in treasure for the war is usually exaggerated by the liberal media, as the fiscal costs do not factor in any economically stimulative aspects of the war, which, in turn, increase revenue to federal and state governments. Moreover, the costs must be measured against the status-quo antebellum, meaning the U.S. would have continued to have to expend money fighting a minor war with Iraq by enforcing the no-fly zones. The U.S. was also able to end its embargo on Iraqi oil and other goods, as well as win contracts for Iraqi reconstruction. See also my post The Iraqi Economic Stimulus from September of 2010 http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2010/09/iraqi-economic-stimulus.html.

     The cries of “bringing our troops home” in regard to the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and in general, as well as for soldiers stationed abroad in peacetime, reflect ignorance about defense, even leaving aside the benefits of a forward defense strategy. Soldiers do not belong at their homes; except for leave time, they belong on their posts. “Home” does not mean even mean U.S. soil, as American soil includes places like Guam or Saipan, in addition to U.S. embassies, where American troops will continue to be stationed, including in Iraq. Home also includes American ships at sea, which are places of U.S. sovereignty. Indeed, sailors and marines on ships in the theater of operations Iraq or Afghanistan will not necessarily “come home,” but be remain in place and simply be redesignated as no longer in a combat zone. Moreover, under the principle of federalism in the U.S. Constitution, no soldier is truly home, even if only in the sense of being in his homeland, if he is in a foreign state, even if that state is one of the other states in the American Union. Thus, a citizen of Pennsylvania, for example, is only at home in Pennsylvania, not in Alaska or Hawaii.

     We mourn the loss of the Americans, Iraqis and other allies who gained this hard-
fought major victory in the War on Terrorism while we continue to care for the physically and emotionally wounded. We honor and praise all the heroes and martyrs for their deeds, as well as all the political leaders in the U.S.-led coalition and in Iraq who made this victory possible, as well as celebrate their accomplishments. May we continue to be vigilant in protecting liberty and our interests in Iraq and around the world.

The Failure of the Congressional “Supercommittee/” Balanced Budget Amendment Opportunity

2011-12-16T16:31:00.001-05:00

     The Congressional “Supercommittee” that was tasked with reducing hundreds of billions of dollars of United States debt has failed to keep its charge, which will trigger significant automatic cuts to defense and domestic spending.

     The efforts to reduce the debt came to naught because of liberal Democratic insistence on raising taxes, even though the historical record is clear that the rising debt is the result of overspending, not undertaxing, and also that raising taxes reduces revenue by decreasing economic growth while cutting taxes increases revenue by stimulating economic growth.

     The drastic cuts to defense would “invite aggression,” according to the Defense Secretary, yet President Barak Obama has threatened to veto any Congressional effort to avoid the cuts.

     I decided to post about this issue not only as an update, but to point out that there is still time to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that would avoid the drastic defense cuts while making prudent cuts to domestic spending and avoiding tax increases. There are proposed amendments being considered by Congress. We conservatives should use this opportunity to promote a balanced budget amendment.

Obama Signs a Bill Allowing Indefinite Detention of Terrorists

2011-12-16T16:29:00.000-05:00

   United States President Barak Obama has signed the defense reauthorization bill, which includes a provision that allows military detentions of terrorists on U.S. soil indefinitely, even if they are American citizens.

     The provision targets suspects who have joined a foreign army or terrorist organization at war with the U.S. It codifies existing authority that was approved by Congress after September 11. The Administration retains its prerogative to try terrorists in military or civilian federal court, which some in Congress wanted to restrict.

     Although the indefinite detentions provision was opposed by liberals, along with libertarians, it attracted significant bipartisan support in Congress. At issue in the public discourse over the provision was whether to regard terrorists as criminals or prisoners of war. As I have noted before, they are neither; terrorists are war criminals who have no rights under the law of nations. Thus, the provision rightly treats terrorists like war criminals.

     The signing of this provision represents another example, with some notable exceptions, of the Obama Administration generally continuing the policies of the Bush Administration in the War on Terrorism, which I have reported regularly in my posts.

The Obama Administration is Penny-Wise and Pound Foolish about Dollar Coins

2011-12-13T15:45:00.006-05:00

     The Obama Administration announced that it is limiting production of United States Dollar coins only to collectors, according to the Washington Examiner. In order to save the $50 million in production and printing costs, the Administration will forfeit the 62-cent profit on each coin and spend an estimated $5.6 billion in more printing costs for $1 Federal Reserve Notes that the dollar coins could have replaced. In short, in order to appear fiscally responsible, the Obama Administration is being penny-wise and pound foolish.

     See also my posts, Dollar Coins Are Not a Waste of Money from September of 2011 http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2011/09/dollar-coins-are-not-waste-of-money.html and two posts from October of this year: Follow-Up: Dollar Coins Are Not a Waste of Money http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2011/10/follow-up-dollar-coins-are-not-waste-of.html and Use Dollar Coins and $2 Bills http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2011/10/use-dollar-coins-and-2-bills.html.

     It is no surprise then, that the federal government announced on the same day a record 38th month of budget deficits, according to the Conservative News Service, and a corresponding increase of several trillion dollars in debt.

U.S. Attorney General Holder Must Resign or Be Removed from Office

2011-12-08T14:09:00.000-05:00

     In my January of 2009 post, Hold the Line on Holder, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2009/01/hold-line-on-holder.html, I had singled out Eric Holder as the one Cabinet appointment by United States President Barak Obama that conservatives should have resisted. Holder’s record as Attorney General validates my concern.

     Recently, Holder has come under fire because of Justice Department program called “Operation Fast and Furious.” Under the program, guns were provided to Mexican drug cartels ostensibly to track them, but really in order to make appear as if loose gun laws in American states are to blame for drug violence in Mexico. A U.S. Border Control agent was among the scores of people who were killed by the drug cartels using the guns. Questions have arisen about lack of proper tracking and retrieval of the guns, as well as deception by the Justice Department in order to avoid congressional oversight and even to disguise the program’s true purpose. Some critics have called for Holder’s resignation because of the Fast and Furious scandal.

     The scandal over Fast and Furious may result in Holder’s resignation, firing or impeachment, but there also has been a pattern of radical policies implemented by the Attorney General on behalf of the Obama Administration.

     Holder dropped charges of voter intimidation during the 2008 General Election against the New Black Panthers in Philadelphia. The armed Panthers were caught on film intimidating voters at a voting precinct. The Justice Department had won a judgment against the Panthers, but dropped the case. A career Justice Department prosecutor resigned in protest, claiming that political leadership of the Department under Attorney General Holder had expressed its policy of not prosecuting voter intimidation by blacks against whites, instead of enforcing the equal protection of the laws, as required by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Holder also declines to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, a bipartisan Clinton-era federal law that allows states the option to not recognize “gay marriages” in other states instead of being forced to recognize them.

     The Attorney General’s implementation of policies reflect Obama’s failure to recognize the problem of terrorism as a facet of a war by militant Muslims against the United States, instead of as only a criminal problem. For example, the Holder attempted to conduct civilian trials for the September 11 conspirators and other terrorists who are war criminals, not common criminals. Indeed, he has not only charged terrorists with crimes and had them read their right to remain silent instead of interrogating them sufficiently. Holder has weakened American security by softening interrogations of terrorists and by threatening to prosecute criminally those Americans who harshly interrogated terrorists in order to prevent terrorist attacks against innocent American civilians. The Attorney General’s record on the War on Terrorism, which reflects a widespread left-wing view within the Obama Administration, has been the most significant blemish on Obama’s otherwise adequate record on the war. But even this one blemish is a risk too great to abide.

     For all these reasons, the tenure of Eric Holder as U.S. Attorney General must soon come to an end. We conservatives should continue to expose the radical left-wing policies of Holder and other Obama Administration officials and hold them accountable.

4,000th Visit to my Blog Tracked by StatCounter

2011-12-08T13:43:00.000-05:00

     StatCounter has tracked the 4,000th visit to my blog since April 2, 2009. Thank you for visiting. As always, separate visits are counted as pageviews that are at least one hour apart and do not include my own pageviews.

     The 3,000^th visit was logged less than seven months ago.  I shall continue to post of significant milestones, but save fuller reports for anniversaries of the commencement of tracking by each counter.

     I appreciate your patronage of my blog. Please continue to visit regularly.  Thank you for making it successful.

Roman-Inspired Western European Civilization vs. Greek-Inspired Eastern European Civilization

2011-12-05T16:10:00.007-05:00

     Lately, modern Greece is increasingly being referred to as part of “Western Civilization” and even Ancient Greece is being called the place of origin of Western Civilization. Although it may be only a stretch to include Greece, Russia or other parts of Eastern Europe within Western Civilization, it is strictly erroneous to consider Ancient Greek civilization as the origin of Western Civilization.

     “Western Civilization” refers to Western European Civilization. It developed after the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 A.D., which comprised much of Western Europe. Although there was some continuity with late Roman (i.e. Christian Roman) civilization, there was a political and cultural void during the post-Roman upheaval. Two figures, in particular, emerged to impose order amidst the chaos. First was St. Benedict, the 6th Century Italian son of Roman parents, who founded Western monasticism according to his orderly, yet balanced Rule. The Benedictine monasteries were centers of spirituality and learning where the monks conserved not only Scripture and the writings of the early Church, but the writings of ancient Greek and Roman civilization. The second figure was the Frankish King, Charles the Great (“Charlemagne”). He built upon the work of his grandfather and father and reunited Western Europe politically under a shared post-Western Roman civilization. By 800, Charlemagne was crowned “Emperor of the West” by the Pope, as the new “Holy Roman Empire” was the successor to the Western Roman Empire. The “Age of Christendom” can be dated to this time, a time when, despite political divisions, Western Europeans were united by the Church.

     While the Western Roman Empire fell in the late 5th Century, the Eastern Roman Empire, with its capital at Constantinople (formerly “Byzantium”), continued for nearly another thousand years. Its early Greco-Roman character soon became more distinctively Greek, while retaining some Roman influences, as it became known as the “Byzantine Empire.” While Latin had been the language of the West, Greek had been the language of the East. Although both Eastern and Western Europeans were Christians, they expressed their faith differently, apart from the divisions that led to schism late in the late 11th Century. Thus, although Hellenistic (Ancient Greek) and Greco-Roman Civilization influenced Western Civilization, Greece is not the place of direct origin of Western European Civilization, but of the distinct Eastern European Civilization. Ancient and medieval Eastern European Civilization, like Western European Civilization, produced many fine fruits.

     Therefore, “Western” Civilization does not mean “European” Civilization in general, in the sense of being Occidental (Western), as opposed to Oriental (Eastern, e.g. Asian) civilization. Only Western European Civilization is the cultural successor to Western Roman Civilization. Even if Eastern European Civilization, which has been less active in the contemporary era, currently would be considered to form, together with Western European Civilization, a new general “Western Civilization,” that encompasses the entire Occident, it would only be because the former has been subsumed by the latter, not because they share a common direct ancestor. Regardless, although the two civilizations influenced each other, they remain different enough to identify them as distinct. The fact that some contemporary Eastern Europeans consider themselves Westerners does not alter these facts.

     In addition to historical accuracy and the recognition and appreciation of different cultures, a major significance of this point is that it disproves the common misconception that Ancient Greece is the source of inspiration for the American so-called “democracy.” The late 6th Century B.C. Greek democracy, which lasted only thirty years, along with other ancient Greek ideals, was only partially inspirational to the American Founding Fathers. The Republic of Rome, along with certain ancient Roman ideals, was the main source of inspiration for the American representative republic. Indeed, democracy is a Greek word and republic a Latin one. James Madison made clear the differences between a democracy and a representative republic in Federalist #14 in defending the proposed Constitution that established a federal republic on the American Continent instead of a democracy, which is only practical on a small scale, among other problems.

     In conclusion, the ancient Greeks and Romans influenced each other, but Roman-Inspired Western European Civilization (“Western Civilization” for short) is culturally distinct from more Greek-Inspired Eastern European Civilization. Therefore, Ancient Greece is not the cradle of Western Civilization.

Social Security: The Ponzi Scheme Debate, Its Unconstitutionality and Fascist Inspiration and the Latest Developments

2011-11-29T19:30:00.017-05:00

     Now that the general election is over, I can focus on posting more to my blog. One of the topics on which I had made notes during the campaign was about a subject that arose during the 2012 United States presidential election campaign, which has commenced prematurely. There was some debate about whether Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and whether it is unconstitutional. The debate was touched off by comments by Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry, the Governor of Texas.

     In a Ponzi scheme, the initial investors earn high returns on their investments, paid for by the additional investments of newer investors, and not by any profit generated by the fund manager, for without additional investors, there would not be sufficient funds to pay back the original investors. Such a fraudulent criminal scheme only works as long as there is a sufficient number of new investors to satisfy the demands by the original investors of a return on their investment, or else the scheme collapses for lack of sufficient funds. Whether or not Social Security meets the legal definition of such a scheme, it would undoubtedly not be permitted by law because of other problems, at least in many states. For example, an individual can pay Social Security payroll taxes (i.e. a premium) for his entire working life, but die the moment before he reaches retirement age and receive none of the money back. Any pension or old age insurance plan with terms like Social Security would be recognized as a rip-off for this reason alone, among other deficiencies, such as its lack of safeguarded reserves or its low rate of return on investment.

     Indeed, any government-run program can be ended by the government without any obligation to keep whatever promises it made. That a government program is not as safe as a legally-enforceable private plan is an implicit point in the scare tactics made by liberal Democrats every election against Republicans they claim would eliminate or cut Social Security, as if the government-run pension plan is like a private plan that is based upon a legal obligation to pay back the retiree the funds he contributed through the premiums he paid, when, in fact, the program is funded by nothing more than a tax which generates revenues the federal government uses as it pleases without any obligation to pay the taxpayer back even one cent. Thus, the liberal Democrats make the conservatives' point that government-run insurance plans are unreliable.

     The debate inspired Terry Jeffrey to write an article for the Conservative News Service that explains the constitutional questions about Social Security, which may be viewed at the following link, where it was republished: http://townhall.com/columnists/terryjeffrey/2011/09/14/authors_of_social_security_believed_it_was_unconstitutional.

     I would add another historical insight to the discussion: the Fascist origin of Social Security. According to the American Italian Historian Association, United States President Franklin Roosevelt sent a delegation to Fascist Italy in the 1930s to study Dictator Benito Mussolini’s socialist retirement pension plan. The American Social Security program was modeled on that fascist program.

     Shortly after the Ponzi scheme debate, Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) unveiled his plan to reform Social Security without cutting benefits, raising the payroll tax or privatizing the program. An article about his proposal can be viewed at the following link: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gop-prez-candidate-calls-reforming-social-security-personal-retirement-accounts. The plan would fund voluntary requirement accounts for older workers funded by federal spending cuts. The accounts would be based upon a mix of bonds and stocks, which would thus represent a conservative risk and would pay competitive returns.

     Meanwhile, there continues to be a congressional debate about whether or not to extend or even expand the 2% cut of the payroll tax which funds Social Security that was approved last year by Congress for 2011 as a temporary economic stimulus measure. The Democrats who support the extension of the cut that was proposed by United States President Barak Obama are accusing the majority Republicans, who had supported the temporary measure, of opposing a tax cut by not supporting its extension. The concern on the part of some conservatives was the loss of revenue to support Social Security and their opposition to the liberal Congressional Democrats’ predictable proposed offset: to increase the tax on the wealthy. The conservatives argue that an increase of taxes on the wealthy, who are often employers, would be counterproductive to the stimulative intent of the payroll tax cut. The Democrats did propose to include employers, who must match employee contributions, but who have been left out of the current tax cut, in the expanded tax cut, if the employers hire new workers. Such a proposal would be fairer and more economically beneficial. There is hope that a compromise can be reached on the payroll tax that neither increases workers’ taxes nor the federal debt, perhaps by offsetting spending cuts.

Third Anniversary of My Blog/One-Year Blogger Hit Report

2011-11-28T11:27:00.002-05:00

     Thank you, dear visitors, for making this blog successful over its first three years. I especially appreciate the comments you post or pass along to me privately. Please continue to visit or comment. As always, your ideas are welcome.

     I shall summarize in this post the findings from the tracking by the blog host, Blogger.com, as the blog’s anniversary is nearly coincidental with the point at which I began to track hits to it through Blogger. In the year since I first started noticing Blogger’s tracking of hits (pageviews) to my blog, I have observed a number of interesting developments. As I have noted in previous reports, Blogger tracks far more visitors than the tracking service I have been using since April of 2009, StatCounter, especially from Europe, although the former tracking service is far less specific than the latter. Nonetheless, a number of statistics can be determined from the data provided by Blogger.

     Not counting my own pageviews, Blogger has tracked around 6,100 pageviews in one year – a rate of nearly 17 a day, which is more than twice as many as tracked by StatCounter. The far-more specific StatCounter allows the tracking of actual visits (pageviews at least one hour apart), which averages more than four a day. The increase in hits in recent months tracked by both services is much more pronounced in Blogger’s tracking than StatCounter’s.

     Blogger has tracked pageviews of every post to my blog. Indeed, all posts have received more hits than have been tracked by StatCounter. The most-visited posts tracked by Blogger are similar to those visited over the same period by StatCounter, with several interesting exceptions. There were disproportionately more hits (several hundred more, combined) for the following four posts, among others: First Anniversary of My Blog; Happy Thanksgiving; The Santorum-McCain Enhanced Interrogation Policy Controversy; Cinfici’s Interview on Rick Santorum’s Presidential Candidacy; and Freedoms, Rights and Prudence in Regard to the September 11 Site Mosque and the Koran Burning.

     Blogger has tracked more pageviews from all over the world, including the United States, than StatCounter, especially from Europe and Asia. The most hits from outside the United States have been tracked by Blogger from Russia, Germany, Netherlands and France (340+ to 600+ each). Like StatCounter, Blogger has also tracked many pageviews from Algeria, Malaysia and the United Kingdom, although the former has tracked more from those states than the latter. However, Blogger has also tracked scores of hits from Ukraine, Latvia and Poland, which StatCounter has not. There have been more pageivews tracked by Blogger than StatCounter from Eastern Europe, in particular. The tracking of the two services was relatively similar for Canada, Australia and India, but Blogger tracked significantly more hits from Slovenia, Singapore and Italy than StatCounter. Blogger has tracked hits from 10 states from which StatCounter has not tracked any pageviews since I began using its service in April of 2009; in addition to Latvia, there were a significant number of hits from China and Georgia among this group.

     Again, thank you for visiting my blog. I hope all of you had a great Thanksgiving Holiday. I did, as I recover well both from the recent election and from health problems. I am thankful for my health and the many well-wishes I have received. I have also been focused in the meantime on advising policymakers who have requested my advice in regard to the Reading School District in terms of greater openness and transparency and better financial controls. I hope they are successful in implementing these reforms for better government.

Guatemala and Spain Elect Conservatives

2011-11-20T20:43:00.005-05:00

     I have been posting about a popular global rightward shift in elections over the last two years. Sometimes, the shift toward the starboard side has been slight – so slight that the conservative candidate has occasionally lost the election by being unable to form a coalition, despite gaining a parliamentary plurality. Guatemala and Spain, however, have each confirmed the trend to the right in a decisive manner.

     In Guatemala earlier this month, voters returned the conservatives to power by electing former General Otto Perez Molina president. Molina was part of the regime charged with atrocities during the Guatemalan Civil War, but he has never personally been associated with any crimes. He was part of the team that negotiated the peace accords with the Communist rebels and he had a record of respecting the constitution and human rights. Molina’s campaign promise to crack down on crime appealed to Guatemalans beleaguered by crime. He will also have to work to improve his impoverished country’s budget.

     The results of the elections this weekend in Spain were even more dramatic. Spanish voters not only ousted the Socialists, but gave the conservatives a parliamentary majority. Conservative leader Mariano Rajoy will be able to become Prime Minister without having to form a coalition. He will also have a free hand to enact further austerity measures to avoid the need for Spain to be bailed out by the European Monetary Union. The Spanish economy has declined during Socialist rule, while Spain’s debt had risen until the adoption of the government’s austerity program. Having a parliamentary majority will give investors confidence that the incoming Spanish government can pass the necessary fiscal and economic reforms.

Monti Is Sworn in as Italian Premier

2011-11-17T22:37:00.000-05:00

     Economist and Former European Commissioner Mario Monti was sworn in as Prime Minister of Italy today, officially ending the premiership of Silvio Berlusconi. The respected Monti takes the helm of the Italian ship of state as it navigates through the tempest of the European debt crisis, at which Italy is now in the eye.

     Monti saluted Berlusconi’s service, according to ANSA, the Italian news agency. Berlusconi resigned after the passage of reforms he proposed to stimulate economic growth because of the European loss of confidence in his center-right government’s ability to implement them. The outgoing Prime Minister’s party, the People of Freedom, backs Monti, but its coalition partner, the Northern League, does not, although ANSA reports that Monti has stated that he will continue the League’s policy of fiscal federalism. The main centre-left opposition party and some most centrist parties also back the national unity government that comprises only technocrats, not politicians.

     Monti was appointed a life Senator by President Georgio Napolitano in order to pave the way to his appointment as Prime Minister, as it would have been seen as less representative to appoint a non-politician as Premier without calling for snap elections. The new Prime Minister’s executive is unusual in that none of its cabinet ministers are Members of Parliament. It remains unclear when elections will be held, but Monti’s new government will face a confidence vote in Parliament Friday, which he is expected to win easily.

     ANSA reports that Monti outlined his agenda before Parliament today for reducing Italian debt and boosting economic growth. He will reexamine Italy’s taxes and spending, particularly the escalating costs of government, which he attributed to high benefit pensions for government employees and redundant provincial administrations, ANSA reported; he proposes tax reform and disincentivizing early retirement, for example. Monti plans to sell state real state assets and urged local governments to privatize public services and sell off interests in municipal companies, according to ANSA. The Italian news agency also reports that Monti would deregulate professional services and crack down even more heavily on tax evasion.

     Monti’s appointment has won international praise. The expectations are high that he will achieve positive results, despite the difficult challenges.

Conservative Analysis of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's Record

2011-11-13T20:48:00.000-05:00

     Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has submitted his resignation to the Italian President, as promised, following the passage in Parliament of the reforms he proposed to increase Italy's economic growth in the midst of the European debt crisis. The reforms include the selling of state assets, the liberalization of Italy's labor market to make it easier for companies to terminate employees and the gradual increase of Italy's retirement age.

     The 75-year old Berlusconi served three times as Premier over the last 17 years. In earlier stints, he was able to lower taxes, but was blocked from implementing more serious reforms by centrist coalition partners. In his third government, in addition to the reforms approved yesterday, he was able to sign numerous fiscal reforms into law, including major budget cuts, a decrease in Italian bureaucracy and a crackdown in tax evasion while keeping taxes as low as he could. All of these reforms were undertaken in a country known for resisting reforms.

     As I have noted repeatedly, Berlusconi's fiscal reforms met with praise every time from European leaders, only to be undermined always immediately afterward by fears and speculation. It was to end the fears and speculation to save Italy from bankruptcy that he sacrificed his premiership.

     The foreign policy of the pro-American Berlusconi included the sending of more Italian troops to Afghanistan and his leadership in the NATO mission to defend the Libyan people from dictator Muammar Qaddafi. His government dealt with an influx of refugees from Tunisia and Libya because of the Arab Spring.

     Other parts of Berlusconi's successful record included dealing with the Naples sanitation crisis and the earthquake in Abruzzo, cracking down on the Mafia, defending Italy's practice of placing crucifixes in school classrooms and the Italian language within the European Union.

     Berlusconi will remain a Member of Parliament, where his centre-right People of Freedom Party is the largest party.

     Berlusconi was done in not only by fear and speculation, but by his own financial and sexual scandals, as well as the fractiousness of his coalition. He became the object of derision that magnified the decrease in confidence in Italy's ability to oversee the necessary reforms to maintain its solvency, despite Italy's inherent economic strength.

     Although the world is hopeful that Italy's incoming technocratic government led by Mario Monti will succeed in boosting Italian growth while making the further necessary fiscal reforms until elections are held, it must be stated that Italy's recovery will have been accomplished on the foundation built by Berlusconi.

European Monetary Union Update: New Governments for Greece and Italy

2011-11-11T23:07:00.002-05:00

     Major developments are occurring with greater rapidity in the financial crisis in the European Monetary Union as fears mount about the stability of the eurozone.

     Greek Prime Minister Georgios Papandreou resigned after winning a confidence vote to allow the formation of a new coalition government. The new government of national unity will include the three main political parties in Greece: Papendreou's Socialists, the conservatives and the nationalists. It will be led by Lucas Papademos, a former high-ranking official of the European Central Bank who is known for his support for fiscally responsible policies, which is an unusual position in Greek politics. Papademos will be tasked with implementing Greece's austerity program in order to continue to receive bailout funds from the European Central Bank. It is uncertain whether there will be snap parliamentary elections in February, as originally planned.

     Meanwhile, even as the Greek drama has played out, more and more focus of attention has been placed on Italy because of its size as the third largest economy in the European Monetary Union and eighth largest in the world, which makes Italy too big to fail for the Monetary Union. I have noted in earlier updates how every time the Italians pass an austerity measure it is praised for making sufficient reforms by Monetary Union officials – who soon afterward panic and urge more reforms as urgently necessary.

     After Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi proposed a major economic growth package that include serious reforms in order to ensure Italy balances its budget on schedule by 2013, Monetary Union officials again praised the Italian government. However, soon afterwards investors began to doubt Italy's ability to implement the reforms because of the increasing instability of Berlusconi's fractious centre-right coalition government as its parliamentary majority has been shrinking. Fears – and perhaps speculation – drove Italy's borrowing costs to 7%, the same figure that triggered bailouts for Greece, Ireland and Portugal. However, as the Monetary Union and United States President Barak Obama have noted, Italy is not Greece because its large economy is inherently sound, despite its current low gross domestic product. In a strong statement on the matter that sought to reassure markets while urging the Europeans to solve the crisis, Obama observed that Italy has a liquidity problem, not a solvency problem, like Greece has. The European Central Bank, led by new President Mario Draghi, has been purchasing billions of dollars worth of Italian bonds in a so-far unsuccessful attempt to lower Italy's borrowing costs. Draghi, however, has been careful not to be seen as overly soft on his home country by loaning it too liberally.

     Berlusconi has offered to resign as soon as the pro-growth reforms are passed in order to make way for a new technocratic government. The reform package cleared the Senate today and will be voted on tomorrow by the lower house of the Italian parliament. The new centre-right government is expected to be led by Mario Monti, an economist and former European Commissioner. Monti is politically independent and widely respected. It is hoped that his government would give Italy the political stability it needs to continue its austerity program while encouraging economic growth.  It is unclear whether there will be snap parliamentary elections in Italy.

     The problems in Greece and Italy are adding to the pressure on France and Belgium, the latter of which remains politically unstable. Although Italy is considered the firewall of the Monetary Union, having eclipsed Spain in that role, a collapse of France would doom the euro for good. The French and Germans are plotting a new European financial architecture that excludes the peripheral states whose economic weaknesses are currently threatening the euro project.  Europhiles across the continent continue to urge greater European integration as the solution while the chorus of eurosceptics has grown in size and volume. As the euro's costs increasingly are seen as outweighing its benefits, the latter group has increasingly urged Europeans to consider what had been unthinkable: the abandonment of the single currency.

Joe Frazier, In Memoriam

2011-11-11T11:46:00.002-05:00

     Former heavy-weight boxing champion of the world Joe Frazier died recently in Philadelphia of liver cancer at the age of 67. “Smokin' Joe” was most famous for his bouts in the ring with Muhammad Ali, but was also known for his patriotism, charity and good Samaratinism.

     Born in South Carolina in 1944, Frazier moved to Philadelphia to train for his amateur boxing career which began in 1962.  It culminated with a gold medal in the 1964 Tokyo Olympics.  He then embarked on a meteoric professional career, winning the boxing championship in 1970 and retaining it in the “Fight of the Century” a year later by defeating the great Muhammad Ali.  Frazier, famed for his devastating left hook, held the title during boxing's golden age until losing to George Forman in 1973. The Frazier-Ali rivalry was renewed in 1974 when the Philadelphia pugilist failed in his challenge to wrest the title from Ali and again the following year in the legendary “Thrilla in Manila.”  Frazier last boxed professionally in 1981, retiring to run a gym and train other successful boxers. He also ran “Smokin' Joe's” restaurant.

     Unlike other boxing champions, however, Frazier did not enjoy great financial success, partly because of bad investments and partly because of his charity. A patriot, he campaigned for Republican Ronald Reagan for President of the United States in 1980 and 1984 and for Democrat and later Republican Frank Rizzo for Mayor of Philadelphia. When his longtime rival Ali was given the honor of carrying the torch for the 1994 Olympics in Atlanta, Frazier objected because of Ali's conscientious objection to the draft during the Vietnamese War.

     Joseph Frazier was an inspirational figure with the heart of a champion. May his example continue to inspire others to professional success and to good citizenship.

Analysis of the 2011 General Elections in Pennsylvania and Across the Union

2011-11-10T23:24:00.002-05:00

     The 2011 General Elections in Pennsylvania were remarkable for being unremarkable in terms of any discernible trend toward one political party or the other. The same is true for the elections across the United States. Although there were a few hotly-contested races, the elections were generally low-key and therefore attracted little voter turnout, despite the significance of the offices sought. Races were determined by local factors instead of by any voter mood toward the President of the United States or Congress.

     Starting here in Reading and Berks County, the Democrats won competitive city races for Mayor and School Director where they enjoy a 5:1 voter registration advantage while Republican incumbents won all the contested countywide races despite the slight Democratic registration advantage. There were no Republicans who challenged any Democratic incumbents.

     Even though the Democratic Party enjoys a significant registration advantage across Pennsylvania, the two political parties split the two statewide appellate judicial races, with a Democrat capturing the open seat on Pennsylvania Superior Court and a Republican winning the open seat on the Commonwealth Court. The Democrats won the most significant contest of the year in the Keystone State for the majority of the County Commission in Montgomery County; The suburban Philadelphia county that has trended away from the Republicans in recent years will now be governed by a Democratic majority for the first time since 1871. Elsewhere across Pennsylvania, however, Republicans made historic gains in several rural and western counties previously ruled by the Democrats, which reflects the growing GOP trend in those areas.

     Although Republicans gained a small number of legislative chambers in the American South (i.e. the Houses of Representatives in Mississippi, for the first time since Reconstruction, and Virginia), Democrats held down their expected losses in the Virginia Senate and even made a few gains in offices across the Union.  Two significant conservative referenda, such as in regard to labor in Ohio and in regard to the right to life in Mississippi were easily defeated.

     I shall take this opportunity to comment further on my race for Reading School Director. Although I did not win the election this time, I was honored by the 2,600 votes I received in the low-turnout election and the broad bipartisan support my candidacy attracted from numerous Democratic elected officials and voters, organized labor, conservatives and Republicans. I was pleased to run with a bi-partisan ticket. Several of my Democratic running mates who shared my platform of increasing openness and transparency, improving financial controls and eliminating wasteful spending to keep taxes down were elected to the Reading School Board with a mandate for reform. I congratulate them and wish them success in office.

     I greatly appreciated all the support I received. Thank you to all of you who volunteered for me or supported my candidacy in any way or voted for me. I intend to remain closely involved with local politics to contribute my counsel and ideas for better government.

The 2011 General Election in Pennsylvania

2011-11-07T23:11:00.000-05:00

     General Election Day is November 8 in Pennsylvania, as well as in other states in the American Union. There are many important state and countywide, magisterial district judge, municipal and school director elections on the ballot.

     There are races of state Superior and Commonwealth Courts, which are the two appellate courts in Pennsylvania. As the state Supreme Court hears only a relatively small number of cases, these courts are usually where the final rulings are made on all appeals for all manner of legal cases.  There are pro-life candidates for appellate court who would not legislate from the bench, but would interpret law according to its original intent.

     County Commissioners are on the ballot across the Commonwealth, as well as county row officers and judges of the Courts of Common Pleas. There are elections for municipal offices such as for mayor, councilmen, township commissioners and the like. All of these county and municipal offices directly affect residents in innumerable ways.  Additionally, there are races for school boards. Like County Commissioners and municipal officers, School Directors have the power to tax and to make expenditures of public money, as part of their role in providing public education in their school districts.  In many of these races, there are conservative candidates on the ballot who would be fiscally responsible with taxpayers' money and who would defend liberty and act in virtue.

     Although these type of elections are often dismissed as off-year elections, they are significant because they are the ones that affect people the most directly and frequently. They also provide the opportunity for people to gain experience needed for higher office.

     In local elections, each person's vote carries more weight than in statewide elections.  I urge conservatives to vote for the most conservative candidates. If there are no candidates on the ballot, write in the name of a conservative or even your own name. Urge other conservatives you know to vote. We can make significant progress in promoting good government and advancing liberty.

The Reverend Monsignor Felix A. Losito, Rest in Peace

2011-11-04T00:28:00.004-04:00

     The Reverend Monsignor Felix A. Losito passed away yesterday at the age of 80 in Reading, Pennsylvania from complications suffered from a fall in July. The holy priest was most known as the founder of National Shut-In Day. He was also the author of five books, among many other accomplishments.

     Losito was born in Wickatunk, New Jersey in 1931, the son of immigrants from Italy. He grew up in Kennet Square, Pennsylvania and entered St. Charles Borromeo Seminary in Philadelphia in 1948.  Even as a young seminarian, Losito began to exhibit early signs of sanctity that set him apart from his classmates. He was ordained to the priesthood in 1958.

     Father Losito's first assignment was to Our Lady of Pompeii Parish in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania and then to Holy Family Parish in New Philadelphia. He was appointed pastor at Immaculate Conception Parish in Kelayres, where he served for six years. In 1968, Father Losito was appointed administrator pro tempore of Holy Rosary, the Italian national parish in Reading, in 1968 and pastor four years later. He served as pastor there until his death.

     Observing the abandonment of the elderly and others who were shut in, Father Losito founded the National Shut-In Society in 1970. It became a Pennsylvania state holiday and was proclaimed by United States President Richard Nixon in 1972. Inspired by Blessed Pope John XIII, Father Losito chose as the organization's motto, “Visit someone who cannot visit you.” The society remains active to this day.

     A second claim to fame for Holy Rosary Parish during Father Losito's pastorate arose from a boxing program sponsored by the parish that not only led to conversions, but produced a two-time world boxing champion, Steve Little.

     Father Losito was named a Monsignor by Pope Paul VI in 1976. His reputation for preaching, spiritual guidance and his personal example continued to grow during his active pastorate. Monsignor Losito was assigned many posts in the Diocese and community and received numerous awards during this time as his parish became known as an oasis of sanctity. Over the years, a series of famous religious figures came to speak at Holy Rosary Parish and there were regular spiritual activities.  In addition to ministering to the lonely, he worked tirelessly to aid the poor, defend the right to life, promote education and conserve Italian heritage.

     Monsignor Losito began writing “The Shut-In Corner,” which later became “The Spiritual Corner,” for the Allentown Diocesan newsletter, the AD Times in 1989. His first book, Attaining Heroic Holiness Through Speech: “The St. James Master Plan,” was published in 1997. It was the subject of a sermon on the Eternal Word Television Network. Monsignor Losito's second book was entitled Love is the Measure of All Holiness, which was a compilation of his articles in “The Spiritual Corner.” He penned two children's books, Donato the Little Donkey and Donato the Little Donkey II. Monsignor Losito's fifth book, His Love is Unstoppable, published in 2004, was a second volume of his articles in “The Spiritual Corner.”

     The Reverend Monsignor Felix A. Losito devoted his life to serving God by spreading the good news of salvation through Christ. Although his legacy of accomplishments are considerable, the greatest legacy of this exemplary priest is the faith he nurtured in his spiritual children.

     May Monsignor Losito rest in peace and may his example continue to inspire holiness in all those who were familiar with his spirituality and all who will come to know of him through his good works.

European Monetary Union Update: Commentary on the Latest Deal

2011-10-30T23:45:00.004-04:00

     A deal was reached late last week to resolve the financial crisis for the European Monetary Union, which is the single currency (euro) zone of the European Union (EU).

     The key provisions included a large-scale increase of the funds for the Monetary Union's rescue fund and further measures to encourage the purchases of sovereign debt in order to keep interest rates from increasing to unmanageable levels and to recapitalize banks.

     In exchange for the latest tranche of bailout funds for Greece, which has undertaken a severe austerity program coupled with higher taxes that have weakened its economy, Greece will essentially execute a partial default. Private bondholders of sovereign Greek debt will only receive 50% of their investment.

     Because much of the funds for the bailout come from the strongest economy in the Eurozone, Germany, the negotiations over the bailout stirred up more popular resentment between the Germans and Greeks, an issue I had raised in earlier updates. There has even been discussion that the failure of the EU, which was intended to be modelled after the United States of America, could result in conflict that threatens the peace of Europe.

     Spain was praised by the EU for its austerity program to reduce its debt. The Monetary Union demanded Italy present a satisfactory plan to increase its meager economic growth, which it did after Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi worked out a deal with his junior coalition partner to increase the retirement age from 65 to 67 by 2026, make it easier for employers to fire workers and privatize state assets, among other reforms. It will also support infrastructure projects, but the long-planned bridge from Italy to Sicily is now in doubt. Italians felt humiliated by the demands from the Germans and French and noted that the economy of France was barely better than Italy's. As noted previously, Italy is the third largest in the EU and the eighth largest in the world, which makes it even more of a firewall for the Eurozone than Spain. Like many members of the EU, it is undertaking an austerity program. Italy's deficit will be eliminated by 2013, at which point it will begin to pay down its debt that is 120% of its GDP. Only Greece's 150% is higher. Greece's target is 120% over the next several years.

     The United Kingdom, which is a member of the EU, but does not use the euro, is attempting to use the crisis as an opportunity to claw back some of its sovereign powers it had surrendered to the EU. Its demands that a deal be struck urgently and its advice on how to strike one were met with resentment from the French Prime Minister, but the Monetary Union crisis could affect the UK significantly.

     As I have previously warned, the crisis has encouraged its supporters to insist upon further European integration, which means an even more centralized European superstate that reduces the sovereignty of its members instead of an orderly breakup of the grand folly and a restoration of state sovereignty.

     There are doubts about the effectiveness of the deal as a solution to the euro crisis. The Greek economy is weak and the Greeks violently oppose even modest sacrifices, such as not retiring until after their mid-50s. Italy's governing coalition is teetering on the brink of collapse with snap elections early in 2012 likely. Reforms are difficult to enact there with its fractious parliamentary system, but while the coalition government has successfully enacted a series of significant reforms, it has lost much of the margin of its governing majority to a faction led by the Speaker of Parliament and confidence in the Prime Minister amidst his personal scandals has decreased. Thus, there are doubts about its ability to enact the ambitious reforms it has proposed. Meanwhile, there have been fresh concerns about Portugal's ability to avoid a default.

     Even if the latest deal represents a comprehensive solution to the euro crisis, as opposed to a continuation of the muddling through the European Monetary Union has undertaken heretofore, the crisis is exposing the euro project's flaws even more than I have posted about before. The diversity of Europe, which is arguably the most culturally diverse continent on Earth, is not a basis for unity, especially without Christianity. Europe could be united to a significant degree in Christendom by a universal Church, but a shared secular commitment to peace, liberty and representative government is not enough to unite a continent around a vague concept of Europeaness. The particular differences between Northern and Southern Europeans have clearly been identified as the cause of the crisis. Because of the warmer climate in the Mediterranean, Southern Europeans do not work as hard as their Northern European neighbors, a fact that is reflected in their strikingly different cultures.

     It is no surprise, for example, that the Germans expect the Greeks to work harder and sacrifice more to pay for their overspending and that the Greeks resent being made to make such sacrifices by foreigners. Both are feeling the loss of sovereignty that is keeping them bound in an unhappy marriage from which neither can separate. In short, the European Monetary Union has not only failed to unite Europeans, it has increased their divisions.

Blog Milestone: The Visit from the 100th Foreign State to My Blog

2011-10-30T22:30:00.000-04:00

     The latest milestone for my blog was the visit from the 100th foreign state to my blog tracked by Statcounter since April of 2009, not counting the 50 states of the American Union. This figure represents over half of the 194 sovereign states of the world, in addition to the United States of America. In addition, there have been visits from Hong Kong, the Palestinian Territory, the Distict of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam.

     Blogger has tracked an additional 11 foreign states of origin of visitors to my blog since November of 2010. I have noted in previous reports that the web host for this blog tracks far more pageviews, especially from outside the U.S., than Statcounter, but the latter's greater specificity allows for better statistical analysis. I shall post an annual analysis of Blogger's tracking, but continue to use Statcounter's tracking for my main reports.

     Thank you for visiting and for your comments.  I recommend viewing the comments on earlier posts, as I sometimes post addenda there for recent posts or if a point is too brief for a follow-up or update post. Please visit regularly.

Newt Gingrich Is Right to Call for Lincoln-Douglas Style Debates

2011-10-22T20:48:00.000-04:00

     Former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich of Georgia, a candidate for the Republican nomination for President, recently called for a series of Lincoln-Douglas style debates in place of the usual “debates” moderated by members of the media.

     No one has ever seen a true presidential candidates’ debate, and few, if any, have seen one for any other federal or state elected office. I have long hoped for precisely such a serious proposal to replace the dreaded media spectacles we only get to witness.

     Since the 1960 Presidential Election, the typical presidential “debates,” like those for most federal and state elected offices, are nothing more than joint press conferences. They are dominated by the moderators or other arrogant members of the press who ask questions trying to trip up a candidate or pit one against another. In short, the outcome is heavily influenced by the media instead of by the candidates. A Republican “debate” moderated by a liberal press corps is especially the modern equivalent of throwing Christians to the lions. Furthermore, these candidate spectacles are superficial, dominated by personality and style over substance and by the question of who supposedly interrupted whom (which is usually only interjecting), with much of the focus on candidates’ gaffes. These “debates” only exacerbate the pernicious trend toward ever more populism in politics and especially in presidential elections.

     I have participated many times as a candidate for elected office in what is correctly identified as a candidates’ “forum.” In a forum, candidates are usually given a brief time to make an opening and closing statement and answer a few questions. The questions are not necessarily from the media. A forum is, nevertheless, not the same as a debate, as it is dominated by the questions and there is little time to respond to the other candidates, especially when there are several, but at least they are not misidentified as “debates.”

     A Lincoln-Douglas or similar-style debate would be a formal, structured event in which each candidate has several minutes to express an argument for or against an agreed-upon resolution, with a series of rebuttals. There is no moderator and no media to influence the outcome, only the candidates. Such a real debate is not superficial, but in depth, and less influenced by personality and style than by substance. The candidates’ thinking would emerge more clearly from such a format. Furthermore, Gingrich’s proposal is to conduct a series of debates, as Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas famously did in the 1858 election for U.S. Senator from Illinois, whereby a series of issues could be debated.

     The current style is an inappropriate one to choose the Chief Executive and Commander in Chief. The presidency was created around General George Washington and before the establishment of political parties and even the thought that candidates would campaign publicly for the office. The winner was not supposed to be determined by populism, but by his character, wisdom, ideals and experience.

     I do not believe that candidates’ debates for any office would be necessary in the first place, as the campaign itself is a public debate, except for the fact that the campaigns are otherwise mostly presented to the public through the filter of a superficial media. However, if there are to be debates, it would be better that they be true debates instead of the phony ones we currently must suffer.

Report on Senator Pat Toomey's Remarks

2011-10-22T17:17:00.000-04:00

     Pennsylvania's Junior United States Senator Pat Toomey, a Republican, spoke last night at the Berks County Republican Committee Fall Dinner, near Reading, which I attended. He commented on the severe fiscal challenges facing the U.S. and the complicity of the Senate's liberal Democratic majority and updated us on his role on the Congressional “Super Committee.”

     Sen. Toomey called the Senate “dysfunctional” under liberal Democratic leadership and noted as an example that for three years it has not approved a budget, although required to by federal law, despite the massive and ever-growing federal debt. The freshman Senator explained that instead of voting for an increase in the debt limit and allowing the spending to continue at its current rate, which is what Congress had always done heretofore, he and the other fiscally conservative members of Congress voted against the measure to slow down the rate of spending. The resultant bipartisan deal to increase the debt limit with offsetting spending reductions also called for the creation of the Select Committee, known as the “Super Committee.”

     Even though Sen. Toomey voted against the bill, his fiscal conservatism and expertise won him the nomination to the bipartisan, bicameral Committee, which he observed represents a great opportunity for significant spending cuts. The law that created the Committee requires that both houses of Congress vote, without filibuster or amendment, on whatever proposal the Committee approves by a simple majority vote. Sen. Toomey predicted that if the Committee were to come to an agreement, Congress would approve it and the President sign it. The Committee has been engaged in long negotiations, he reported.  Sen. Toomey pointed out that the $1.2 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years, although a huge figure, would represent only 3% of federal spending over that period and cited the Senate's failure to approve such a reduction as further evidence of its dysfunctionality.

     Sen. Toomey also explained how raising taxes would not solve the debt problem, as it is too large even to be eliminated even by raising income taxes on all earners to 50%, even assuming that such an increase would not harm the economy and thereby reduce revenue.

     The Junior Senator from Pennsylvania warned that the U.S. was on the path toward becoming like Europe, but there was still the chance it could avoid the same fate as Greece, for example.

     Sen. Toomey expressed the importance of electing fiscal conservatives to the majority in the U.S. Senate in 2012 and also defeating President Barak Obama in the presidential election. In the meantime, he noted the significance of the statewide judicial and local elections coming up in Pennsylvania on November 8 that affect the citizens directly in many ways and urged the people to elect conservatives to every office.

Use Dollar Coins and $2 Bills

2011-10-18T13:25:00.002-04:00

     I have been posting recently about the taxpayer money-saving benefits of United States dollar coins. Similarly beneficial is the $2 Federal Reserve Note. The $2 bill is not only still in circulation, it is still printed when necessary by the United States Treasury’s Bureau of Engraving and Printing.

     In fact, the $2 bill is becoming increasingly popular, which necessitated the printing of the 2003 Series and the 2003A Series, the latter of which was printed in 2006. The necessity was created because the 1995 Series of the $2 bill, the first since the introduction of the $2 Federal Reserve Note in 1976 was used up (because paper notes only last a few years) or hoarded. The 1976 Series, with its Bicentennial reverse featuring Jonathan Trumbull’s signing of the Declaration of Independence, was the successor to earlier $2 notes of various kinds that featured Monticello on the reverse with Thomas Jefferson on the obverse. Inflation and immigration by people accustomed to two-denomination notes have increased the popularity of the note. Another contributing factor is clever business marketing, whereby entrepreneurs take advantage of the note’s novelty by giving $2 bills as change as a way of promoting their business by word of mouth.

     Like dollar coins, $2 bills save taxpayer money because for every $2 note printed, one less $1 note must be printed. Also like dollar coins, $2 bills are convenient for tolls and make nice tips or presents for children. Using a combination of them would be an especially wonderful present. If the $1 bill were ever withdrawn from circulation, as some have proposed, it would be good to get more accustomed to the $2 bill, which is still regarded as a novelty by much of the public or even as unnecessary.

     When receiving cash from the bank, instead of $1 bills, ask for some dollar coins and $2 bills, and then use them. Business owners would especially increase the usage of these coins and currency by giving them out as change. By using them, you would be saving the United States money, literally and figuratively.

Conservative Praise for Two More Obama Policies

2011-10-18T12:23:00.000-04:00

     I posted earlier this month that United States President Barak Obama had submitted three free trade agreements to the Congress for ratification that had been negotiated by his predecessor. Although it took nearly three years, his expected signatures will finally provide an economic boost, increase economic liberty and improve foreign relations. There are two other Obama Administration policies that also merit conservative praise.

     First, the Obama Administration has taken a firm stand against marijuana. It has strongly declared the physical and mental dangers of the drug that science is increasingly discovering, as well as the social and economic costs. Although the Administration is not opposed to prudent research into any possible medicinal value of cannabis as a non-smoked prescription drug, it has cracked down on California’s liberal medical marijuana policy. The Golden State system has been abused – to the detriment of the rest of the Union, to where much legally-obtained California marijuana is transported – by strip-mall doctors who prescribe marijuana, which they can obtain at nearby storefront shops, for illegitimate reasons. The principle of federalism, which accepts states’ rights, is not being jeopardized by the Obama Administration policy because California’s actions are harmful to other states. Indeed, the United States has a duty to act in this matter.

     Second, President Obama is sending up to 100 American troops to Uganda as advisors to help the Ugandans combat the insurrection by the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). The LRA, which the U.S. State Department has described as a “barbaric cult,” is accused of many atrocities for which it has been charged with crimes against humanity, and has been supported by the terrorist-sponsoring Islamist regime of Sudan. Although the LRA insurrection is not directly related to the War on Terrorism, its actions are undermining the stability of several states in the region that are front-line allies in the fight against militant Islam, namely: Uganda, Kenya, Chad and South Sudan. South Sudan recently became independent from Sudan, as I posted in July, but Sudan might be tempted to renew its support for the LRA in order to weaken its breakaway neighbor, with which it has a territorial dispute, if not to regain it completely. The Administration’s actions, which represent a continuation of U.S. policy of opposition to the LRA since the Administration of President George W. Bush, were the result of bipartisan Congressional resolution calling for greater action against the LRA.

     I have posted that Obama has continued many Bush Administration policies in the War on Terrorism, as well as temporarily continued its tax cuts, while also posting many criticisms of the radical President and most of his other policies. Although Obama is a danger to the Republic, it is only fair to give him credit for good policies. When a liberal follows conservative policies, it is helpful to the cause of liberty to declare such a validation of those policies.

Good News from the World Trade Center Site: St. Nicholas Church to be Rebuilt

2011-10-16T12:46:00.010-04:00

     It was reported today that a deal has been reached to rebuild St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church near the World Trade Center. The church had been destroyed by the September 11 Terrorist Attacks.

     The agreement, which was brokered by New York Governor Mario Cuomo, ended a ten-year dispute between St. Nicholas parish and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The church must be relocated from its original location because of reconstruction needs at the site. The news is in time for the Feast of St. Nicholas on December 6 – one of the most important dates on the calendar.

     The news of the deal comes on the same day as a report that the controversial Islamic Center I had posted about, is facing eviction for failure to pay its rent. One of the reasons the center was controversial was the simultaneous apparent resistance by government officials to rebuilding St. Nicholas, an inconsistency which is now finally reconciled. Like the Islamic Center, the St. Nicholas Church will have a center for interfaith dialogue and healing.

     May God Bless St. Nicholas Church and its parishioners. May they fulfill their goal of improving relations between faiths and healing those harmed by September 11.

Virtue, Liberty and Independence

2011-10-13T18:45:00.002-04:00

     “Virtue, Liberty and Independence” is the official motto of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Although there are other excellent state and territorial mottos in the United States, the Keystone State’s is arguably the best.

     Pennsylvania’s motto first appeared in 1778 on its coat of arms, which was made official nearly a century later. The coat of arms is emblazoned upon the Commonwealth’s flag. The motto also appears on the quarter dollar coin honoring Pennsylvania for the 50 State Quarter Series. The three timeless principles contained within that glorious motto are worthy of examination.

     Virtue is a particular moral principle, or, in this case, a set of moral principles. Note the word chosen for the Commonwealth’s motto was not “values,” which suggests a relativist philosophy that holds that morality is determined by the individual. Instead, the word “virtue” reflects the belief of the universal moral absolutes of Right and Wrong. Virtue is the principle of doing what is right.

     Liberty means more than freedom, but also the rights, privileges and immunities of every person or citizen. The word presupposes the Natural Law established by the Creator, as expressed in the American Declaration of Independence. Note “Liberty” follows “Virtue” in Pennsylvania’s motto, as it does not imply license to do whatever we want, but the freedom to do what we ought. Indeed, public virtue leads to liberty.

     Independence is the state of not being dependent on another – in this case, another sovereign state for the purpose of governance. Pennsylvania declared its independence from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1776. When it joined the federal Union in 1789, the Commonwealth did not surrender its independence, but retained sovereignty under the Constitution over internal matters. Pennsylvania maintains its independence when it stands for its sovereign rights.

     In adopting its motto at the time of the War of American Independence, Pennsylvanians recognized that independence is exercised by self-government, but only in liberty, by the practice of virtue.

U.S. Congress Passes Free Trade Agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama

2011-10-13T11:57:00.004-04:00

     Both houses of the United States Congress approved free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama. The agreements will eliminate tariffs placed on U.S. exports, as well as eliminate the tariffs imposed by those states on American imports – an economic boost of billions of dollars.

     The agreements, which had been negotiated by President George W. Bush, were submitted by President Barak Obama, who is expected to sign them into law.

     The votes in each chamber of Congress reflected bipartisanship, as Republicans hold the majority in the House of Representatives and the Democrats in the Senate. The votes also disprove the contention by some liberal Democrats that conservative Republicans were opposing Obama’s proposals out of partisanship; the votes prove that ideology determines support or opposition to proposals. The Republicans provided Obama the overwhelming majority of the votes necessary to pass the agreements, although a significant number of Democrats joined each vote in each chamber.

     There was some Congressional criticism of Obama, however, for delaying the submission of the agreements to Congress for nearly three years. I have noted in earlier posts that the opportunity cost for not submitting them has contributed to economic weakness.

     The agreement with Colombia, in particular, is a reward for its successful efforts to fight Marxist narco-terrorists, as well as other guerillas and drug cartels, and to establish a peaceful, just free market and representative government.

     Once the agreements are signed, a contiguous free trade zone will have been established from Canada to Chile. The United States would have free trade agreements with 20 foreign states. Obama would be the fifth consecutive President to sign such an agreement, starting with Ronald Reagan.

     Reagan successfully negotiated a free trade agreement with Canada, which the U.S. had sought since the late 19th Century. George H.W. Bush proposed a Western Hemisphere-wide free trade zone, except for Communist Cuba. George W. Bush was responsible for free trade agreements with more states than all other Presidents combined. He signed agreements with 13 of them into law, in addition to implementing one negotiated by his predecessor and negotiating the latest three.

Follow-Up: Dollar Coins Are Not a Waste of Money

2011-10-11T22:19:00.002-04:00

     Since my September post, Dollar Coins Are Not a Waste of Money, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2011/09/dollar-coins-are-not-waste-of-money.html, I have since learned some interesting news. According to the United States Mint, some people were buying large quantities of presidential dollar coins by credit card in order to gain rewards points (e.g. frequent flyer miles) and then cashing the dollars in at banks. As a result, the Mint no longer accepts the purchase of dollar coins by credit card, as the intent of minting these coins was for them to circulate.

     This abuse may account at least in part for why the coins are not circulating as much as hoped and are instead piling up at Federal Reserve warehouses. Thus, their lack of circulation may not all be attributable to the coins’ unpopularity. Indeed, even apart from such abuses, the idea that a coin is necessarily unpopular because it hardly circulates is not true. It may seem paradoxical, but the absence of a coin from circulation suggests its popularity, as it is an indication that a coin is being hoarded by the public.

     The Kennedy Half Dollar, for example, is seldom seen in circulation precisely for this reason. Consequently, the Mint stopped striking the coin for general circulation in 2002; only uncirculated and proof Kennedy Halves are still minted for collectors – at an even higher seigniorage than coins struck for general circulation. A similar phenomenon occurs with the seldom-seen $2 Federal Reserve Note, which is either exchanged because it is not considered practical or it is hoarded as a novelty, yet there are no calls to eliminate either Kennedy Halves or $2 bills as wasteful of public money.

     Meanwhile, I also learned of an organization dedicated to promoting the dollar coin. The Dollar Coin Alliance proposes the withdrawal of the $1 bill as the only way to encourage greater usage of the dollar coin, as many foreign states have done with their lowest denomination notes because of inflation. In addition to some of the points I made in my last post on this subject about the cost-effectiveness of the dollar coin versus paper $1 Federal Reserve Notes, they observe that paper bills cause businesses financial loss by getting stuck in vending machines.

     I shall continue to follow this issue and to post about any significant further developments.

Two-and-a-Half Year Blog Report

2011-10-03T15:51:00.000-04:00

     Since I began tracking pageviews of my blog with Statcounter in April of 2009, it has been visited over 3,600 times. Thank you for visiting!

     As always, I do not count my own visits, and a visit is strictly defined as at least one pageview an hour apart from the previous one. If I counted all pageviews, there would be considerably more hits to report.

     Blogger has recorded far more pageviews than Statcounter, especially from outside the United States, but the latter's tracking is more specific, which allows for better statistical analysis.  Since my last report, a few interesting observations can be made.

     Although the Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization continues to be the most popular post (with over 720 visits), Commentary on the Roman Influence on America Exhibit at the National Constitution Center has been visited nearly 200 times in just a little over a year – good for third place behind The Economy, Deficit and Debt at the Inauguration of George W. Bush, with nearly 270. After a slow start, the post has been visited the most this calendar year.

     Statcounter has tracked visits from 96 foreign states. Brunei, Mali, Namibia, and Mongolia were the most interesting sources of visitors since the last report.  Among other noteworthy hits, there were visits from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Leauge of Cities and the South African Broadcasting Corporation.

     Again, thank you for your patronage of my blog and for your comments. Please visit regularly.

Update: Pennsylvania Federal Judge Rules the Mandate to Purchase Health Insurance Unconstitutional

2011-09-30T19:55:00.000-04:00

     A federal district judge in Pennsylvania has ruled the individual mandate to purchase health insurance, the linchpin of the federalization of health insurance plan signed into law by United States President Barak Obama, unconstitutional.

     The ruling earlier this month attracted no media coverage outside of the state, even though the liberal media has reported on all other district court rulings.  It is possible that the district ruling was overshadowed by the Courts of Appeals rulings against the mandate which will result in judicial review by the Supreme Court.

     Nevertheless, the ruling was significant because it was in favor of a plaintiff who is a private citizen. Such cases have sometimes been dismissed by other federal district courts for lack of standing because no harm can be demonstrated by the mandate, which has not yet been implemented. The only other cases in which the mandate has been ruled unconstitutional were brought by States of the Union, which successfully argued that the mandate violates states' rights.

     In the Pennsylvania case, a citizen argued that he can afford to pay for health care and thus does not need to purchase health insurance.  Therefore, the individual mandate does not regulate commerce because no commercial activity would have taken place. The citizen would be harmed by the requirement to enter into a contract with a private party for a service he does not need. I suppose he could have argued that the harm he is currently experiencing is his inability to set aside the money now for another purpose.

     The constitutional question around the individual mandate has been narrowly focused on whether a decision not to engage in commerce (i.e. not to purchase health insurance) constitutes commercial activity that may be regulated under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. As I have been posting, however, the broader question of whether the activity, even if considered commercial, constitutes interstate or intrastate commerce, remains not only unanswered, but unasked. Under the Commerce Clause, the United States may regulate only interstate commerce, not intrastate commerce, which health insurance is because federal law prohibits its purchase across state lines.

     The failure to raise the issue legally implies a concession of a broad federal power to regulate all commercial activity, under the theory that it affects the economy. Liberals have relied upon the tolerance of the gradual expansion of the power to regulate interstate commerce as a justification for increasingly expanding it to all commerce and are relying upon it now to expand it even further to activity that is not even commercial activity.  However, the federal power to regulate interstate commerce was intended not to manage the economies of the States of the Union, but to establish a free market within the Union by prohibiting states from imposing tariffs on goods from other states.

     The states are defending liberty by reasserting their constitutional rights. It is also a defense of liberty and the Constitution that the people, such as the plaintiff in this Pennsylvania federal case, reassert their freedom. May we conservatives continue to defend the liberty of all and the Constitution by opposing the individual mandate to purchase health insurance and all unconstitutional federal encroachments on the rights of the states and the people.

European Monetary Union Update: Italy’s Parliament Approves the Latest Austerity Package

2011-09-19T10:28:00.000-04:00

     The Italian Parliament approved the latest round of austerity measures, according to a report from ANSA. As I had posted, the over $50 billion in cuts and tax increases will balance Italy’s budget in 2013 instead of the originally-projected 2014.

     As I have been posting, Italy, with its $1.8 trillion gross domestic product – the eighth largest in the world – has become the European Monetary Union’s firewall during its debt crisis. Because the Italian sovereign debt is 120% of its GNP, Italy’s debt load is the third or fourth largest in the world.

     The acceleration of the balancing of Italy’s budget was strongly urged by the Monetary Union in order to restore confidence in the euro. The Monetary Union had pushed for a large tax increase on upper middle class and above incomes. I posted recently about this violation of sovereignty and Italy’s resistance to it.

     The 3% income tax increase included in the measure, according to ANSA, will affect only those earning over $400,000 dollars – much less than what was originally proposed to satisfy the European Monetary Union. However, there will also be an increase in the Value Added Tax (the European version of a sales tax) from 20 to 21%, ANSA reports. Most of the austerity program is in the form of spending cuts, including reductions in bureaucracy, and greater efforts to collect unpaid taxes.

     The focus in Italy will now turn to measures to increase economic growth, which has been sluggish. Growth is fiscally beneficial, as it leads to more revenue from taxes as people earn more.

The Centre-Right Gains in the Danish Parliamentary Elections, Despite Losing Power

2011-09-16T10:23:00.000-04:00

     At first glance, the victory of the centre-left bloc led by the Socialists in the Danish parliamentary elections appears to be a reversal of the recent trend toward the right in Western elections. Further analysis, however, reveals that the election results confirm the trend.

     The centre-right party of Denmark's Prime Minister Lars Rasmussen gained a seat in parliament and will remain the largest party in that body, despite losing power because of losses by its coalition partners. By a margin of only a handful of votes, the the centre-left bloc will gain the majority, if it can form a coalition government.

     Rasmussen has been a strong ally of the United States during the War on Terrorism. His government lasted for ten years, thanks in part to his pro-growth policies, which is relatively long in a parliamentary system. The worldwide economic downturn did not leave Denmark untouched, however, although the Danish economy weathered the recession better than many. Rasmussen had proposed spending cuts during the campaign amidst the European debt crisis, while the centre-left opposition proposed more Keynesian spending on health and education supposedly to spark economic growth, although it did acknowledge the need for sacrifice, such as a slight increase in the workweek.

     The centre-left will have difficulty maintaining such a slim coalition. It will have further trouble if it causes Denmark to be added to the list of European states contributing to the debt crisis on the Continent. Despite the loss of the governing majority, the elections in Denmark, as in the elections in Sweden and Australia I posted about, represented gains for the right, despite the losses of power in each case. As such, the Danish elections reflect the popular trend toward the right and fiscal responsibility.

A Liberal Slogan Conservatives Can Adopt for Al-Qaeda Leader Dr. Zawahiri: Healthcare Not Warfare

2011-09-15T19:40:00.002-04:00

     I saw a typical Left-wing slogan today, an example of the usual simplistic thinking on the Left. It read “Healthcare not Warfare.”

     As is often the case whenever I see slogans intended to oppose the War on Terrorism, such as “Make Peace, Not War,” I would agree literally with the message of the slogan, as long it were intended strictly for the Islamist enemy that has been making war upon us for many years.

     Alas, Leftists do not mean it that way.  Just as many liberals advocated for unilateral disarmament during the Cold War, by “war,” in this case, they mean not the unjustifiable terrorist and other militant attacks by Islamists, but our own measures of self-defense. It is the latter that angers them much more than the former, which leads to such foolish slogans.

     But there was another reason for my post, in addition to refuting liberalism. Because of the irony that the leader of al-Qaeda, the terrorist organization with the most American and Western blood on its hands, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is a doctor, I could not pass up the opportunity to post my thought that this particular Left-wing slogan ought to be turned to good use against the Islamist enemy: Dr. Zawahiri, practice healthcare, not warfare!

Conservative Republican Wins a U.S. House Special Election in New York City

2011-09-14T11:05:00.000-04:00

     Conservative Republican Bob Turner, a 70 year-old businessman and political novice, won a special election to the United States House of Representatives in a district that includes parts of the Boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens. The seat had become vacant because of the resignation of the incumbent Democrat.

     Democrats, who have held the seat since the 1922 election, outnumber Republicans by a 3:1 ratio in the district. Turner’s upset victory is seen as a referendum and President Barak Obama and a harbinger of Republican success in the upcoming 2012 Elections.

     Meanwhile, a Republican, Mark Amodei, easily won election in another U.S. House special election on the same day in Nevada. The seat had become vacant because of the appointment of the incumbent Republican as U.S. Senator. Although a GOP victory was expected in the Republican district, the high margin of votes validated the significance of the results in the New York special election.

     A Democrat had won a special election in a Republican district earlier this year in upstate New York by accusing Republicans of wanting to cut Medicare, but that strategy, which the Democrats had hoped to replicate, was unsuccessful in yesterday’s election. The election focused more on Obama’s fiscal policies and their harm to the economy and his federalization of health insurance. Turner ran as a fiscal conservative.

     However, it must be noted that the Democratic nominee was hurt by a few additional issues. As a state legislator, he had voted earlier this year for gay marriage, which was a major issue in the campaign. Turner, a Catholic, ran as a pro-life and anti-gay marriage candidate. The Democratic nominee also had supported the Islamic Center near the World Trade Center. Although the Democratic candidate was a pro-Israel Orthodox Jew, Turner was able to make the contest a referendum on Obama’s policy toward Israel, which is recognized as less supportive than that of previous Presidents. The social issues and the foreign policy matter combined to lift the Republican nominee in a district comprised of many Jews and Catholics, especially in Brooklyn, where the GOP candidate easily won.

     Although special elections always depend upon the individual candidates and local issues, they nevertheless are somewhat predictive of voting trends. If a conservative Republican can win a race in New York City, Republicans are likely to succeed in both the elections for presidential Electors and Congress in 2012. In the meantime, the results confirm the unpopularity of Obama’s policies, which might stiffen congressional resolve against any additional unnecessary spending programs.

Personal Reflections on the Tenth Anniversary of the September 11 Attacks

2011-09-10T20:09:00.000-04:00

     I am grateful that we Americans have not endured any attack in the United States nearly on the scale of the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks. I congratulate the U.S. intelligence, military and security personnel in both the Bush and Obama Administrations. I am especially grateful to those who have made the supreme sacrifice in the War on Terrorism. I also salute the resilience of the American people.

     At the time of the attacks, I felt sadness, fear, especially for friends and family near the targets of the attacks, and mostly anger at the terrorists who committed the massacre. The emotions increased when I learned that a cousin was missing at the World Trade Center; Port Authority Police Captain Kathy Mazza’s body was recovered in February of the following year. The anger served as a motivation to defeat the Islamist enemy, which is why I believe it is appropriate for the media to continue to show the images of the attacks, as a reminder of our need for vigilance and resolve against an evil, determined foe.

     I am pleased to see the Freedom Tower rising from the former site of the World Trade Center. I am glad that it is being built as high as it is (with its antenna rising symbolically to 1,776 feet) – just to stick it in the eye of the militant Muslim enemy. The tower and accompanying structures will demonstrate American resilience and the defeat of Islamism. I especially appreciated that some of the steel salvaged from the wreckage of the Center was used to build a new U.S. warship. The new Center will have appropriate memorials, like the monument that was dedicated today to honor the heroic passengers and crew of Flight 93 in western Pennsylvania.

     I agree with those who do not support a federal holiday for September 11, as it would represent a reduction of productivity, which would give an unnecessary victory to our Islamist foe who struck at the targets it did in order to damage our economy. Instead, commerce ought to continue as usual as reflective of our resilience. Instead, the day should continue to be commemorated as it has been every anniversary.

     In my post in April of 2009, September 11 vs. 9/11, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2009/04/september-11-vs-911.html, I expressed my objections to the abbreviation “9/11” for September 11. It has since occurred to me that this month, September of 2011, is also abbreviated 9/11, which ads to the reasons to avoid this abbreviation for the September 11 Terrorist Attacks.

     The attacks and their anniversaries make me grateful for my faith and for liberty. May God bless America.

Update on the Federalization of Health Insurance: The Virginia Lawsuit Dismissal

2011-09-08T23:27:00.000-04:00

     A three-judge panel of the United States Federal Court of Appeals dismissed Virginia’s lawsuit against the individual mandate to purchase health insurance, which is the key piece of the federalization of health insurance signed into law by President Barak Obama. The ruling by the all-Democratically-appointed judges conflicts with a ruling by a separate Appeals Court that ruled the mandate unconstitutional.

     The Virginia case is different from the case being brought by 26 other states led by Florida. Virginia argues that its state law that prohibits its citizens from being required to purchase health insurance makes with the federal mandate to purchase health insurance unenforceable in that state. The Florida case is about the violation of the constitutional principle of federalism that is violated by the federal mandate because the federal government lacks authority to regulate an activity that is not interstate commerce.

     Regardless, the Virginia lawsuit was decided on narrow grounds. The Court ruled that the Commonwealth lacked standing because the federal law did not conflict with the state law. In other words, a state could prohibit itself from requiring its citizens to purchase health insurance, whether or not the federal government required them to purchase it. The merits of the case – whether or not the individual mandate is constitutional – was not decided.

     The conflicting opinions by the Courts of Appeals increase the likelihood the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on the question by hearing at least one of the appeals of these two cases.

Update on the War on Terrorism: Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Libya

2011-09-08T20:14:00.000-04:00

     There have been no United States troops killed in Iraq during the entire month of August. This good news suggests the success of the American policy to defeat Islamist militants, restore Iraqi security and allow the Iraqi people to exercise self-determination.

     Unlike in Afghanistan, the Philippines and Iraq, there have been no American casualties (killed, wounded or captured, either in action or by other means) in Somalia (since the Somali Civil War was subsumed into the War on Terrorism), Yemen or Libya. Although it is not unprecedented in American history, it is unusual that a war is fought without any casualties for the U.S. Three at one time without any American casualties is extraordinary. Even if they are considered campaigns in the War on Terrorism, as they should, it is extraordinary nonetheless. See also my posts from June, The Libyan and Yemeni Wars Are Not the Third and Fourth U.S. Wars, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2011/06/libyan-and-yemeni-wars-are-not-third.html, and Follow-Up to the Number of U.S. Wars, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2011/06/follow-up-on-number-of-us-wars.html.

     I had posted Part I of an intended series on the U.S. involvement in the Libyan Civil War, A Conservative Refutation of Isolationists on the Libyan Civil War in April http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2011/04/conservative-refutation-of.html, but the war settled into a long stalemate until recent developments. I made notes for Parts II and III, but have yet to complete them. I still intend to post them, so please visit again soon. Part II will address the Libyan connection the War on Terrorism and compare the Libyan Civil War to the current strife in Yemen and Syria. Part III will be focused on Constitutional and legal matters regarding the war, which is especially applicable to other interventions in general.

Dollar Coins Are Not a Waste of Money

2011-09-06T17:27:00.002-04:00

     There has been some opinion expressed in Congress and the media that the billion dollars in surplus unwanted United States Presidential Dollar Series coins represents a waste of taxpayers’ money. As a conservative, I applaud the concern about waste, but the concern in this particular matter is based upon ignorance. Dollar coins do not waste money.

     The Presidential Dollar series began in 2007, at a rate of four presidential portraits a year (one every quarter of the year). It is scheduled to include all Presidents who have been deceased at least two years. This series is in addition to the Sacagawea Dollars, which have been renamed Native American Dollar Series because the reverses have been modified.

     First of all, a billion Dollar coins are worth a billion dollars legal tender. In other words, they are not a waste of money; they are money. Even if collectors do not buy all up all of the remaining stock and the public does not get into the habit of using them, the federal government nonetheless will use them. It will use them as it did the unpopular Susan B. Anthony Dollars: in vending machines at Post Offices, for example. The Anthony Dollars, which were minted from 1979-1981, were used up in this way. By 1999, the supply of dollar coins had run out. The U.S. Mint then produced Anthony Dollars again in 1999 until it began producing the Sacagawea Dollar in 2000. Thus, the surplus supply of Presidential Dollars will also be used up, regardless of its popularity or whether the series is discontinued.

     Second, dollar coins cost less than a dollar each each to produce. The mint earns money for the United States through seigniorage, the difference between the cost of the production of a coin, including its metal content, and its face value. In other words, dollar coins make money.

     Third, coins of the same denominations as Federal Reserve Notes save money because they last longer, meaning they do not need to be replaced as quickly. Dollar coins, for example, last many times longer than dollar bills. In other words, to the extent they are used instead of bills, dollar coins save money.

     Dollar coins have seldom been popular in American history, with the exception of Morgan Silver Dollars, which were especially popular in the West in the late 19th and early Twentieth Centuries. The public should be encouraged to use dollar coins more. I find dollar coins more convenient than dollar bills for paying tolls. They work well as tips, especially as a paperweight on top of other bills or the check. The current golden-colored Dollar coins also make better presents for children than bills, aside from their educational value.

     There has been a proposal for two dollar coins featuring an image of Christopher Columbus. I suggest higher denomination dollar coins, such as ten or twenty, to reduce the heavy usage of the commonly-used ten and twenty-dollar bills. A reintroduction of silver to general American coinage – with enough seigniorage to allow for the volatility of the price – would restore some faith in the dollar and in the United States government. Only a relatively small amount of the precious metal would be necessary to be included with base metals (either as an alloy, plating or cladding) to keep the coins appropriately sized.

     See also my post on the Presidential Dollars Series, Commentary on Current U.S. Coins, from April of 2009, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2009/04/commentary-on-current-us-coins.html, in which I discuss my objections to the series. If the Presidential Series should be ended early, however, it ought to be ended for the right reason, not the wrong one.

New Study Confirms Doubts about the Alleged Jefferson-Hemmings Affair

2011-08-31T21:24:00.008-04:00

     A new scholarly study has confirmed the doubts that Thomas Jefferson fathered the child of his slave, Sally Hemmings, the Washington Times reported.

     The Times reports that a panel of thirteen scholars were nearly unanimous in concluding their serious skepticism of the truth of the allegation of the Jefferson-Hemmings affair and some of the scholars even concluded the allegation was false. Their report, commissioned by the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society, will be published in a book, the Times reported. The Times article details the historical and scientific basis for doubting the conclusion reached after a 1998 DNA test of the descendant of the slave child of Jefferson's paternity.

     I was one historian who has been skeptical from the beginning of the Y-chromosome DNA test that could only prove that a member of the Jefferson family, but not necessarily Thomas Jefferson himself, had fathered the child, because the test only determines one's patrilinear lineage, not one's individual paternity. In other words, one inherits Y-chromosome DNA from one's male ancestors, but the test can only identify that one of the males of the same generation (i.e. brothers) must have been the father of an individual; it cannot identify which one specifically. Thus, the Founding Father's brother, Richard Jefferson, was an equal suspect based upon the scientific evidence. As the study reported in the Times suggests, he was a more likely one based upon the historical evidence.

     In my post, Clinton Wrong to Compare Sanger with Jefferson, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2009/04/clinton-wrong-to-compare-sanger-with.html, from April of 2009, I explained why the Left seeks to besmirch the Founding Fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson for owning slaves, in order to defend their own misdeeds or for other political reasons.  Although I did not address the Hemmings allegations in that post specifically, I did touch upon the Left's iconoclasm towards the Founders that allows them to co-opt certain ideals they choose selectively, while condemning America through ad hominem arguments against its Founding Fathers. The iconoclasm allows the liberals to dismiss any ideals from the Founders, and especially the Framers of the Constitution, with which they disagree by dismissing the Founders as hypocrites. Some on the Left can even condemn America by claiming it was evil from the beginning.

     Central to the Left's argument was not only Jefferson's slaveholding, which I addressed in that earlier post, but especially the allegation that he had fathered a child with his slave. It was not surprising, therefore, that the same liberals who would have defended strongly a suspect legally in court who were facing similar charges were quick to convict Jefferson with the verdict of history and sully his reputation.

     At best, the scholarly study casts serious doubts on the allegation that Jefferson fathered Hemmings' child. Based on all the evidence, it at least appears unfair to insist upon the allegation's veracity. Indeed, it seems more probable that the allegation is false. The alleged affair has no place in Jefferson's biography, except as a footnote as an example of liberal revisionism.

Update: The Italian Government Drops Its Proposal to Raise Taxes

2011-08-29T20:13:00.000-04:00

     Despite pressure from the European Monetary Union, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has dropped his government's proposal to raise taxes on the upper classes as part of Italy's austerity program, according to Breitbart.

     I had posted earlier this month about the loss of sovereignty of members of the Eurozone. This latest round of austerity measures had included a tax increase, despite opposition from Berlusconi, in addition to spending cuts. After the coalition government's junior partner, the Northern League, objected to the tax increase, the government proposed a further increase of measures to collect delinquent taxes.  The new program will equal the $66 billion figure of the original proposal, Breitbart reports. Thus, as before, the austerity program will balance Italy's budget by 2013 instead of 2014, which had been the original plan prior to the new pressure from the Monetary Union to accelerate the program. Nevertheless, this process underscores the potential loss of national sovereignty of members of the Eurozone beyond the loss of monetary policy, such as has been most evident in Greece, for example. Greece raised taxes, which has decreased sharply its growth rate, in addition to cutting spending.

     The dropping of the proposed tax increase will avoid a blow to Italy's meager economic growth rate, as higher taxes reduce spending, work and investment. I commend the Italian centre-right coalition government for resisting the European Monetary Union's pressure. Italy is not only modelling sound fiscal policy, but standing up for national sovereignty.

Arizona’s Challenge to the Constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act

2011-08-26T15:36:00.002-04:00

     Arizona is challenging the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 1964, arguing that it treats states differently and continues to impose severe, burdensome restrictions on Arizona that are no longer necessary, according to an article by the Conservative News Service.

     As I mentioned in an my post, Happy Independence Day, in July of 2009, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2009/07/happy-independence-day.html, about a challenge by a Texas polling locality, even the most minor changes to voting procedures are subject to federal review. In that case, the United States Supreme Court did loosen some of the restrictions.

     The CNS article reported that Arizona argues that the Act, with which Arizona has complied by printing ballots in Spanish since 1973, has different standards for counting residents of Hispanic heritage and assumes that anyone with Hispanic surnames cannot speak English.

     As a resident and political activist of a city with a large Hispanic population, Reading, Pennsylvania, I have personal knowledge of some of the particular problems of how this law is being executed in regard to protecting Hispanic voters from discrimination. In addition to requiring that all city ballots be printed in Spanish, the Justice Department counts as “Hispanic” by guessing that anyone whose name sounds Hispanic probably is, whether or not it is. The feds also count non-Hispanic females who marry Hispanics and take Hispanic surnames. The Justice Department uses these inflated figures in order to reach a 10% threshold per precinct to require that precinct to have an interpreter – at local taxpayer expense. An additional factor is the reduction of the anti-fraud practice of purging of voter rolls because of the Motor Voter Act, which is particularly inflationary of the number of Hispanic voters, who tend to be transient. For example, it is not uncommon for the previous occupants of a housing unit to still be registered at that address, as well as the ones before them!

     The reason the feds believed there was discrimination in the first place in Reading is questionable. Not only, as Arizona implies, is the Justice Department itself prejudicial against Hispanics because it assumes they cannot read English, but it is also prejudicial against election workers by assuming they are necessarily prejudicial. Assuming that a class of people (e.g. non-Hispanic election workers, whites, Southerners, etc.) is prejudiced, is itself a form of prejudice. The feds assume that problems encountered by Hispanic voters are necessarily because of prejudice, but the problem with these mostly Democratic election officials is not usually discrimination, but either incompetence or conscientiousness about carrying out election law, which is a particularly challenging task in regard to new voters coming from different cultures. For example, Puerto Rican voters tend to vote at the nearest school, as they do in Puerto Rico, but it is often not their precinct’s polling place. Also, Hispanics often use more variations of their names than non-Hispanics (especially because of the custom of using their mother’s maiden name, and, if so, whether or not to hyphenate it after their surname). Elections workers simply doing their jobs by directing Hispanics to their correct polling place instead of issuing them provisional ballots or questioning their identity when their names do not match is considering “discrimination” by the feds.

     I shall take this opportunity to question the usefulness of printing ballots in Spanish or any other language that uses the Latin alphabet, as a candidate’s name in English is the same in Spanish, for example, with only the names of the offices and instructions needing translation. Such translations are usually provided separately already, which ought to suffice, instead of appearing on the ballot. Indeed, it is impossible to accurately translate the name of an office. “Mayor” and “Sheriff,” for example, may be translated into Spanish, but be understood as quite a different type of office, just as those offices vary in power from State to State within the Union. Therefore, those who rely upon such translations are not truly voting to elect a candidate to an office that exists.

     A larger issue that state challenges to the Voter Rights Act raise is that the federal government constitutionally only has the power to regulate federal elections, not state elections. The burdensome restrictions imposed by federal interpretation of that law are applied to all elections, federal and state, even though the United States has no authority under Article I, Section 4 to regulate state elections. It allows States to regulate federal elections, but reserves the power to alter those regulations. However, States are not prohibited from regulating their own elections. Therefore, federal regulation of state elections violates the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal Union and that the Constitution does not prohibit the States from exercising to the States and the people.

Update: A Federal Appeals Court Rules Obama’s Mandate to Purchase Health Insurance Unconstitutional

2011-08-14T16:50:00.000-04:00

     A United States federal appeals court has upheld a district court ruling that the individual federal mandate to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional. The mandate is part of the federalization of health insurance proposed and signed into law by President Barak Obama.

     Twenty-six States, led by Florida, are suing the federal government over the federal takeover of health insurance, as is Virginia in a separate case. The 26 States’ main argument is against the mandate to purchase health insurance, on the grounds that the federal government lacks constitutional authority to impose it. At stake are the rights of the States to regulate intrastate commerce, as opposed to the federal power to regulate only interstate commerce (the Commerce Clause of the Constitution), as well as the liberty of the people.

     In a stunning decision, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the Florida federal district court ruling in favor of the states, noting the lack of constitutional authority. By a 2-1 majority, the court rejected the Obama Administration’s argument that the power to regulate interstate commerce grants the federal government the authority to regulate all matters of economic authority – even to the extent of forcing someone to purchase a particular good or service. The majority, which included judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents, observed that not only would individuals be required to purchase a service they did not want under the plan, but to continue to purchase it every month for the rest of their lives. In its lengthy opinion, the Court of Appeals rejected the Obama Administration’s notion that there are no limits to federal power in regard to economic matters and noted the slippery slope toward regulating every economic decision by every citizen.

     It is remarkable that the Left expected no court, much less a federal appeals court, to rule the mandate unconstitutional. Liberals arrogantly believe that there are no limits to government power. Worse, they believe there ought not to be any limits to the power of the federal government, despite the Constitutional principles of limited government and federalism that reserves rights to the States. When the federalization of health insurance and its individual mandate were proposed, the Obama Administration, the liberal Democratic Congress that passed it and their supporters on the Left confidently assumed the federal government had the power to impose such a mandate and categorically dismissed any question that was raised as to whether it did. These liberals cited various parts of the Constitution as the source of such authority. Even the Administration undermined its argument by making contradictory claims of authority. As I have noted in previous posts, liberals have grown smug in expanding federal power especially through the Commerce Clause that grants the United States authority only to regulate interstate commerce. They have gradually expanded that power to include all commerce, beyond only commerce that occurs between states. In this case, they sought to expand federal power even further to regulate personal decisions not to engage in commerce. Indeed, the Administration had argued that the acceptance of this gradual expansion of federal economic power justified even further expansion of federal power.

     Now, not only have two federal district courts, but even a federal appeals court ruled the mandate unconstitutional, but because there have been contrary opinions by courts of appeals in other cases (in which no state has been a party), the appeals court ruling makes it more likely the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the appeal and settle the matter once and for all. It is highly possible the Court could declare the mandate, the linchpin of Obama’s federalization of health insurance, unconstitutional.

     Even though these federal court rulings so far have been on the narrow grounds of whether or not a decision not to engage in commerce constitutes interstate commerce, and not on the broader question of whether any commerce that occurs only within a state can be considered interstate commerce, they are nonetheless striking a major blow to liberal efforts to expand federal power in violation of the rights of the States and the people. They are finally drawing a bright line past which the powers claimed by the federal government cannot extend and are thereby upholding federalism, but the liberty of the people.

The European Monetary Union Violates More National Sovereignty

2011-08-14T00:02:00.000-04:00

     I had posted previously that Greece has lost more of its sovereignty because of its bailout by the European Monetary Union, as a result of the sovereignty that all members of the Monetary Union lost when they gave up their national currencies in favor of the euro. Now, Italy has also lost additional sovereignty.

     Under pressure from the European Monetary Union because of its high public debt (120% of Italy’s relatively large Gross Domestic Product, which makes it the third or fourth highest amount in the world), the Italian government has proposed yet another austerity program, which accelerates the previous austerity program, which was in addition to earlier austerity measures. I have been posting about these developments since last year.  As I mentioned in my last post, the latest austerity program had been praised by the Monetary Union, which then panicked not long afterward and insisted on a larger, more accelerated plan to balance Italy's budget. The new program includes a number of additional reductions in spending and the size of Italy’s bureaucracy, as well as a few measures that might increase economic growth to some degree. Alas, it also includes a tax increase on the upper class that the Italian center-right government had opposed, but was compelled to propose by the Monetary Union.

     Income tax increases reduce economic growth by taking more money out of the economy and by disincentivizing higher earnings from work or investment. In turn, the decreased prosperity reduces government revenue. For example, the loss of revenue because of a tax increase was one of the reasons that Greece was forced to accept additional austerity measures earlier this year. Like Greece, Italy’s economy, with its meager 1% GDP growth, is especially vulnerable at this time to the effects of a tax increase. But for the pressure from the European Monetary Union, Italy would likely have avoided the tax increase.

     Ever since the introduction of the European Common Market, and especially the Monetary Union, I have believed that the loss of national sovereignty eventually would be problematic and that member states, especially in the Eurozone, would come to regret their decision to join. The current European debt crisis is increasingly exposing the folly of the scheme and how its violations of sovereignty are harmful to Europeans.

European Monetary Union Update: Spain and Italy

2011-08-05T13:35:00.000-04:00

     As expected, the contagion from the debt crisis in Greece, Ireland and Portugal is affecting Spain and Italy. More accurately, it is concerns in the market more than structural flaws that are undermining investor confidence in the two large southern European economies.

     Spain and Italy have undertaken austerity measures to ward off the contagion that spreads by exposure of banks to Greek, Irish or Portuguese sovereign debt, in addition to the general concern that too much public debt will prevent a government from being able to repay its bondholders, just as happened in those three states. Italy, which has the eighth highest gross domestic product in the world, but whose government also has one of the largest public debts (which is about 120% of its GDP), was praised by the European Monetary Union and others for its government’s recent passage of a second austerity package that included more spending cuts.

     But then, something happened. Investors became increasingly fearful that Spanish and Italian governments and banks would be unable to meet their financial obligations. As I had posted previously, although Spain was of much greater concern than smaller Greece, Ireland or Portugal, Italy is increasingly recognized as the firewall for the European Monetary Union. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi reassured the world that Italy had undertaken the right fiscal measures, that its banks were well-capitalized and that the Italian people had relatively large savings. However, Berlusconi’s remarks that were intended to increase investor confidence in the face of market speculation against Italian banks were misinterpreted as not recognizing the risk. The market lost confidence that the size and pace of the measures were adequate, especially given Italy’s weak economic growth.

     Italian business leaders, the European Monetary Union and others have been encouraging Italy to accelerate its austerity program and to adopt policies that promote economic growth. ANSA reports that the Italian government is considering a package of reforms, such as spending cuts (especially to welfare), privatization, reduced regulation, acceleration of infrastructure projects, tax reform and increased prevention of tax evasion. There are also media reports that the European Central Bank will buy Spanish and Italian bonds, if the Italian government undertakes the necessary steps. If it does, the crisis might ease, but the dangers of too much sovereign debt in general and the euro project in particular will have been exposed.

External Influences on the U.S. Economy Are an Excuse for Obama, but Not for Bush

2011-08-05T13:05:00.004-04:00

     Lately, the Obama Administration has been blaming the recent economic slowdown in the United States on the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, the European debt crisis and the Arab Spring and the global rise in energy prices. At least now the Administration is not blaming everything on former President George W. Bush.

     There is some merit to the argument of the Obama Administration and its defenders that external influences and other such matters beyond a president’s control can have an impact on the economy, although the economy’s current underlying weakness is at least partly attributable to some of the Administration’s policies. But it was different when Bush was in office. Then, he was blamed for every economic ill that befell the American economy caused by external influences by the same liberals who are now excusing Obama.

     When Bush came into office in 2001, an economic slowdown had been ongoing since the year before. Not long after, a series of scandals shook confidence in American businesses. Then, just as the economy began to recover after his tax cuts were signed into law, the September 11 Attacks occurred. September 11 represented a trillion-dollar blow to the economy. There was little public surprise when a recession was the result. After the tax cuts took effect more fully in tax year 2002 and the approval of additional tax cuts, the American economy began to recover gradually once again. Then, in mid-2005, energy prices rose sharply because of increased demand from developing countries as the global economy was prospering. Although inflation remained surprisingly low, despite the increase in energy prices, the resulting slight rise in interest rates was enough to burst the housing bubble and touch off the financial crisis and the Panic of 2008, which sent the global economy into the Great Recession. Also, during the later part of the Bush Administration, unlike during the Clinton Administration, most Americans lived in states with Democratic governors who raised taxes, which slowed growth across the Union. In short, the economy during the Bush Administration was hampered by a slowdown that began before he took office, business scandals, the September 11 Attacks, the rise in energy prices, the bursting of the housing bubble and anti-growth state policies – all matters beyond Bush’s control.

     Yet, liberals blame Bush for everything bad in the American economy. They ignore the years of prosperity from 2002-2008, when the economy grew with low unemployment, low inflation and low interest rates, despite all the external challenges, while they do not hold their liberal governors’ to the same standard. The liberals also do not acknowledge any responsibility of the liberal Democratic Congress of the last two years of the Bush Administration that refused the Administration’s repeated requests to extend the Bush tax cuts and to regulate better the federally-backed mortgage corporations that were at the heart of the bursting of the housing bubble that led to the financial crisis which exacerbated what would have been an average recession into the worst one in decades.

     I have often posted that the purpose of government is to protect the liberty of the people, not to manage the economy. Prosperity is often a result of greater liberty, achieved by wise, but minimal law, but prosperity is not the purpose of government. Except for socialist regimes, governments cannot even propose to guarantee economic results, in part because of matters beyond their control. Although it is necessary to point out that liberals have been applying a double standard to government responsibility for economic performance, it is more important to focus on how government’s policies are unnecessarily slowing economic growth by unwise policies that restrict economic freedom.

     The Obama Administration, which came to power promising an improvement in the economy, which it considered its responsibility to guarantee, has failed to implement sound policies that increase liberty economically. Although external matters are hampering its efforts, the Obama Administration must be judged by the same standard it applied to the previous Administration it criticized and promised to apply to itself. Therefore, external matters ought not to be an excuse for an Administration that came to power insisting that everything in the American economy is attributable not only to government, and not only to the federal government, but in particular only to the policies of the President of the United States. We conservatives must continue to focus on promoting fiscally responsible policies that encourage economic growth and increase economic freedom.

Conservative Analysis of the Deal to Raise the U.S. Debt Limit

2011-08-02T13:26:00.000-04:00

     Although it is not good for the United States to raise its $14.3 trillion debt limit and continue its pace of far too much spending, for the first time the increase in the debt limit will now be offset with spending reductions, without any tax increases because of the bipartisan debt limit deal approved by both houses of Congress.

     These initial spending cuts of over $900 billion over ten years will occur mostly in discretionary spending, not defense or entitlements. In fact, these cuts total slightly more than the amount of spending they offset. Because a current Congress cannot bind future Congresses, oftentimes in such deals the spending cuts never occur. Therefore, it is significant that in this deal, over $60 billion in cuts will take place during this Congress.

     President Barak Obama and the liberal Congressional Democrats had insisted on an increase in the debt limit without any strings. Then, once Congressional Republicans acted on the mandate given them in the 2010 Elections, Obama and the Democrats in Congress retreated from their initial position and began insisting that any spending reductions be matched with tax increases. Despite controlling only the House of Representatives, the Republicans were successful in obtaining the offsetting spending cuts they had sought without any tax increases, as Obama and the liberal Congressional Democrats were forced to give into popular pressure and avoid reaching the debt limit.

     Reaching the debt limit would not have necessarily led to a default on the public debt, as there was sufficient revenue to pay the interest and allow the redemption of bonds, but would have forced the Administration to make cuts to discretionary spending that had been authorized by law and which Obama did not want. Therefore, using the debt limit increase as a means to force a bipartisan agreement on spending reductions was an effective strategy on the part of Congressional Republicans. The role of the Tea Party in this deal was indispensable.

     As a bonus for conservatives, the deal includes a vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. An incentive for Congress to pass it and send it to the States for ratification is also included in the deal, as passage of the Amendment by later this year would avoid painful triggers of automatic spending reductions to defense and entitlements beyond what either party wants. Over the next few months, conservatives must call upon Congress to pass the popular Balanced Budget Amendment. Nearly every state already has such requirements in its own constitutions.

     If the painful triggers can be avoided through a Joint Committee’s recommendations for spending reductions, then another round of at least $1.2 trillion in spending cuts will further offset the deficit spending.

     Although there are some dangers in the deal, overall it is a conservative victory. It does not go nearly far enough to reduce the public debt, but it is a significant first step in that direction. Importantly, conservatives have seized the debate by focusing on spending cuts instead of tax increases. The deal recognizes the important principle that the reason the growth of the debt has been increasingly rapid is because of too much spending, not insufficient taxation.

     Without this deal, the debt would have increased by over 2 trillion dollars more than it otherwise would have. Now is the time for conservatives to maintain the momentum they have gained toward balancing the budget and reducing the debt by reducing spending even further without raising taxes.

The Allied Bombings in the Second World War Were Not Terrorism

2011-08-01T00:05:00.002-04:00

     I have noted in earlier posts that the word terrorism has been diluted to such a point that the terrorists have been successful in establishing a moral superiority over the government they oppose by claiming that their actions are only in response to some worse “terrorism” or other alleged crimes of that government.

     In a post last week, for example, I noted that some are equating the United States response to terrorism (i.e. the War on Terrorism), particularly its use of missiles fired from aerial drones, with terrorism itself because innocent civilians are killed. I noted the distinction between targeting innocent civilians and accidentally killing them because of the targeting of a legitimate military target. Also, civilians are not necessarily innocent. They are legitimate targets if they harbor terrorists, for example. Such moral equivalency arguments are often made by militant Islamists and eagerly believed by leftists and isolationists in the West.

     Another common example of such a moral equivalency argument is that the Allied bombings during the Second World War were acts of “terrorism.” This charge must be considered carefully.

     The conventional and nuclear bombings of Japan by the U.S. were not terrorism. The targets were cities that had strategic military significance. The civilian deaths were unintended, but were unavoidable at the time because the technology then did not permit more narrowly-targeted weaponry. There was no attempt to intimidate the populace of Japan because Japanese public opinion was irrelevant; in Imperial Japan, all Japanese subjects were committed to serving the Emperor, whom they adored as a god. If there were any intent to intimidate, it was to intimidate the Emperor into surrendering, not to terrorizing the Japanese people into demanding the Emperor surrender. It would have been unthinkable for the Japanese to make any demands of their Emperor or to surrender.

     The bombings of Dresden, Germany are different from the Japanese bombings, but only in the sense that German public opinion, unlike Japanese public opinion, could have been influenced by the Allied air raids. But, at worst, the air raids on this militarily significant city were less an attempt to get the German people to rebel against their Nazi government than to give up the fight. The German people had elected the Nazis and kept them in power. The Nazis were still popular in Germany. The Germans would not have rebelled against them even if they wanted to because of fear of Nazi repression. Therefore, the most that the Allies could have achieved was to weaken the German will to fight, not to effect a change of government. The Nazis had started the war and continued it. A majority of the German people were thereby culpable for this war of aggression and the Nazi crimes against humanity. They had not only put the Nazis in power, but supported them politically. Regardless of their political responsibility, many Germans even voluntarily participated in activities on the home front in support of the war, such as being Nazi informants, serving in civil defense organizations, working in military industrial plants, et cetera. Thus, these German civilians, at least, were not innocent civilians. However, there were many German civilians who were truly innocent. The Allied bombs could not distinguish between the innocent and those who were not.

     I had noted in a previous post in March of 2010, Dresden Bombing Deaths Exaggerated, that recent scholarship has proven that the Nazi claims of civilian deaths was much higher than the true number. Nevertheless, the civilian loss of life was significant, although the estimated 25,000 deaths were amounted to less than one tenth of one percent of the total deaths in the Second World War. I submit that the Dresden bombings stand out for the German civilian losses because the Allied strategy was not to target innocent civilians. Otherwise, there would have been other such examples. In fact, the major strategy of American General Carl Spaatz, who was responsible for the Allied air campaign in the European Theater, was to target German fuel supplies, in addition to the usual necessary military targets.

     The Allies’ strategy in the Second World War was to win as quickly as possible by targeting strategic military targets in Japan and Germany, not to terrorize innocent civilians. Therefore, the bombings were not acts of terrorism. The first acts of terrorism were hijackings of commercial airliners committed by militant Muslims, the Palestine Liberation Organization, in the 1960s.

Terrorism Is Never Committed out of “Revenge”

2011-07-31T23:10:00.006-04:00

     The media and other commentators often report terrorist attacks as “revenge” for this or that act by the government the terrorists oppose, usually based on the claims of “revenge” by the terrorists themselves. The media and other commentators should cease reporting uncritically such misleading statements by the terrorists.

     As I noted again in my last post, terrorism is the targeting of innocent civilians by violence or threat of violence in order to intimidate the populace to pressure their government to give into the terrorists’ demands. Innocent civilians are those who are not responsible for a government’s policies. Therefore, no terrorist attacks are committed out of revenge. As the deliberate targeting of innocent victims, terrorist attacks are morally unjustifiable acts of evil. Revenge against innocent people would be a contradiction in terms, for one cannot gain vengeance by attacking the innocent.

     Making a claim of “revenge” is a terrorist propaganda tactic for justifying their immoral acts by blaming the government the terrorists oppose in the first place for the results of the terrorism. Moreover, as in the case of the recent Norwegian attacks, some claims of revenge, such as an Islamist group’s claim of responsibility for the attacks as punishment for Norway’s participation in the Afghan War, are false. Such false claims reveal both the terrorists' desire to intimidate the populace into giving into their demands, as opposed to exacting revenge, and the terrorists’ lack of credibility, as should be obvious. Indeed, it is not reasonable to expect that those who target the innocent for violence would ever be honest. The terrorists' claims of “revenge,” whether or not they are responsible for the acts for which they claim responsibility, are lies.

The Norwegian Attacks Are the Latest Example of the Misuse of the Word “Terrorism”

2011-07-28T23:33:00.003-04:00

     Nearly everyone appears to be calling the recent attacks in Norway “terrorism.” However, the massacre does not meet the definition of terrorism.

     As I have posted previously, terrorism is a strategy that targets innocent civilians (i.e. those who are not responsible for formulating or implementing government policies) with violence or the threat of violence in order to intimidate the populace into pressuring the government to give into the terrorists’ political demands.

     In the attacks in Norway, the Norwegian government and ruling party were targeted. Attacks on government do not meet the definition of terrorism because they are not attacks targeting innocent civilians. The attack on the ruling party took place at a youth camp in which the killer callously killed youths, but it was a political target nonetheless. The killer opposed the policies of that party. He intended to assassinate leading Norwegian political figures. Thus, the massacre at the youth camp was not intended to intimidate the populace, but the party leadership. Both attacks were on the Norwegian ruling class.

     Assuming the perpetrator of the Norwegian attacks is sane, the attacks were treasonous militant acts intended to spark a revolution, not terrorism. These heinous attacks were evil, but terrorism is even more evil because it is targeted at those who have no responsibility for government policies. Indeed, the less connection the victims have to government and policy (i.e. the more innocent they are), the more effective the terrorist act becomes, as the entire populace, and not only the ruling class, is made to feel targeted. Attacks on only the ruling class fail to accomplish the strategic goal of intimidating the populace, as the people recognize they are not personally the targets of the terrorists and thus do not feel intimidated.

     The false labeling of the Norwegian attacks is part of a pattern that has existed for decades. Over the last several months, in particular, I had observed several examples of acts incorrectly being classified by government, the media or other commentators as “terrorism” and had intended to post about them, but the Norwegian attack has made this matter timely.

     In one case that was referred to as “terrorism,” a businessman attempted to sabotage a rival by placing vermin in his rival’s business. This attack was economic sabotage directed at one business, not an attempt to intimidate anyone for any political purpose.

     Another example was also economic sabotage: counterfeiting. Counterfeiting, even if undertaken by an enemy in order to intimidate the populace, is economic sabotage. Although, it might create fear, it lacks the element of violence that the vermin example at least had. Furthermore, an essential element of terrorism is that the terrorists must make demands on the government they target, or else the populace cannot be expected to support the changes to policy demanded by the terrorists. Counterfeiters do not admit their crime and, therefore, make no demands.

     “Cyberterrorism” is another example that lacks the element of violence, unless it were specifically used for a violent purpose against innocent civilians. Otherwise, it is only economic sabotage, with the possible additional element of the loss of privacy.

     The murder in Germany of two American troops by a citizen of Kosovo was called “terrorism,” even though the target was the military, not innocent civilians. The killings were a violent example of jihad carried out on behalf of militant Islam. This case was noteworthy for another pattern exhibited by government and the media of judging whether an act is terrorism if the perpetrator has a link to terrorists. A perpetrator’s, intended target, not his link to terrorists does not determine whether an act was terrorism. It is important to recognize that some terrorists alternate between terrorism and attacks on military or other government targets (e.g. al-Qaeda) or between innocent civilians and targeted individuals whose activities the perpetrator opposed (e.g. the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski). Therefore, a perpetrator may be linked to terrorists or is himself a terrorist, but his action may nevertheless not be terrorism.

     The misuse of the word terrorism is diluting its meaning. Now, any acts of violence are called “terrorism,” even those taken in defense against terrorism, especially by the Islamist enemy that seeks to place itself on an equal moral level by accusing the government it opposes of the same thing they do, as if to justify their continued terrorism. Other anti-Americans on the Left eagerly agree with the charge for their own purposes. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Obama Administration’s missile strikes from aerial drones have been called “terrorism,” The United States does not target innocent civilians, only terrorists and other militants. Terrorists and other militants are usually civilians, but not innocent ones. Those civilians who harbor or finance the terrorists or other militants are not innocent civilians, either.

     We conservatives must use the word terrorism correctly.

Autopsy Proves Allende Was Not Killed by the U.S.-Backed Coup

2011-07-25T00:39:00.000-04:00

     One of many myths long believed by the Left is that Chilean President Salvador Allende was killed in a coup d’etat backed by the United States. This myth can now included in the growing list of liberal historical beliefs that have been proven false, some of which I have posted about previously. The release of the results of a recent autopsy reveal that Allende was not killed, but committed suicide during the coup to avoid being captured, which is consistent with witness accounts and even the belief of his family.

     Backed by the Soviet Union, Allende won a plurality in a close election in 1970 to become the first Marxist in the world to be elected democratically. He began to nationalize industries, ruin the Chilean economy and rule in an authoritarian manner. The judicial and legislative branches of Chile’s government called for his removal from power. The Chilean military overthrew Allende in a violent coup d’etat in 1973.

     Although it did not necessarily participate in the coup, the U.S., under President Richard M. Nixon, did at least foster the conditions that helped lead to it. The Americans were not only concerned about their business interests there that were threatened by Allende’s socialist policies, but also the spread of Communism during the Cold War. Indeed, the Monroe Doctrine did not permit the establishment of Soviet puppet-states in the New World.

     The Left especially hates the coup that overthrew Allende because it led to the military 1973-1990 dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet, who kept Chile independent and at peace with its neighbors and fostered its prosperity. When he left office, he left Chile free and democratic. Although Pinochet, who had to prevent Communists from taking power, was more brutally authoritarian than his predecessor, his legacy of accomplishment sharply contrasts with Allende’s.

     Liberals, especially pro-Communist leftists, could never appreciate the benefits of anti-Communist U.S. allies, like Pinochet, as opposed to Communist puppets of the Soviets, like Allende. Pro-Communist leftists claim to be more concerned over human rights abuses committed by U.S. allies than enemies out of concern for the American image, which is an excuse to conceal their communist sympathies. The pro-Communist Left had to make the coup that overthrew Allende seem evil by blaming his death on the U.S. in order to impugn the motives of the Americans.

     Liberals, including those who are not pro-Communist, do not want to acknowledge that an anti-Communist dictator put in power by the U.S. could do any significant good for his country. As I have noted in previous posts, they tend to support democratically-elected leftist leaders, even when those leaders become authoritarian, over any pro-American leaders who seize power by force, even if the pro-American leaders are not authoritarian. It seems as if liberals believe that elections legitimatize dictatorship, while coups necessarily deligitimatize any restoration of liberty. Therefore, they will ignore any positive results of the coup that overthrew Allende, regardless of the circumstances of his death.

     Both pro-Communist leftists and other liberals claim to be more concerned about American image than defending liberty against threats, such as from Communism. Thus, they appear to have a double standard that holds U.S. allies to a higher standard than its enemies.

     By contrast to the questions that had surrounded the circumstances of Allende’s death, there is no doubt that President Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam was assassinated after being captured in a U.S.-inspired coup in 1963 under President John F. Kennedy. The Americans had intended that the anti-Communist dictator Diem, who was an ally of the U.S., be given safe passage into exile, not executed. Not surprisingly, the Left is less outraged by the murder of the Vietnamese President, which it is careful to point out was unintended by Kennedy, because it opposed Diem, than it was over Allende’s death. Even now that we know that Allende was not murdered, because of their double standard, liberals are likely to continue to be more outraged over the coup that overthrew him than the one that resulted in the murder of Diem.

     Liberals will continue to deligitimatize the Chilean coup by focusing only on the bad results that came from the regime that replaced Allende, while ignoring the good. At least now, because of the release of the autopsy results, Allende’s death can no longer be used as by the anti-American Left as proof of American evil. Instead, the results expose how willing the Left is to believe the worst about the United States a priori and how false those beliefs can be.

Bombay vs. Mumbai; Peking vs. Beijing

2011-07-13T15:37:00.000-04:00

     The media has adopted the current trendy practice of renaming certain foreign cities, replacing their traditional, historical English names with the current local spelling and pronunciation of their names.

     This confusing practice reflects cultural selectivity, as it is only being applied to Asian names. In fact, specifically it is only being applied to certain Asian states. We do not pronounce Paris (pah REE) instead of (PAA riss). We do not write Roma for Rome, Torino for Turin, Athina for Athens, Salonika for Thessaloniki, Munchen for Munich, or El Qahira for Cairo for example, even though all of these local spellings are well-known, nor do we even write Krung Thep for Bangkok.

     Therefore, for Indian cities, we should continue to use Bombay, not Mumbai, Madras, not Chennai, Calcutta, not Kolkata, for example. For Burma (note I do not use the official name the Burmese military junta calls their state, “Myanmar”), Rangoon should be used, not Yangon, for example.

     For China, we should continue to use Peking, not Beijing, Canton, not Guangzhou, Nanking, not Nanjing, and Tientsin, not Tianjin, for example. I should note that Beijing is pronounced (bay JING), not (bay ZHING), as many in the media pronounce it. Regardless, Beijing, as well as these other alternate spellings, are the pinyin renderings of Mandarin Chinese words into the Latin alphabet. Pinyin was made the official style of rendering by the Communist Chinese. The use of pinyin has extended to all of China, even to areas beyond where Mandarin Chinese is the native language. For example, Urumchi has become Urumqi. Thankfully, even the liberal media has resisted the Communist Chinese effort to erase the name Tibet by replacing it with the pinyin Xizang, but the political effort to Sinicize non-Chinese peoples is nonetheless apparent.

     The practice of adopting local spellings or pronunciations of foreign cities and other place-names is historically confusing, inconsistent and politically biased. We conservatives especially should be careful not go along with this trend when speaking or writing to an audience that primarily comprises English-speakers, especially if the audience members do not share the same ethnicity as the people who created the local place-name. An acceptable practice would be to note the current local spelling or pronunciation for any place-name, but use the traditional English one primarily.

     I am going to take this opportunity to criticize another media practice in regard to foreign cities. The media often includes the entire metropolitan area of a foreign city when reporting its population, without making it clear that it is referring not only to the city itself (the area within the city limits), but also its environs (the surrounding area, including its suburbs). This distinction should be made clear. Otherwise, it is false reporting. Although the population of the metropolitan area may be a useful datum in certain cases, it is misleading in a political or administrative context.

Independence for South Sudan

2011-07-08T20:33:00.007-04:00

     The Republic of South Sudan became an independent state today, splitting from Sudan after a referendum in January. As I have noted in previous posts, Sudan, which had been Africa’s largest state by territory, is dominated by Arab Muslims, while South Sudan is populated by Christian and animist Africans. The northern Sudanese had oppressed their southern countrymen, which led to a two-decades long civil war that killed millions. The referendum for independence had passed overwhelmingly.

     The oil-rich border region of Abyei remains a source of contention between Sudan and South Sudan. A referendum there on whether to join the north or south has failed to take place. Violent clashes have occurred. Other problems concern residents of Sudan’s South Kordofan province who wish to join South Sudan, as well as Southern Sudanese who live in Sudan.

     As I have noted in earlier posts, former United States President George W. Bush labored for years for the 2005 cease-fire in the Sudanese Civil War, elections in Sudan and the referendum on independence in South Sudan. CNS news reports that although the Obama Administration acknowledged two Bush Administration officials, Colin Powell and John Danforth, it gave no credit specifically to Bush, while giving itself the lion’s share of the credit. The Obama Administration deserves credit for helping to ensure that Sudan respected the process set in place by his predecessor, but today’s independence for Southern Sudan ought to be considered Bush’s legacy.

     South Sudan joins East Timor as territories once controlled by militant Muslims that have broken away after violent oppression, followed by referenda supported by the international community. Militant Muslims believe that once a territory is claimed for Islam, it cannot be relinquished. The international community has a responsibility for the support and defense of South Sudan, especially during this War on Terrorism against militant Muslims.

     Southern Sudanese independence was one of the required steps for the removal of Sudan from the U.S. State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism. Sudan had infamously harbored Osama bin Laden. Sudan must take other required steps in order to be removed from the list and escape the harsh sanctions that the U.S. imposes on states on the list.

     The Southern Sudanese conflict predates the genocide being committed by Arab Sudanese with government backing in the western province of Darfur against black Muslims.

     South Sudan is the 194th foreign state in the world, including the Republic of China (Taiwan) in addition to the 50 states in the American Union. I congratulate the Southern Sudanese. May God bless South Sudan.

Governor Corbett Signs Pennsylvania’s Budget and Welfare Reform Legislation

2011-07-08T16:26:00.002-04:00

     Pennsylvania’s Republican Governor Tom Corbett kept his campaign promise to eliminate the Commonwealth’s $4.5 billion deficit without raising taxes.

     Pennsylvania is constitutionally required to balance its budget. The deficit had been run up during the last year of Democratic Governor Ed Rendell, together with a Democratic-controlled state House of Representatives. Governor Corbett signed a balanced budget for the 2011-2012 fiscal year that was approved by the new Republican-majority legislature on time. Passing budgets on time has been a rare occurrence over the least several years.

     The new budget is balanced because it cuts wasteful spending. Corbett resisted pressure to impose an additional tax on the Marcellus shale natural gas industry in particular on top of the already-high corporate taxes paid by every industry, pending the recommendation of a study group he formed to consider an unnecessary so-called “impact fee.” It was excessive spending, not a lack of higher taxes, that had caused the deficits in the first place. Avoiding a tax increase will prevent harm to the Keystone State’s economy.

     Some of the Governor’s critics claimed that there was a budget surplus that should have mitigated the spending cuts. There was no surplus, only a larger amount of revenue than projected, which did help reduce some of the budget cuts to education. Governor Corbett also successfully reserved some of the extra revenue to replenish the Commonwealth’s rainy day fund, which Rendell had drained. Regardless of whether there was a surplus in the general fund, even the general fund balance does not take into account the over $3 billion Pennsylvania still owes the federal government for unemployment compensation.

     Public and higher education spending had grown in Pennsylvania much faster than inflation, which made it a reasonable part of the state budget from which to eliminate wasteful spending by forcing school districts and the four state-owned universities to make the same sort of sacrifices that private industries and citizens are making. Furthermore, most school districts had spent the Obama stimulus money in their general funds projects instead of on temporary projects, as they had been advised to do. The end of the stimulus does not represent a cut, as many liberal big-spenders in the education industry claim, but a return to the previous level of spending. Those districts that followed the advice not to spend the stimulus money except on temporary projects were well-prepared for the state budget cuts because they had already factored the end of the stimulus into their budgets.

     The welfare reform bill Governor Corbett signed into law will provide for better enforcement against waste, fraud and abuse, thereby saving Pennsylvania taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, in addition to the recently-approved budget cuts. One provision would require those convicted of drug felonies to be tested thrice a year. Other provisions of the new welfare law will reduce some reimbursement rates and require more co-payments for recipients of certain benefits who earn twice the poverty limit. Unlike other states, Pennsylvania had hardly implemented any welfare reform in the 1990s. The Commonwealth allows too many loopholes and bureaucratic discretion for any effective reform. The new law will reduce the amount of payments to those who are not eligible, but more fundamental reform is needed. Nonetheless, it is a good start. I urge the Pennsylvania legislature to consider more significant welfare reform.

Follow-Up on the Number of U.S. Wars

2011-06-30T11:29:00.000-04:00

In a post earlier this month, The Libyan and Yemeni Wars Are Not the Third and Fourth U.S. Wars, I observed that the United States has intermittently been involved in hostile action in Somalia since 2007, in the form of cruise missiles and bombardment by aircraft. Although no activity had been reported since 2010, I stated that there was a possibility of ongoing covert action or a resumption of overt action. Therefore, I argued, Somalia should be counted, along with the Philippines, as among the six current theaters or battles in the War on Terrorism.

It has since been reported that the U.S. has now launched its first ever drone missile attack in Somalia, which validated my point. Therefore, it is not a “sixth” U.S. war, as some have already called it, but the fourth (or fifth, if Yemen is dated to the first drone strike there early in the War on Terrorism and not only to the current strikes this year). In all of these conflicts, the U.S. is engaged in hostile action with al-Qaeda or its affiliates, at least, with the exception of Libya. But in all cases, these are interventions during the War on Terrorism in wars being waged by militant Muslims with a history of terrorism.

Update: Pennsylvania Gov. Corbett Signs Castle Doctrine Expansion and Tort Reform Bills into Law

2011-06-29T13:37:00.004-04:00

     Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett, a Republican, signed two major bills into law. One act expands the Castle Doctrine, while the other act reforms joint and several liability in civil cases.

     The Castle Doctrine, which allows citizens to use deadly force to defend themselves, is now expanded beyond the home to any place a person has a legal right to be.

     The tort reform act changes the civil procedure rules for joint and several liability to make the payment of damages more proportional to a defendant's degree of liability. Previously, a civil defendant could be found 1% liable and yet be responsible for 100% of the damages if the primary defendant were unable to satisfy the judgment. Plaintiffs, through their civil trial lawyers, were using the old rule to sue businesses or other organizations as the “deep pockets,” in order to win damages when a defendant was unable to pay. The old rule was recognized as being anti-business and thus harmful to the economy. The new rule establishes a more proportional system of liability.

Morocco: First Fruits of the Arab Spring

2011-06-24T14:02:00.002-04:00

     King Muhammad VI of Morocco has proposed to give up his near absolute rule in favor of a liberal constitutional parliamentary monarchy. The King would continue as the head of state, but the prime minister would be the head of government. Freedoms would be guaranteed, including minority rights. Minorities in Morocco include Christians, Jews and ethnic groups.

     Moroccans will vote for the proposal in a referendum this summer, which is expected to pass. Moroccans have favored the retention of the monarchy, but have wanted more freedom and representation. Only some small Islamist and Maoist parties oppose the referendum.

     Morocco will have thereby accomplished with much less bloodshed what others throughout the Arab world have only been hoping to accomplish during the “Arab Spring.”

European Digest: Serbia, European Monetary Union, Geert Wilders

2011-06-24T14:00:00.000-04:00

Serbia Captures Ratko Mladic

     I praise Serbia for its capture of Bosnian war criminal General Ratko Mladic, perpetrator of ethnic cleansing during the Bosnian Civil War. The capture after over 16 years will enable Serbia to be brought more fully into the European community.

European Monetary Union Update: Greek and Italian Governments Survive Confidence Votes

     The Socialist-led Greek government survived a close confidence vote for its latest austerity plan. The plan was necessary in order to receive the latest tranche of funds from the European Monetary Union’s bailout plan. Greece was in danger of defaulting on its sovereign debt, as its tax increases had diminished the economic growth necessary to generate revenue to pay the high interest on its debt. The Greek government has also slashed spending. It needs to sell off unnecessary state assets. A Greek default would have been disastrous for the Union and Europe in general, which also would have adversely impacted the global economy.

     Italy’s center-right government won a confidence vote by a comfortable margin. The vote was necessary after the failure of four government-supported referenda and the defeat of center-right candidates in local elections. Italy’s economic growth has been weak, although the world’s eighth largest economy has structural strengths. Its relatively strong banks have taken a hit from exposure to Greek debt. Italy has implemented an austerity plan, but its sovereign debt is still large enough that an Italian government default would certainly bring down the European Monetary Union. Thus, there is some thought that Italy, more than Spain, is the last line of the Union’s defense, should Greece, Portugal or Ireland default.

Update: Geert Wilders Is Acquitted

     Geert Wilders, the leader of a Dutch political party, was acquitted of inciting violence against Muslims. He had been charged because of anti-Jihadist statements, but Wilders had no objection to Muslim immigrants to the Netherlands who assimilated and did not support jihad. Wilders’ acquittal is an important victory for freedom of expression in Europe.

Cinfici Certified as a Winner in the Primary Election for Reading School Director

2011-06-21T13:22:00.002-04:00

     The results of the 2011 Primary Election were certified in Berks County more than three weeks after the Primary Election, with little public notice. Now that the absentee and provisional ballots have been counted and all the results are official, I am pleased to report that I received nearly 2,100 votes total on both the Republican and Democratic ballots in the primary for Reading School Director.

     Having finished first on the Republican ballot, my name, William Cinfici, will be listed first on the GOP ballot, which is first of all ballots for the office, as the Republicans hold the left-hand column because the Governor is a Republican.  There are eight candidates for five seats on the Reading School Board of Directors.

     I am grateful to all the people who voted for me and all those who supported me in any way and ask for your continued support.

Peace Sign Restoration Would Threaten the Environment

2011-06-21T12:07:00.000-04:00

     A local “peace group” asked Reading City Council to restore the “Peace Sign” that has been on Mt. Penn’s barren west flank for forty years. The view of the sign from the city below has naturally become obstructed by trees.

     The City, which has been declared “financially distressed,” by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, rejected the plan, not only because of the cost, but because the removal of the trees would cause runoff, which poses an environmental problem.

     Although some might see an irony in the rejection of this liberal group’s plan to kill trees because of legitimate environmental concerns, perhaps it is not ironic that the restoration of a demonic sign of “peace,” an encircled inverted cross, would do violence to Creation. The so-called peace sign has been adopted by the Left as a symbol of man’s peace, i.e. the Devil’s peace, not of God’s Peace, which is better signified by the Dove. Thank God that this plan to restore an evil sign has been thwarted.

Blog Hit Milestones: Four More Posts Have Been Visited 100 Times

2011-06-13T16:29:00.004-04:00

     As of a few days ago, StatCounter has tracked over 100 visits to four more posts to my blog: Commentary on the Roman Influence on America Exhibit, Radicals in the Obama Administration, Misleading Media Phrases and Obama Did Not Inherit the Economy From Bush. Seven posts have now reached this milestone.

     Visits are defined as pageviews at least one hour apart and do not include my own. Visits to my home page or archives are not included. Blogger tracks two-to-three times as many page views, but I report on its tracking separately.

     Thank you for visiting and for your comments. Please visit at least one or twice a week.

More Language for Conservatives to Avoid: Gender vs. Sex

2011-06-12T01:07:00.000-04:00

     The words sex and gender are increasingly being used interchangeably nowadays, but they are not interchangeable. Sex is not a synonym of gender.

     The Left is supplanting “sex” with “gender” because it is stretching the meaning of sex beyond male and female to include additional categories for political purposes. As a result, “gender” is increasingly being used in place of “sex” by people who are unaware of the difference between these words that have little in common. Although “gender” is being used more broadly than “sex,” its meaning is much narrower.

     Sex comes from the Latin infinitive secoare, “to cut,” because the human race is divided into male and female. Sex has to do with the physical division of male and female and their distinct roles in reproduction and the raising of children. Gender is a grammatical term that refers to masculine, feminine or neuter forms of words. Thus, words might have “gender,” but not “sex.”

     The blurring of the distinction between sex and gender masks the grammatical significance of gender, which reflects the Left’s goal of feminizing society, even through language. Many languages, including some Indo-European ones, make broad use of gender. The difference between whether a word is masculine or feminine is often arbitrary. In English, gender is relatively less emphasized. The use of gender is required in only a few cases, mostly involving prepositions, a part of speech that is inherently reflective of sex.

     The masculine gender prevails in English more commonly, but the feminine gender is less commonly applied because it is reserved for more important matters. Thus, there is a gender balance in English. Masculine prepositions are used in order to refer generally to people who might be of either sex, as in the following example: “He who laughs last, laughs best.” Feminine prepositions are used in regard to the Church, America, States of the Union, foreign states, vessels, and even ideals such as Liberty and Justice.

     For political purposes, liberals are trying to emasculate the English language by eliminating the masculine gender and thereby make conservatives seem sexist when they use proper grammar in instances when the masculine gender ought to prevail. As a result of the Left’ increasingly successful efforts, the language is now out of balance and tilted toward the feminine gender.

     Neither liberals, nor anyone else have any right to change the language, especially because our liberty depends upon written law. They must not be allowed to change the law by changing the meaning of the words and convincing activist liberal judges to agree with them that the law ought to be interpreting by using the new meaning of the words instead of what the words were originally intended to mean when they were written and approved by the representatives of the people.

     Furthermore, in addition to giving an impression of ignorance or disrespect for good grammar and for standards, the misuse of words decreases precision. The high degree of precision is the strength of English, which is a hybrid language. In the particular example of sex and gender, the difference is not one of degree, but of kind. The distraction and confusion caused by poor grammar or pronunciation or the misuse of words hinder communication.

     Also, English-speaking students of foreign languages that use gender more heavily than English are thereby less prepared to learn those languages and less appreciative of the origins of English. One of the benefits of learning a foreign language is the gaining of a better perspective of one’s native language. That perspective is being lost as English speakers grow less knowledgeable of the proper grammar of their own language and thus cannot observe its differences and similarities with other languages.

     Therefore, conservatives should not only avoid saying “gender” in place of “sex,” but avoid clumsy contrivances such as “he or she,” “him or her,” “he/she,” “his/hers” or “s/he,” the last of which is unpronounceable. Additional examples of the emasculation of English are the use of plural prepositions, “they,” “their,” “theirs,” or “them,” instead of masculine singular prepositions when referring to a single person who might be of either sex (e.g. “Someone left their briefcase on the bus” instead of “Someone left his briefcase on the bus”), the elimination of the word man for a human being of either sex, the unnecessary use of the phrase “men and women” instead of “men” for human beings of either sex, and even more extreme examples such as the substitution of the suffix man with “person,” and the use of “chair” instead of “chairman,” all of which ought to be avoided. The last example is also worthy of a post by itself.

     To avoid the misuse of words is to defend liberty. In this particular case, even more is at stake than liberty.

The Libyan and Yemeni Wars Are Not the Third and Fourth U.S. Wars

2011-06-12T01:02:00.000-04:00

     The recent wars in Libya and Yemen are being called the “Third” and “Fourth” wars in which the United States is currently fighting. Although an argument could be made that they are wars, they are actually battles or theaters in the global War on Terrorism, which is being fought against Islamist militants of various kinds. Regardless, the ordinal references to these conflicts are incorrect.

     Afghanistan (2001) was the first battle of the war. The Philippines (2002) was second, and Iraq (2003, although Iraq had been clashing with the Coalition enforcing the No-Fly Zones for years before) was third. Somalia became the fourth battle in 2007. The U.S. continued to bomb Somalia periodically at least until 2010, according to media reports. The U.S. fired the first missile in Yemen early in the War on Terrorism, but it developed into a battle in 2011, followed by Libya. Note the inverse order of Yemen and Libya from what the media is presenting.

     Although the U.S. troops who are training the Filipino military to fight Islamist militants had been prohibited from engaging in combat since the beginning, they are permitted to defend themselves, as they did in a firefight in 2002 after being attacked by the Islamist Filipino enemy. The enemy insurgents, who have killed three American soldiers in bombings over the years, could again shoot at U.S. advisors in the field, which could again trigger combat. Therefore, it is premature to declare the U.S. participation in hostile action in the Philippine Muslim Insurgency to have ended.

     Because of the possibility of current covert action or a future return to overt action, it is also premature to declare the U.S. involvement in the Somali Civil War to have ended. Furthermore, a case could be made that actions taken against Somali pirates ought to be included, as their piracy is a result of the Somali Civil War. Regardless of whether their piracy is considered part of that war, it is part of the larger war against Islamist militancy, as the pirates are motivated in part by jihad. The 2007-2010 American involvement in the Somali Civil War is the second time the U.S. has been involved overtly in that war. The first was in 1993.

     Thus, although Libya and Yemen could be called the “Fifth” or “Fourth” wars, respectively, in which the U.S. is currently engaged, there are better understood as battles or theaters in the War on Terrorism.

Cinfici's Interview on Rick Santorum's Presidential Candidacy

2011-06-06T14:04:00.002-04:00

     I was interviewed today by W.E.E.U. Radio 850 AM in Reading, Pennsylvania on former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum's announcement that he is seeking the Republican nomination for President of the United States of America.

     I observed that even though Pennsylvania is a major state and a political swing state, there has not been a president or vice president from the Keystone State in a long time. It is good to have a Pennsylvanian as a candidate. I noted that Senator Santorum has experience as a U.S. Senator on defense and foreign policy, judicial matters, and as the author of the welfare reform bill that was approved in the 1990s. He is knowledgeable and articulate and fills a niche in the Republican presidential field that lacks a clear front-runner, which is an unusual circumstance, although I stated that I believe Republicans would like to see more candidates enter the field in order to provide more choices.

     When asked whether Santorum would have the interests of Berks County in mind, I noted that he had always done well in Berks County and I expressed confidence that he would. But I said that I believed he would focus first on getting our fiscal situation in order, as well as on continuing to resist the terrorists. I cited his concern about Iran's nuclear program in particular.

     I was then asked about Santorum's announcement at the Flight 93 sight in Scwhenksville, Pennsylvania. I remarked that it was a poignant venue because it was the sight of the first successful resistance to the terrorists; the victims gave their lives in order to prevent the terrorists from striking their intended target. We must continue to resist terrorism.

Election Results in Portugal, Peru

2011-06-06T13:51:00.000-04:00

     The recent election results in Portugal and Peru were mixed. The Portuguese ousted the Socialist government which had adopted an austerity program that included raising taxes, even on the poor. The center-right Social Democrats will return to power, although they may have to form a coalition government with a conservative party. Portugal is being bailed out of its fiscal crisis by the European Monetary Union after having overspent with borrowed funds to finance its welfare state and low worker productivity, like Greece. The new Portuguese government will have to continue the austerity program, but one that stimulates growth through lower taxes instead.

     In Peru, the leftist candidate has apparently defeated the rightist one in a close race. The leftist is an admirer of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, but had to back away from some of his more radical positions. The rightist candidate had the albatross around her head of being the daughter of former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori. Fujimori had defeated the vicious Shining Path Maoist rebels, among other accomplishments, but was imprisoned for alleged corruption. Thus, Peruvians felt that had two bad choices to make.  The new president will be monitored for any potential backsliding from representative democracy to authoritarianism. Already investors are losing confidence in the Peruvian market. Peru, has a free trade agreement with the United States, negotiated under the Administration of President George W. Bush, which has been beneficial to Peru and contributed to its relative prosperity.

     As I have been posting, election results worldwide have suggested a rightward shift in the last two years. Even the relatively few victories by the left, as in Peru, have been narrow and achieved only by promising the maintenance of successful conservative, free-market policies.

May of 2011 Personal, Political Notes: Pennsylvania Primary; Corbett Protestors

2011-05-26T10:58:00.002-04:00

     As I have posted, I was preoccupied lately with the Primary Election, in which I was a candidate for one of five seats on the Reading School Board of Directors. I won on the Republican ballot, finishing in first place, but lost on the Democratic ballot, where I was seventh out of nine, a little over 200 votes out of fifth place. Overall, I had the fourth-highest total with over 2,000 votes.

     Although I was disappointed not to win the Democratic nomination, I was pleased with the high number of votes on both ballots. The results were better than the 2009 Primary Election. I appreciate the strong bi-partisan support, the votes and the congratulations I have received since the election.

     On another local political note, I saw the protest against Gov. Tom Corbett, who was the commencement speaker at Albright College, a few blocks from my home in Reading. They were protesting spending cuts to education in order to balance the $4.5 billion state budget, Corbett’s proposed school vouchers, and drilling for natural gas by fracturing the rocks with a water-based solution. I gave the thumbs-down to the few-dozen protestors and booed them politely as I passed by.

     Protestors have the freedom to assemble, but not the right to assemble. Thus, they have no legal claim that imposes an obligation upon others, such as to be allowed to protest whenever or wherever they like. In other words, there is no right to be heard. Protesting at a commencement is rude behavior toward the students and their families and friends and need not be tolerated. Those who protest at the funerals of U.S. servicemen killed in the War on Terrorism are engaged in even more hurtful behavior that must not be tolerated. Such protestors should be kept out of earshot of their intended victims.

The Santorum-McCain Enhanced Interrogation Controversy

2011-05-24T11:15:00.002-04:00

     Former United States Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania has been criticized for saying that Senator John McCain of Arizona does not understand enhanced interrogation. The liberal media and other commentators have pointed out that Sen. McCain was tortured as a prisoner of war during the Vietnamese War and have called Santorum “stupid,” as if he did not know what he was talking about. As usual, the liberal media and other commentators have exposed their own ignorance by making such statements.

     Sen. McCain and the other heroic American Prisoners of War (POWs) were tortured by the Communist Vietnamese not primarily for interrogation, but in order to force them to make anti-U.S. statements for propaganda purposes. Moreover, the Americans were subjected to starvation, the infliction of severe pain, the denial of medical care and other human rights abuses, even though they are covered under the Geneva Convention, which bans torture and limits interrogation only to name, rank and serial number.

     In fact, the U.S. has yet to fight any enemy that has followed the Geneva Convention, even though every state with which it has engaged in war has been a signatory of it since its creation. POWs often have been tortured usually as a form of extrajudicial punishment or for propaganda. When they have been tortured for intelligence-gathering, it is only because the enemy wishes to gain a military advantage, not because it needs to save the lives of innocent civilians, as the U.S. does not target innocent civilians.

     By contrast, the terrorists were subjected to enhanced interrogation in order to save the lives of innocent civilians. The terrorists were not subjected to starvation, the infliction of severe pain, the denial of medical care and other human rights abuses. The terrorists are even allowed to practice their religion, unlike the American POWs. Regardless, even if we were to grant that enhanced interrogation is torture, the terrorists are war criminals because they target innocent civilians and are thus not covered by the Geneva Convention which protects only regular soldiers. Indeed, terrorists may be summarily executed under international law, meaning they can be shot immediately upon capture without trial. Thus, there is no moral or legal equivalence between terrorist detainees and American POWs. The suggestion that there is such equivalence is morally repugnant.

     Sen. McCain’s commitment to opposing torture is admirable, but Santorum’s comments suggest that perhaps his former colleague’s personal emotional reaction against any harsh treatment of detainees clouds his judgment on the nuances of enhanced interrogation of terrorist detainees. Reasonable people can differ reasonably, but the point is that Santorum comments were reasonable, even if not well put. Liberal critics of the enhanced interrogation practices of the Administration of President George W. Bush have long been citing McCain’s opposition to those practices uncritically. The current controversy over Santorum’s remarks has yet to spark the least bit of critical thinking on their part.

     Heretofore, I have posted that it was the Bush Administration’s policy of interrogating terrorists led to the intelligence that resulted in the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. My point was that interrogating them at all, whether harshly or not, was the key change in policy that produced the first intelligence lead that was built upon over the years that led to the raid. Interrogating terrorist detainees was in contrast to the policy of treating them like common criminals (e.g. reading them their right to remain silent), which was the policy of Bush’s predecessor, Bill Clinton and is the current policy of his successor, Barak Obama. Critics of enhanced interrogation admit that Bush’s interrogations policy led to the critical intelligence, but insist that the particular practice of enhanced interrogation did not produce the specific leads. Santorum and others have asserted that the practice did, in fact, break Khalid Sheik Muhammad, the mastermind of the September 11 Attacks, who later became cooperative after having been waterboarded.

     I had avoided the debate about whether enhanced interrogation should be credited for the raid, even as the evidence has mounted that it should, as it was not a necessary point to make in order to give proper credit to Bush’s policies. Also, I wanted to avoid any suggestion that ends justify means, although ends certainly do mitigate any moral fault. Regardless, the Santorum controversy provided me the opportunity to respond to the liberal and libertarian critics of harsh interrogation who have been making false moral equivalence arguments between the torture of American POWs and the harsh interrogations of terrorist detainees.

Follow-Up on the Bin Laden Raid

2011-05-15T21:16:00.002-04:00

     In addition to those I mentioned in an earlier post who should see the photograph of the dead Osama bin Laden, it should be shown to the terrorist detainees in order to demoralize them and encourage them to give up more valuable information in order to prevent further terrorist attacks.

     In my initial post on the raid, I had referred to bin Laden’s significance as the founder and spiritual leader of al-Qaeda. Apparently, he was more than a spiritual leader, having retained a higher degree of operational control than believed. Nevertheless, it is critically important to capture or kill Ayman al-Zawahiri, the second in command of al-Qaeda. Zawahari, who had a hand in the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat, had founded a terrorist organization before bin Laden founded al-Qaeda. He merged his Egyptian Islamic Jihad with bin Laden’s organization. It is also necessary to capture or kill the leaders of the various organizations around the world that have pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda.

     As I noted bin Laden’s death is a significant symbolic victory in the War on Terrorism and against Islamism in general. Al-Qaeda’s successful terrorist attacks and bin Laden’s ability to elude the United States suggested Allah’s favor, as if bin Laden were being anointed as the next Caliph. He had already issued religious edicts and was referred to as a “sheik” by his followers. Not only will bin Laden never be the next Caliph (i.e. the Muslim political and military leader and spiritual successor to Muhammad), but his death strongly suggests that Allah is not favoring al-Qaeda. It was important to capture or kill bin Laden, as it was Saddam Hussein, as well as to defeat Islamists militarily.

     Indeed, the bin Laden raid reaffirms the superiority of U.S. technology, something the September 11 Attacks had made doubtful. The superiority of Western technology made Islamists feel inferior, as if Allah were no longer favoring their religion, as they believed he had originally, when Muhammad swiftly conquered vast territories. Western technology had given the West a military advantage that enabled it to push back the Muslim invaders. One of bin Laden’s goals in the September 11 Attacks was to suggest that Western technology was not an advantage, but a vulnerability, which his al-Qaeda terrorist organization accomplished by using Western technology (e.g. airplanes) against some of its most technologically-advanced buildings. Thus, the role of U.S. technology, in addition to the critical role of human intelligence, in carrying out the bin Laden raid is also a significant symbolic victory in the War on Terrorism.

     It is also becoming apparent that the raid was a kill mission, not a capture or kill mission, as it was unlikely that bin Laden would not be regarded as a threat, which is just as well. The mission that resulted in the terrorist leader’s death was conducted in wartime – during a war that he had declared himself. Terrorists are known to believe in suicidal acts of murder, which necessitated his shooting by the Navy Seals in self-defense. Moreover, under international law, terrorists can be shot summarily.

     It also appears that the Obama Administration does not want to admit this true nature of the mission, which partly explains its contradictory reports on the raid, for fear of reaction from the Left or the Islamic world. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder had declared that the U.S. would have to read bin Laden his rights, including the right to remain silent if he were captured. The Obama Administration would prefer to try most terrorists in civilian courts as common criminals instead of in military courts as war criminals.

     Since I posted on the revelations that interrogations of terrorists during the Administration of President George W. Bush produced the intelligence leads that led to the raid, more information has been reported that provides even further evidence for crediting Bush’s policies. The initial lead came as far back as 2002 and was developed over time as more terrorists were captured. The interrogations by the Central Intelligence Agency on foreign soil (i.e. rendition) of terrorists, including the mastermind of the September 11 Attacks, Khalid Sheik Muhammad, were fruitful in developing the leads.

     One key al-Qaeda operative was captured by the U.S. in Iraq, on his way to support Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Zarqawi was wanted by the U.S. before the Liberation of Iraq for the murder of an American diplomat in Jordan. In other words, contrary to the claims of critics of the Liberation of Iraq that the war distracted the U.S. from its goal of defeating al-Qaeda, the killing of bin Laden was one of the many fruits of the Liberation of Iraq, in addition to the destruction of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

     In addition, the Bush Administration also reportedly had reached an agreement with Pakistan that the U.S. would send its forces into Pakistan without the latter’s knowledge or consent in pursuit of bin Laden or other high value targets in the War on Terrorism.

     Although President Barak Obama has followed most of Bush’s policies, the raid was the result of a policy he continues to oppose, of harshly interrogating terrorists. See 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America, the link for which appears on the left-hand column on my blog, in which Debra Burlingame reports that President Barak Obama refused her request to give up consideration of prosecuting Americans who interrogated terrorists during the War on Terrorism.

The Primary Election in Pennsylvania

2011-05-14T18:01:00.000-04:00

     Tuesday, May 17 is Primary Election Day in Pennsylvania. On the ballot statewide are seats for both Superior and Commonwealth Court, the Keystone State’s two appellate courts.

     Locally, the offices of County Commissioners, County Row Offices and Magisterial District Judge are on the ballot, as well as Municipal offices and School Boards of Directors.

     I am a candidate for Reading School Director. Here is the link for the voters’ guide from the Reading Eagle: http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=306818.

     With the current economic and fiscal challenges, fiscally responsible candidates must be nominated by their parties for these important offices that affect people most directly.

     Vote on Tuesday, May 17.

3,000th Visit to My Blog Tracked by StatCounter

2011-05-14T17:59:00.000-04:00

     A week ago, StatCounter tracked the 3,000th visit to my blog since April 2, 2009. As always, I count visits as pageviews from individuals at least one hour apart, and do not count my own visits.

     As I have noted previously, Blogger tracks two or three times as many pageviews, especially from outside the United States. Nevertheless, StatCounter’s more specific statistical analysis is especially helpful.  One example is that I can tailor the headlines of my posts to be more likely to appear in internet searches, as StatCounter enables me to see what the visitors are searching.

     You may have noticed that I also am striving to avoid newspaper-style “headline-speak,” to coin a word.

     I apologize that I have not posted as frequently lately as I would like because of the upcoming election, in which I am a candidate, but please visit again soon, as I intend to post more. Thank you for visiting my blog. Your patronage is appreciated.

Personal Thoughts on the Killing of Osama Bin Laden

2011-05-08T00:19:00.005-04:00

     I am grateful to have this opportunity to share my thoughts on the raid by United States forces that resulted in the death of al-Qaeda terrorist founder and leader Osama bin Laden, as an American and as a relative of one of one of the victims of al-Qaeda’s September 11 Attacks.

     Upon hearing the news of the raid shortly after midnight, I was jubilant. My jubilation was not out of a sense of vengeance over the death of a human being or any desire that bin Laden be condemned to Hell, but for three reasons: 1) joyfulness that justice was served and that bin Laden knew that he was caught, 2) relief that he is no longer a threat and 3) pride in the U.S. military and intelligence services.

     Although I had prayed for bin Laden’s conversion, which is the minimal extent of love for one’s enemy I could possibly have for someone who murdered a family member of mine and as an American, it cannot be ruled out that he responded to Jesus Christ’s call at the moment of death as bin Laden realized that Allah did not favor is evil enterprise. I pray especially for the victims of al-Qaeda.

     As I watched the news reports on the raid, I was also proud of the crowds of Americans who took to the streets and the students who went to the grounds of their campuses in celebration of this great victory in the War on Terrorism. I was especially proud of the Phillies fans who chanted “U.S.A.! U.S.A.!” when the news of the raid broke during the baseball game at Citizens Bank Park in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and the Texans who came to the Dallas home of former President George W. Bush to thank him for the policies he put in place as he led America into the War on Terrorism that made the bin Laden raid possible, which was even before reports confirmed that it was intelligence leads that were first gained during the Bush Administration that led to the raid.

     I, too, was out in the street after midnight, waiving an American flag, shortly after I had posted about the raid on my blog. Because of the hour and the fact that I did not observe anyone else outside, however, I refrained from making the celebratory noises as I had always intended upon hearing the long-sought news in the moment that came the closest to V.E. Day in my lifetime.

     I believe that the photograph of the dead Osama bin Laden must at least be made available to Congress, which has the power to subpoena it as part of its oversight function. It ought to be made available also to the victims of al-Qaeda. By the victims, I mean not only the family of those who were killed in al-Qaeda’s various attacks on Americans, but also those who were wounded. Of course, every American was wounded emotionally by the September 11 Terrorist Attacks in particular, as intended by bin Laden. Therefore, all Americans ought to be allowed to see the photograph. Seeing the photograph will provide some sense of closure to Americans and other victims of bin Laden, but also have a deterrent effect. Throughout the War on Terrorism, I have supported the republishing of the horrible images of the September 11 Attacks, lest we forget the threat our enemies pose. Showing the image of bin Laden with a bullet wound to his head would prevent the Islamist militants from forgetting the reach of the American intelligence and armed services. Thus, showing the photograph would not be done merely as an act of triumphalism that might unnecessarily anger Muslims, but as a necessary act. We must not be intimidated by terrorists into acting according to their wishes instead of doing what is in our interests.

     I am not disturbed by the fact that bin Laden was given a funeral according to Muslim tradition. It is good Christian practice to respect the dead, even one who committed such evil acts and who appeared to be unrepentant. I do not see the funeral as politically correct oversensitivity to Muslim reaction, unlike the refusal to show the photograph of bin Laden with the gunshot wound, or even a photograph of his burial at sea. The funeral was necessary, as is publishing the photograph.

     In my next post on this subject, I shall provide more political commentary on the bin Laden raid, but wanted to limit the focus of this post to my personal thoughts.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper Wins a Majority as He Steers Canada to the Right

2011-05-02T23:59:00.002-04:00

     Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been reelected as he has won his Conservative Party a majority in Parliament for the first time since he came to power in a coalition in 2006.

     Harper was rewarded for his fiscally conservative policies, including lowering taxes, that have helped Canada avoid recession despite the steep global economic downturn. His policies reflect the global trend toward austerity and his election also represents the global rightward shift I have been posting about, as voters recognize the need for less government spending. Harper was also able to convince his countrymen that the Canadian economy needed the stability of a majority government versus the instability of another coalition government, either between his Tories and others or between the opposition Liberals and the leftist New Democratic Party (NDP).

     The NDP will be the primary opposition party for the first time, which will also be the first time the Liberals will not be either in government or the main opposition. The separtist Bloc Quebecois suffered a devestating loss of seats.

     Harper has increased Canada's military, which had been reduced to a meager force under Liberal government, and has maintained a Canadian force in Afghanistan in the War on Terrorism.  Canadians had been rejoicing within the last 24 hours over the killing by United States forces of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, who was responsible for the September 11 Terrorist Attacks in which 24 Canadians were among the nearly 3,000 people who were massacred.

     Americans are grateful to have the Canadians as allies. I congratulate Prime Minister Harper and the Canadian people and wish our neighbors to the North all the best.

President George W. Bush's Interrogations Policies Led to the Killing of Bin Laden

2011-05-02T12:10:00.002-04:00

     Although United States President Barak Obama deserves credit for authorizing the mission that resulted in the killing of Osama bin Laden by U.S. forces, the credit for the intelligence lead that led to the raid belongs to former President George W. Bush. The lead was developed several years ago as a result of Bush's policy of interrogating terrorist detainees. Bush's policy reflected his strategy of recognizing that Islamists were at war with the U.S.

     Obama thus benefitted from the Bush lead, even though he weakened U.S. interrogation practices. Like President Bill Clinton, Obama has often treated terrorism like a criminal matter, not a war crime, as Bush did. Terrorists captured in the U.S. have been read their rights under the Obama Administration, including the right to remain silent, and criminally charged before proper interrogations could be conducted, while terrorists caught on the battlefield are subject to the same interrogation policy as in the U.S. Army Field Manual. The manual is published, which allows the terrorists to practice interrogation resistance techinques.

     Liberals and some libertarians had harshly criticized Bush for not criminally charging the terrorists or treating them as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention, which would have protected the terrorists from interrogations, even though they are war criminals, not regular soldiers, who were the only ones intended to be covered under the Convention. The weakening of U.S. interrogations was the main policy difference between Obama and Bush on the War on Terrorism, as Obama has followed nearly every other Bush policy in the War, despite his previous criticisms of his predessor.

     It is doubtful, therefore, that the human intelligence, which had been drastically cut under the Clinton Administration, that resulted in bin Laden's death would have been acquired under Clinton or Obama interrogation policies, or those advocated by their liberal supporters in Congress and in the general public. The killing of bin Laden by the American military as a result of the work of U.S. intelligence services represents the fruition of Bush's policies.

     As I noted in my last post, the War on Terrorism is not yet won, but a major victory has been achieved by the U.S. Nevertheless, the greatness of President Bush on the War on Terrorism now is becoming increasingly apparent. I have repeatedly praised President Obama on this blog for continuing Bush's other policies in the War, but I now call upon him to return to Bush's interrogation policies which have proven to be successful.

     I congratulate President Obama, President Bush, the U.S. military and intelligence services for the successful raid on bin Laden's compound. As a member of a family of one of the victims of the September 11 Terrorist Attacks, I especially thank you for bringing justice to bin Laden. May we always remember the victims of all of the al-Qaeda attacks. May God Bless America.

     Please visit the website listed on my blog, 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America.

OSAMA BIN LADEN HAS BEEN KILLED

2011-05-02T00:17:00.002-04:00

     Al-Qaeda terrorist leader Osama bin Laden has been killed by United States forces. Bin Laden had issued a fatwah in 1996 calling upon all Muslims to kill Americans. In 1998, his terrorist organization, al Qaeda, bombed the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Al-Qaeda bombed the U.S.S. Cole in 2000. Al-Qaeda's September 11, 2001 Attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon were the bloodiest in history. Al-Qaeda has been responsible for numerous other terrorist and guerilla attacks around the world.

     Although these jihadist Islamist terrorists are likely to continue their ways, which will require our continued vigilance, bin Laden's death deprives them of their spiritual leader. The killing of bin Laden by the U.S. also proves that Allah did not favor bin Laden to be the next Caliph.

     May God Bless America.

William Rusher, In Memoriam

2011-04-22T11:50:00.000-04:00

     One of the co-founders of the American conservative movement, William A. Rusher, passed away this week at the age of 87. Rusher was a political advisor, debater, publisher, columnist, author and founder of a number of conservative organizations.

     Rusher served in the Army Air Corps during World War II. He became an attorney while active in New York politics and was appointed associate counsel of the United States Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, a position that suited his anti-Communist views.

     William F. Buckley hired Rusher as publisher of the National Review. Serving as the link between the magazine and conservative and Republican politics, he emphasized the need for National Review to be the leader of the conservative movement. Rusher strove for unity within the movement, i.e. of both fiscal and social conservatives.

     In the 1960s, Rusher helped found Young Americans for Freedom, the New York State Conservative Party and the American Conservative Union, the oldest conservative lobbying organization in the U.S. He played a major role in the drafting of conservative Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater for President. Goldwater’s nomination by the Republican Party marked the first nomination of a modern conservative for president by a major American political party.

     Meanwhile, Rusher became a political advisor of Ronald Reagan. He encouraged Reagan’s campaigns for the Republican nomination for president in 1968 and 1976. Rusher’s efforts paid off at long last in 1980 with the nomination and election of Reagan as President. He regarded the Reagan Presidency the greatest success of the conservative movement.

     Rusher was a highly skilled debater on radio and television and popular syndicated columnist. He skewered the left thoroughly, exposing the fallacy of its arguments without conceding any good intentions on the part of liberals for their support of bad policies.

     William Rusher has left the conservative movement a great legacy. May Rusher’s example of intellectual integrity and confidence inspire us to continue to promote conservative principles of good government.

The Pennsylvania House Approves Tort Reform

2011-04-13T11:51:00.000-04:00

     The Pennsylvania House of Representatives approved a reform of the Commonwealth's tort law in regard to joint and several liability. Joint and several liability means that if one defendant cannot pay money to satisfy a judgment against him, the other defendants must.

     Pennsylvania is one of only a few states that lacks proportional liability, meaning that a defendant who is only 1% liable can end up paying 100% of the judgment. The unfair lack of proportionality encourages the naming of “deep pockets,” i.e. businesses that are only tangentially related to the cause of action, but have more money than the primary defendant who is 99% liable. The Keystone State's lack of proportional joint and several liability is regarded as an anti-business policy that harms its economic competitiveness.

     The bill approved by the majority Republican House introduces a degree of proportionality by protecting defendants less than 20% liable from being required to pay the full amount of the judgment. The majority-Republican Senate is expected to approve the measure and Governor Tom Corbett, a Republican, is expected to sign it into law.

Update: Pennsylvania Senate and House Pass the Castle Doctrine Bill

2011-04-13T11:28:00.004-04:00

The Pennsylvania House of Representatives has joined the state Senate in passing a bill that extends the Castle Doctrine beyond a person's home. I have posted about this proposal several times since last year. The measure, which would allow a person to defend himself with with a deadly weapon anywhere he has a legal right to be (e.g. in a car, at work, etc.) without first being obligated to retreat, was overwhelmingly approved last year by the then-Democratic House and Republican Senate, but vetoed by former Governor Ed Rendell, a Democrat. Governor Tom Corbett, a Republican, is expected to sign the Castle Doctrine bill into law.

Foreign Updates: Portugal, the European Monetary Union, Ivory Coast

2011-04-11T19:01:00.000-04:00

     As expected, Portugal has asked for a financial bailout from the European Union. The Portuguese are joining the Greeks and Irish in being bailed out by the European Monetary Union from debts, thereby putting more pressure on the E.U. Portugal, Greece and Ireland all use the Euro as their monetary unit. The E.U. is under pressure because of the bailouts of these smaller economies, but the ongoing crisis could impact the much larger economy of Spain, which could, in turn, trigger the collapse of the euro, even if its survives all the bailouts.

     The recent rise of the Euro relative to the dollar is more of a sign of a weaker dollar than a stronger Euro.

     The opposition forces, with the help of the French, have captured the former president of Ivory Coast, Laurent Gbagbo, who had refused to concede election defeat four months ago in the former French West African colony. A Muslim won the election over the Christian Gbagbo, but not one who is an Islamist. Ivory Coast, which had been a stable, relatively developed and prosperous state thanks to its leading global rank in exporting cocoa, has been beset by an intermittent civil war over its north-south/Muslim-Christian divide. Both sides have been accused of atrocities in the conflict. It is hoped that the Republic of Ivory Coast will soon enjoy peace, order, justice, healing, freedom and representative democracy.

The Legacy of the Congressional Lame Duck Session: Military Trials and the 2011 Budget Deal

2011-04-09T12:27:00.002-04:00

     Now that the deal has been reached on the 2011 federal budget, which I analyze in my last post, it is possible to consider more fully the legacy of the 2010 Lame Duck Session of Congress.

     As I mentioned in my post in January of this year, Conservative Analysis of the Congressional Lame Duck Session, the then-minority Republicans won a concession from the majority Democrats and the President that a continuing resolution be approved for the 2011 federal budget, which left open the door for the Republicans, once they gained the majority in January, to approve a final budget that would include domestic spending cuts the liberal Democrats and President were unwilling to make. As a result, the deal reached last night accomplishes the conservative GOP goal.

     Another conservative legacy of the Lame Duck Session was the Congressional defunding of civilian trials for the September 11 terrorist attack conspirators currently being held at a prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Obama Administration had intended to try these war criminals in civilian courts. The Administration has now reversed itself, as it has in other policies in the War on Terrorism, and will now keep Guantanamo Bay's prison camp open and try the terrorists there.

Conservative Commentary on the 2011 Federal Budget Deal

2011-04-09T12:16:00.000-04:00

     Conservatives won a significant victory in the deal struck between Congressional leaders and the President for the 2011 budget for the United States federal government. Led by the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, conservative Republicans won $38 billion of spending cuts.

     The deal was necessary because the liberal Democratic Congress had failed to pass a budget last year. It had passed continuing resolutions, which maintained funding levels at the current rate. When Republicans gained the majority in January, they approved short-term continuing resolutions with $10 billion of spending cuts. The uncertainty because of the constant need for continuing resolutions was economically harmful and made weary legislators eager for a bill to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year (through the end of September). Without a budget, the authority for the federal government to make expenditures would have ended, thereby causing a government shutdown, as I explained in my last post.

     The deal mostly cuts domestic spending. Although it does not end federal funding of Planned Parentood, the largest provider of abortions in the U.S., it ends the funding of abortions in the District of Columbia. It also provides vouchers for students to attend private schools in the District. Although it does not defund Barak Obama's federalization of health insurance, it prohibits the hiring of the requisite Internal Revenue Agents. There will be votes in the Senate, however, on defunding Planned Parenthood and the federalization of health insurance.

     Nevertheless, the deal represented a lopsided victory for conservatives, as the Republicans had initially proposed $32 billion in spending cuts and the liberal Democrats none. The figure of $38 billion in annual savings represents the largest post-World War II cut in American history. These spending cuts and the compromises on the policy riders are especially amazing considering that Republicans control only one half of Congress, while the Democrats have not only the other half, but also the Executive Branch.

     Moreover, the spending cuts in this budget deal represent an acknowledgment of the need for austerity, without raising taxes. In other words, conservatives, bolstered by the Republican victories in the 2010 Congressional elections, are winning the policy debate. Conservatives will now have the momentum going into the next two debates, both of which are coming soon, on raising the federal debt limit and on the 2012 budget.

Only Presidents, Not Congress, Have Shut Down the Government

2011-04-07T13:03:00.000-04:00

     Government shutdowns occur when government no longer has any legal authority to spend. When United States President George H.W. Bush vetoed the deficit-spending bills of the liberal Democratic-controlled Congress, Democrats and their allies in the liberal media blamed him for the brief government shutdown that ensued.

     But when Bush’s successor, Bill Clinton, vetoed the spending reductions of the Republican-controlled Congress, the Democrats and the liberal media blamed the Congress instead of the President. Their only consistency was in blaming the Republicans for shutting down the government as a result of the fiscal dispute.

     Constitutionally, in disputes between the Executive and Legislative Branches of the federal government, only a president can shut down the government because only he has the power to veto spending bills or an increase in the debt ceiling approved by Congress.

     The only way Congress could ever be responsible for a government shut-down is if it were to fail to pass a bill authorizing spending, which would be unprecedented. Such a contingency would only be possible in two ways: either the House fails to approve a fiscal bill to prevent the shutdown or the Senate disagrees with the House bill.

     After the Republicans won the majority in Congress in the 1994 elections, they proposed spending reductions in order to balance the budget. At the time, Clinton had raised taxes, dramatically cut the military and intelligence budget and yet increased the deficit (which, as I have noted previously, liberals in politics and the media referred to as his “deficit reduction plan”). Clinton projected $200 billion deficits indefinitely and was non-committal on how long it would take to balance the budget. In the meantime, he was well on his way to adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the federal debt, an increase that was not undone by the later temporary annual budget surpluses that have obscured his earlier spendthrift ways.

     The Republicans in Congress adopted the strategy of passing spending cuts in order to present Clinton with the choice of vetoing the bill or shutting down the government, just as the Democrats had done with their deficit-spending proposals under his predecessor. The GOP strategy was not to shut down the government, but to force Clinton into the spending reductions. The liberal Democrats falsely portrayed the Republican strategy as intending to shut down the government. To liberal Democrats, government is the greatest force for good in the world and shutting it down, even temporarily in order to reduce the deficit, is a catastrophe. They employed the usual scare tactics that government spenders do by focusing on the most sensational aspects of the government shutdown while portraying the Republicans as “mean” for not wanting to spend more than the government took in while passing off the bill to future generations. For a time, the liberal scare tactics seemed to be working.

     Then, despite the way it is still portrayed in the liberal media, public opinion began to turn against Clinton and the liberal Democrats as the American people began to regard the shutdown as the result of a lack of presidential leadership. In other words, they were increasingly recognizing Clinton’s veto as the cause of the government shutdown. The Republicans blinked first and compromised, although it was far short of their goals. Later, however, they built on their momentum and succeeded in forcing significant domestic spending cuts while increasing spending for the military and lowering some taxes. The reduction in the capital gains tax was particularly stimulative of the economic growth of the late 1990s that was the main cause of the later budget surpluses, not Clinton’s earlier tax increase which had slowed growth.

     I raise the point that it is only the President or the Senate who can trigger a government shutdown in the current fiscal dispute. There is a possibility of a veto by President Barak Obama of any spending cuts approved by the Republican House of Representatives and agreed to by the Democratic Senate. This time, however, there could be a congressional failure to act if the Senate does not agree to the House’s spending cuts before there were any possibility of a presidential veto. Then, it would be the Senate’s fault for shutting down the government.

     The consistent point is that regardless of the political party or motivation, only the President or the Senate can by their actions legally trigger the federal government to shut down for a lack of spending authority, as long as the representatives of the people do act.

     At this time, the House wants to act, but is trying to approve a bill it knows the Senate and President would accept. If a compromise cannot be reached soon, the House will likely approve the spending cuts it wants and force the Senate or President to choose between reducing the deficit or shutting down the government. Conservatives must explain that the blame would lie with the liberal Democrats in the White House or Senate for failing to pass a fiscal bill, regardless of whether one agrees with the proposed Republican spending cuts or not. But given the fiscal crisis, conservatives ought to promote the cuts as the only fiscally, economically and morally responsible action.

A Conservative Refutation of Isolationists on the Libyan Civil War, Part I

2011-04-05T21:40:00.000-04:00

     In my first post on the Libyan Civil War, Conservative Commentary on the Libyan Crisis, I made the case that the Libyan Civil War was of international interest. In addition to the need to rescue foreign citizens from Libya, I cited the problem of refugees, political instability, the necessity to avoid moral complicity in crimes against humanity and the disruption of trade as concerns of the United States and its allies. In raising these points, I was mainly making the case of U.S. interest in the Libya, not the prudence of intervening beyond the imposition of economic sanctions and the freezing of assets.

     The case for military intervention, however, was made particularly by my observation of the increasing fear that if Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi, who had retained some of his chemical weapons, had held onto power, he would return to terrorism against the U.S. and its Western allies.

     The U.S. has global interests and Americans have a global presence. It also has the technical ability to intervene effectively, which imposes a moral duty on it to act to protect human lives. The U.S. military needs not serve as the “policeman of the world,” as isolationists on both the left and the right claim it would be if it intervenes, as they do every time. In fact, it does not serve as the policeman of much of the world, which is peaceful. Indeed, the American military does not even serve as the policeman of the United States! But U.S. interests and capabilities often compel it to act, sometimes non-militarily, sometimes militarily.

     To isolationists, only one motive at a time is possible for any U.S. action. Thus, for example, if an intervention has a humanitarian aspect, they focus on that aspect alone and argue that the U.S. ought not to intervene militarily for humanitarian reasons. If an action benefits an ally, isolationists argue that it our alliance is “entangling” us in a war for our ally’s benefit, as if it is necessarily not in our interests. The motive of acting on additional interests is ignored.

     In fact, whenever the U.S. acts in one way or another on behalf of its interests, isolationists oppose such intervention because they argue that it is not taken on behalf of a “vital interest,” which they insist is the standard for justifying intervention. Isolationists never have to explain what they mean by the term “vital interest,” which is not a term found in the U.S. Constitution they claim to follow strictly.

     A closer examination of the term would be illuminating. “Vital interest” implies that there are interests less than vital, but isolationists never distinguish between the two. They always dismiss any interests as not being “vital interests” because they regard them as insignificant or illegitimate (e.g. they regard any economic interest, like stopping a thief, as illegitimate, while contradicting themselves by complaining about the economic cost of war). They declare a priori the lack of any “vital interests” that would justify action in defense of Americans or its interests or allies. Thus, isolationists conveniently do not have to make judgments about whether or not the U.S. has any interests, and, if so, whether they are truly vital.

     Isolationists thereby fail to explain what criteria would make an interest vital. Does “vital” refer to the United States itself or to the lives of individual Americans? The responsibility of the U.S. is to protect not only the Union itself, but the American people. See my post, An Attack on Americans Anywhere Is an Attack on Us from September of 2009. If “vital” refers to the existence of the U.S., as opposed to the lives of individual Americans, then the September 11 Attacks did not threaten U.S. vital interests. Nearly three thousand people were killed in the attacks, but they argue that there was no direct threat to the viability of the Union. It was not an invasion, as the attackers were dead and al-Qaeda lacked even the potential for an invasion, they argue. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan did not commit the attacks, only certain members of al-Qaeda were allegedly responsible for the attacks whom could have been prosecuted or sued instead, and so on go their arguments.

     Does “vital” mean an immediate interest, or the potential of one? If it means only the potential interest, then even the Pearl Harbor attack was not of “vital” U.S. interest, as the States were not yet under invasion. Remember, isolationists opposed even U.S. involvement in the Second World War.

     Isolationists are always able to come up with an argument that there is no threat to U.S. “vital interest,” other than a theoretical invasion by foreigners, which is conveniently unlikely. Even then, they would likely minimize the threat. Indeed, isolationists never seem capable of recognizing any truly “vital” threats, while conveniently blaming the U.S. for causing the threats in the first place, as if to argue that it would not need to act if only it would withdraw from the world. They even cite Pearl Harbor and September 11 as proof of their theory. The term “vital interest,” therefore, and their insistence on it as a standard for intervention, is only an excuse for isolationists to oppose any action taken in defense of Americans and American interests or allies.

     In short, the only “vital” threat isolationists see to the U.S. is the U.S. itself. Any foreign malevolence against Americans is blamed by them on American intervention, which they regard as the source of the problems in the world, in order to validate their theory. Isolationists fail to recognize the evil intent of an enemy whose ideology requires it to conquer as the source of the problems in the world.

     Moreover, isolationists fail to see that the world does not want the U.S. to withdraw. It wants the U.S. to use its economic, technological or military resources to act for good.

     In Part II, I shall explore recent examples of U.S. intervention and compare them to the Libyan Civil War.

Two-Year Blog Visit Report

2011-04-03T20:14:00.000-04:00

     I am pleased to report that in the two years since Statcounter has tracked my blog, there have been well over 2,800 visits, not counting my own and only counting hits from individuals at least one hour apart as separate visits. Thank you for your patronage!

     Here are the latest statistics. Visits to my blog have come from 85 foreign states, as well as Hong Kong and the Palestinian Territories. My blog has been visited from all 50 American states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam. In addition to those who landed on or viewed my blog homepage, visitors have landed on over 170 posts and viewed over 30 more.

     The most visitors have come from Malaysia, Algeria, Canada, United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Australia and Russia. The most visited post is The Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization, which has been viewed over 600 times. The next most visited, with over 200 visits, is The Economy, Deficit and Debt and George W. Bush's Inaguration; followed by Radicals in the Obama Administration; Obama Did Not Inherit the Economy from Bush; Follow-up on the Fall of Islamic Civilization; Misleading Media Phrases; Lepanto, by G.K. Chesterton; Commentary on the Roman Influence on America Exhibit at the National Constitution Center; A Comparison of the Federal Response to the Hurricane Katrina and the Haitian Earthquake and Herb Denenberg, In Memoriam, all of which were visited 50-100 times.

     Since I have also been tracking visits to my blog recorded by Blogger in November, I have noticed far more visits that are not tracked by Statcounter, although the latter picked up some that the former did not. Nevertheless, Statcounter's statistics, which are much more specific than Blogger's, suggest a level of readership of my blog that is much appreciated.

     Again, thank you for your patronage. Please visit my blog once or twice a week. As always, your questions, comments or suggestions are always welcome.

Useless Cabinet Departments

2011-03-30T23:08:00.004-04:00

     Presidential Cabinet-level Departments have grown in both number and size over the last 150 years, while they have generally become more and more useless even as they grow more burdensome.

     Beginning in the mid-Nineteenth Century, more and more departments have been created by the federal government and the secretaries who head them made part of the Cabinet. Few of these beyond the original five created by President George Washington, the Departments of State, War (now Defense), Treasury, Justice, Post Office (now an independent agency) are tasked with constitutional federal functions and even of those few that are, none of them ought to rise to the level of the Cabinet.

     In fact, much of the work of these Cabinet Departments is not even appropriate for government, let alone the federal government. There is nothing federal about housing or agriculture, for example.

     These Cabinet Departments were often created as boondoggles for patronage jobs for political parties. They were created as such or later elevated to cabinet status in order to please some political constituency.

     The Cabinet is supposed to advise the President on matters of state. But, does it matter what the Secretary of Education thinks of the latest international crisis? Furthermore, each Cabinet Secretary, no matter how insignificant, inexperienced or unknown to the public is in line to the presidency, according to the Presidential Succession Act.

     Cabinet Departments are headquartered in Washington, D.C. in massive buildings full of bureaucrats. It is striking how wasteful they are, considering they serve no valid purpose:

     No commerce takes place at the Department of Commerce, except maybe if office vending machines are counted.

     No agriculture takes place at the Department of Agriculture.

     No one is educated at the Department of Education.

     No healthcare is administered regularly at the Department of Health and Human Services.

     No housing is provided at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

     No energy is produced at the Department of Energy. In fact, it uses energy.

     I propose the downgrading to the level of agencies the few Cabinet Departments that manage appropriate federal functions and the elimination of most of the rest of them that have been created since George Washington.

Foreign Updates: Portugal, Haiti, Italian Crucifixes in Schools

2011-03-18T13:06:00.002-04:00

     The opposition of the minority conservative party to the Portuguese government's austerity plan will plunge Portugal into a political crisis. As I had posted previously, the conservatives objected to the Socialist-led coalition government's plan to raise taxes on the poorer classes. The political crisis will probably tip Portugal toward asking for a financial bailout from the European Union.

     Haiti's former dictator, Jean Bertrand Aristide, has returned to his home country from exile. I hope that he will share the same fate as Jean Claude Duvalier, who was arrested by the Haitians, as I noted in my post in February.

     Italy won its appeal to the full panel of the European Court of Human Rights on the issue of crucifixes in public schools. I had posted about this subject several times. Backed by numerous predominately Catholic and Orthodox secular states, the Italians were successful in arguing that the crucifix is a symbol of Western Civilization, from which European values arise, not the imposition of any religious belief. The Holy See had argued that Europe needs to reaffirm the Christian roots of its culture.

Conservative Commentary on the Libyan Crisis

2011-03-17T20:20:00.000-04:00

     The United Nations Security Council has just approved the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya. The unprecedented support for such an action by the Arab League against a fellow Arab state made the difference in the international organization's opinion. The measure had been introduced by the British and French in response to the indiscriminate bombing of cities by Libyan dictator Colonel Muamar Qaddafi.

     Contrary to the claims of isolationists, domestic strife is often a cause of international concern, in addition to the necessity of evacuating fellow countrymen. The Libyan Civil War is an example. Libyan refugees have overburdened neighboring Tunisia. Libyans have joined Tunisians and Egyptians who have poured into Italy's Lampedusa Island, between North Africa and Sicily. Italy has gained a committment from the European Union to share the burden for the North African refugees. Also, international trade has been interrupted as Libya's oil production has plummeted while oil speculaters have taken advantage of fears of further supply decreases in order to increase the price of oil.  A general international concern is that instability is a danger to peace and commerce, especially in Muslim countries where al-Qaeda or other Islamists might try to take advantage.

     Moreover, foreign states must not become morally complicit in crimes against humanity such as are being committed by Qaddafi's regime, which is why they have imposed economic sanctions on Libya, frozen its assets imposed bans on travel by members of its regime, or withdrawn their diplomats. The United States Navy is enforcing the arms embargo on Libya. The French and British even recognized the Libyan opposition government. Meanwhile, the international community is threatening the prosecution of the Qaddafi regime for crimes against humanity, as is its responsbility in order to deter such abuses in the future. There has also been an international effort at humanitarian aid for the Libyan people in the rebel-held areas.

     Qaddafi's regime has lost any legitamacy it might have had. After taking power from King Idris al-Sanusi in a military coup d'etat in 1969, Qaddafi became a Soviet client state and a state sponsor of terrorism. The U.S. listed it as a terrorist sponsor and imposed economic sanctions.  After a U.S. bombing in 1986, in retaliation for a deadly Libyan bombing in Germany that targeted American soldiers, a member of the Libyan regime orchestrated the bombing of an American civilian airline over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. The terrorist was caught and later succesfully prosecuted, but any orders from Qaddafi were never proven, although recent defectors are now claiming that he was behind the terrorist attack that killed hundreds. Libya did agree to pay reperations for the bombing, as well as a bombing of a French airliner. After the Liberation of Iraq, Libya agreed to give up its weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which included a nuclear program and chemical weapons and materials. It also renounced terrorism.

     The international community legitimatized Qaddafi's regime by establishing diplomatic relations and ending its sanctions. However, Qaddafi's regime continued to be problematic. Its human rights record was horrendous, it lashed out at Switzerland over a minor private matter and engineered the early release of the Lockerbie bomber.  Meanwhile, it failed to eliminate all of its chemical weapons, as it had promised. The Western hopes that Qaddafi's son would be a more moderate successor have been thoroughly dahsed by his support for his father's brutal crackdown on the opposition. Indeed, there has been a growing fear that if Qaddafi vanquished the opposition, he would revert to terrorism and devloping WMDs.

     The actions approved by the U.N. Security Council are serious and risky and may not succeed in protecting Libyan civlians or the rebels, let alone liberating Libya from its tyrant. The no-fly zone may be too late. But the world could not turn its back on the slaughter of innocents and the brutal suppression of a legitimate opposition while leaving such a despot in power. It is hoped that the U.N. action will end the bloodshed and deter further crimes against humanity. The sale of arms to the Libyan rebels ought to be considerd, in addition to sharing intelligence with them.

     I hope that the American and other pilots participating in the no-fly zone will be safe and that the nightmare of the Qaddafi regime will end for the people of Libya with the dream of liberty.

Italians Celebrate 150 Years of Unity

2011-03-17T09:50:00.000-04:00

     Today, Italians are celebrating the 150th anniversary of the Risorgimento, the “resurgence,” the Unification of Italy. The Italian Republic is planning to observe this major event in world history with a series of commemorations this year.

     It may be surprising to many Americans to learn that there had never been an independent state ruled by Italians covering the Italian peninsula until 1861. From the Fall of Roman Empire in 476 A.D. until then, Italy was dominated by foreigners while Italians were also divided into many independent Italian states ruled by, nobles, the Pope or by the people in the form of small republics.

     Italians like Dante and Macchiavelli dreamed of a unified Italy. There was a feeling among the people of the Italian peninsula and Sicily of geographical, religious and cultural unity from their common ancient heritage, despite some differences in culture because of foreign influences. Meanwhile, Dante and Petrarch had helped to unify Italy linguistically by establishing the Tuscan dialect as a literary language instead of Latin. Tuscan, with influence from the Sicilian School of Poetry, thus gradually became the modern “Italian” language.

     Napoleon established a “Kingdom of Italy” that included northern Italy, but it was ruled by the French. Nevertheless, the idea of a foreign-ruled Italian state only increased Italian nationalism, the object of which was to unite the Italians.

     The revolt intended to unify Italy led by Giuseppe Mazzini in 1848 against the Austrians, who were dominating much of northern Italy by that point, failed. Eleven years later, however, the Savoyard King of Sardinia-Piedmont, Vittorio Emanuele II, began a new effort at unification when he traded Savoy to France for French help in driving the Austrians out of Lombardy. Other northern Italian states soon joined to his side, while Giuseppe Garibaldi and his Thousand overthrew the Spanish-ruled Kingdom of the Two Sicilies based in Naples by 1861. Garibaldi saluted Vittorio Emanuele as the first King of Italy. The Kingdom of Italy was declared on March 17, 1861.

     Venezia and the Tyrol were won from Austria in 1866 and the Papal States were added in 1870, at which point all Italian states were unified except for San Marino.

     The Unification of Italy served as a model for the reunification of Germany ten years later.

     After 1946, the monarchy was abolished and Italy became a Republic.

     I congratulate the Italians on their accomplishment and wish them continued unity.

Conservative Commentary on the Pennsylvania Special Election

2011-03-16T11:00:00.003-04:00

     Because the Democratic candidate won yesterday's Special Election in Pennsylvania's 11th Senatorial District, liberals are potraying it as a referendum on Governor Tom Corbett. They are exaggerating the significance of the election.

     The District, wherein I reside, has a nearly two-to-one Democratic voter registration advantage over Republicans. It had been held for 38 years by the late Democratic Senator whose death created the vacancy. The Democratic candidate was a popular former Berks County Commissioner who was known for preserving farmland. She had escaped criticism for her votes to increase taxes 18% and 34%, which have resulted in an unnecessary surplus of $100 million, as well as her votes to increase spending, until the Special Election.

     The Republican effort to inform the voters about her taxing and spending record resulted in her underperformance of the voter registration margin by several percentage points. The fact that she was not pro-life, unlike the late Democratic Senator who held the seat, might have contributed to some degree, although it was not a major overt part of the GOP campaign.

     Governor Corbett's budget only came out a week before the election, after he had made a campaign appearance for the Republican candidate. In it, he proposes to cut spending without raising taxes, as he had promised during his campaign. However, the Reading Eagle, the only daily newspaper in the district, focused on the cuts to education while largely ignoring the many other, often less controversial, cuts in his budget. Additionally, one of its reporters then took the GOP candidate's remarks (at the appearance I had posted about of Lieutenant Governor Jim Cawley) about Governor Corbett keeping his campaign promises out of context in order to make it appear as if he were gleeful about the painful cuts.

     Another factor in the background was fear among organized labor that Pennsylvania would see a replay of the reduction of collective bargaining rights for workers as in Wisconsin, even though Governor Corbett had firmly declared that it would not happen in the Keystone State. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker had explained that his state enjoyed the strongest civil protection law in the Union. Moreover, both the Democrats and labor were motivated to regain momentum after the 2010 Elections.

     Given the Democratic voter registration advantage and the popularity of the Democratic incumbent, the results of the Pennsylvania Special Election for the 11th Senatorial District suggest that Pennsylvanians prefer cutting spending to raising taxes, despite the negative portrayal of Governor Corbett's proposed budget.

A Severance Tax Would Be an Extra Tax on Marcellus Shale

2011-03-14T12:05:00.000-04:00

     Proponents of a severance tax on natural gas drillers in the Marcellus Shale formation in Pennsylvania are implying that the gas drillers are not currently paying any state tax. They claim, for example, that Governor Tom Corbett and the Republicans in the General Assembly would not tax the gas drillers. However, their claim is false because the proposed severance tax would be in addition to the corporate taxes the drillers already pay, like all other Pennsylvania corporations.

     The severance tax proponents argue that because most other states in the American Union impose a severance tax, Pennsylvania should, too. However, they do not consider that the Commonwealth’s corporate income tax is among the highest in the United States and the world. Pennsylvania is unusual in that it taxes both income and assets (i.e. the Corporate Net Income Tax and the Capital Stock and Franchise Tax). The lack of a severance tax, therefore, helps to balance the high corporate taxes, thus making Pennsylvania attractive enough for gas drillers, who could take their rigs to more competitive states, to operate in the Keystone State.

     As I have noted in previous posts, severance tax proponents would kill the goose that laid the golden egg by imposing a severance tax in addition to Pennsylvania’s high corporate taxes. Natural gas drillers operating in the Marcellus formation not only pay corporate taxes to the Commonwealth, they employ tens of thousands of workers who, in turn, pay state and municipal income taxes. The drillers also pay royalties to landowners, thereby increasing the value of land, which, in turn, increases the amount of county, municipal and school real estate taxes paid. In addition, the drillers improve roads, which lessens the need for government to expend public money for that purpose.

     Environmental violations, which are usually cited as an excuse to impose a severance tax on Marcellus gas drillers, may be addressed by lawsuits or civil fines, as with any other industry.

     Indeed, proponents of a severance tax on top of the taxes corporations already pay would unfairly impose a special tax on one industry that no other industry pays. In short, no one is proposing that gas drillers not be taxed, only that they not pay an additional tax.

Pennsylvania State Senate Special Election

2011-03-13T22:54:00.005-04:00

     There will be a Special Election for the 11th Senatorial District of Pennsylvania on Tuesday, March 15 in order to fill a vacancy created by the death of a Democratic Senator who held the seat for 38 years. The seat is based around Reading and much of the greater Reading area in Berks County.

     The current composition of the Senate, with the vacancy, is 30 Republicans, 19 Democrats. State Senate seats seldom change party hands in the Keystone State. This election is the only one in the Commonwealth scheduled until the General Election in November, other than the Primary Election.

     The Republican nominee is Larry Medaglia, who serves as the Berks County Register of Wills, and is a cousin of mine. He is fiscally conservative, pro-life, pro-gun and committed to advocating for the City of Reading.

     It was his candidacy for which the Lieutenant Governor, Jim Cawley, appeared in Reading last week, which I posted about.

     Vote on Tuesday, March 15.