In a new report, British and American historians have concluded that the number of civilian deaths attributed to the February 13-15, 1945 Allied bombing of the German city of Dresden has been exaggerated. In contrast to the claims of Nazis and other leftists that there were hundreds of thousands of deaths, the historians report that there were only 25,000 civilian deaths, according to the British Broadcasting Corporation.
Dresden was a military and industrial target defended by anti-aircraft artillery near the Eastern Front. The Allies dropped a comparable tonnage of bombs on the city as they had other Axis cities, in which there were more civilian deaths.
The exaggerated claims of upwards of half a million deaths were used by the Nazis and their sympathizers to portray the Allies as the moral equivalents of the Nazi Germans, so as to make the Nazi Germans appear relatively less evil, as well as by other leftists to support their anti-American views.
One such leftist, Kurt Vonnegut, had been an American prisoner of war held by the Germans in Dresden. He wrote a novel, Slaughterhouse Five, loosely based on his experience in Dresden, in which he cited the exaggerated claims of the Nazis.
Thus, Vonnegut's misleading and crude book has become the second liberal text out of only a handful I had to read in school that has since been discredited, joining Guatemalan communist Rigoberta Menchu's autobiography I had read in college in which the Nobel Peace Prize laureate fabricated human rights abuses against indigenous civilians by the Guatemalan government. In conclusion, one should be skeptical of any liberal historical claims.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Herb Denenberg, In Memoriam
Herb Denenberg, the public servant and Emmy-award-winning consumer advocate died yesterday at the age of 81, according to the Philadelphia Bulletin, for which he was a columnist.
According to the Bulletin, Denenberg, who had served as Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, was described by Ralph Nader as the most “consumer-oriented insurance commissioner in American history.”
It might, at first, seem odd that I, as a conservative, would memorialize someone praised by the liberal Nader. I recall Denenberg on Philadelphia news stations decades ago doing consumer protection stories, like the more famous journalist John Stossel. What I did not know until I recently discovered his column in the Bulletin was that he held strong free-market views. Denenberg consistently warned, in columns published as recently as a week ago, about the threat to the economy and liberty represented by United Sates President Barak Obama's socialist policies, as well as his softness on terrorism. Denenberg was especially opposed to Obama's proposal to federalize health insurance. Like Stossel, Denenberg understood that the free market, with only a minimum amount of government regulation, offered the best protection for consumers.
The following biography is based upon information from Denenberg's obituary published in today's Philadelphia Bulletin: Born in Nebraska, Denenberg earned a law degree from Creighton University and a PhD from the University of Pennsylvania. He served in the Army in the Judge Advocate General Corps as a First Lieutenant and later as a Captain in the Reserves.
Denenberg taught at the University of Iowa, Temple University School of Law and Cabrini College, and was a professor at the Wharton School at Penn. Although Jewish, he was a strong supporter of Catholic Education.
In addition to serving as insurance commissioner, Denenberg also served Pennsylvania as its Public Utility Commissioner. He also was an advisor for various federal agencies and also for several other states. The insurance laws he authored established a number of consumer protections, some of which saved Pennsylvanians hundreds of millions of dollars.
Denenberg was columnist for 35 years, including for the Philadelphia Daly News, and an investigative and consumer television reporter for 25 years. His consumer guides for insurance and health care were popular. He won 40 Emmy Awards.
May Herb Denenberg's example remind us that our economic liberty comes from God, not from government, and that governments are instituted to protect our rights. With government protection of liberty, the free market -- not excessive government regulation -- can best safeguard consumers.
According to the Bulletin, Denenberg, who had served as Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, was described by Ralph Nader as the most “consumer-oriented insurance commissioner in American history.”
It might, at first, seem odd that I, as a conservative, would memorialize someone praised by the liberal Nader. I recall Denenberg on Philadelphia news stations decades ago doing consumer protection stories, like the more famous journalist John Stossel. What I did not know until I recently discovered his column in the Bulletin was that he held strong free-market views. Denenberg consistently warned, in columns published as recently as a week ago, about the threat to the economy and liberty represented by United Sates President Barak Obama's socialist policies, as well as his softness on terrorism. Denenberg was especially opposed to Obama's proposal to federalize health insurance. Like Stossel, Denenberg understood that the free market, with only a minimum amount of government regulation, offered the best protection for consumers.
The following biography is based upon information from Denenberg's obituary published in today's Philadelphia Bulletin: Born in Nebraska, Denenberg earned a law degree from Creighton University and a PhD from the University of Pennsylvania. He served in the Army in the Judge Advocate General Corps as a First Lieutenant and later as a Captain in the Reserves.
Denenberg taught at the University of Iowa, Temple University School of Law and Cabrini College, and was a professor at the Wharton School at Penn. Although Jewish, he was a strong supporter of Catholic Education.
In addition to serving as insurance commissioner, Denenberg also served Pennsylvania as its Public Utility Commissioner. He also was an advisor for various federal agencies and also for several other states. The insurance laws he authored established a number of consumer protections, some of which saved Pennsylvanians hundreds of millions of dollars.
Denenberg was columnist for 35 years, including for the Philadelphia Daly News, and an investigative and consumer television reporter for 25 years. His consumer guides for insurance and health care were popular. He won 40 Emmy Awards.
May Herb Denenberg's example remind us that our economic liberty comes from God, not from government, and that governments are instituted to protect our rights. With government protection of liberty, the free market -- not excessive government regulation -- can best safeguard consumers.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Cinfici Polled by Rasmussen Reports
I was polled Monday by Rasmussen Reports, the most accurate surveyor of public opinion in the United States. The questions included a rating of U.S. President Barak Obama's and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell's performances as president and governor, respectively, as well as for whom I would vote for U.S. Senate for Pennsylvania, and whether most incumbent members of Congress deserved reelection and whether my U.S. Representative deserved reelection. The pollster also asked my opinion of the proposal to federalize health insurance and whether it would be preferable for Congress to consider individual reforms.
I was grateful to have the opportunity to express my opinion in the health insurance debate, as well as for the election questions. I expressed my opposition to the federalization of health insurance and preference for individual reforms, disapproval of Obama's and Rendell's performances, support for Pennsylvania Republican candidate for U.S. Senate Pat Toomey, disapproval of most incumbent members of Congress, but support for my Republican incumbent.
Visit Rasmussen Reports at www.rasmussenreports.com.
I was grateful to have the opportunity to express my opinion in the health insurance debate, as well as for the election questions. I expressed my opposition to the federalization of health insurance and preference for individual reforms, disapproval of Obama's and Rendell's performances, support for Pennsylvania Republican candidate for U.S. Senate Pat Toomey, disapproval of most incumbent members of Congress, but support for my Republican incumbent.
Visit Rasmussen Reports at www.rasmussenreports.com.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Census Update
I received my United States Census questionnaire today. Unlike the letter sent by the U.S. Census Bureau a week before that I discuss in my last post, the cover letter to the questionnaire explains the legal purpose of the Census: to apportion representatives in Congress among the states. Then it explains that the survey results are also used in order to dole out government largess, but the letter does so in a manner that makes it clear that this use of the survey results is secondary, unlike the first letter, which made it appear that it was the sole purpose.
The Obama Administration could have and should have written the first letter like the second one, instead of giving in to the temptation to politicize the Census and cynically appeal to people's economic self-interest instead of their civic responsibility.
The Obama Administration could have and should have written the first letter like the second one, instead of giving in to the temptation to politicize the Census and cynically appeal to people's economic self-interest instead of their civic responsibility.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
The Obama Administration Politicizes the U.S. Census
Today I received a letter from the United States Census Bureau notifying me that in about a week I will receive a 2010 Census form in the mail. Apparently, the Obama Administration has seized the opportunity to politicize the U.S. Census.
The letter declares a resident’s response “important,” but gives only one reason: that the results of “the 2010 Census will be used to help each community get its fair share of government funds for highways, schools, health facilities, and many other programs you and your neighbors need.” Thus, instead of taking the opportunity to educate Americans by explaining that the purpose of the Census is that it is required to be conducted every ten years by the United States Constitution in order to apportion representatives in Congress among the states, the letter appeals to personal self-interest instead of the interest of the community and the state.
The Obama Administration’s Census Bureau’s letter represents welfare statist propaganda, insofar as it presents government as an entity that gives away its money. Note the letter refers to that money opaquely as “funds,” not as “public money” or as “taxpayer dollars.” The Census Bureau declares in the letter that the “programs” are something the resident and his neighbors “need,” even though welfare programs are not necessarily needed by each resident, if they are truly needed by anyone at all.
The Census Bureau’s letter reveals an anti-federalist bias not only because it emphasizes personal self-interest over interest for one’s state, but also because it refers generally to “government” instead of the “federal government” or “federal and state governments” as if the federal government is the government, i.e. it is responsible for everything, and states are merely its provinces, not the sovereign independent entities that created the federal government though the Constitution. Thus, the Obama Administration is subverting the intent of the Framers who insisted that states retain their sovereignty, instead of allowing their citizens’ money to be confiscated by the federal government for “programs” of dubious constitutionality.
There is one positive aspect to the Obama Administration’s propaganda letter: it refers to the distribution of public money by the federal government proportionate to the population as a “fair share,” which is an admission that those congressional districts or states that receive earmarks or other forms of pork in addition to the base level of funding are receiving an unfair share of tax dollars, despite the Administration’s policies of accepting such unfair appropriations.
Nevertheless, the Obama Administration is wrong to use a letter from the Census Bureau to American residents as an opportunity to indoctrinate the people, contrary to the intent of the Framers who established the Census and the Congress that authorizes the money to conduct it. Americans must have confidence that the Census in being conducted in a non-political manner in order to have confidence in its results. Conservatives must persist in educating Americans about the Constitution by exposing and refuting anti-constitutional liberal statements whenever they see them.
The letter declares a resident’s response “important,” but gives only one reason: that the results of “the 2010 Census will be used to help each community get its fair share of government funds for highways, schools, health facilities, and many other programs you and your neighbors need.” Thus, instead of taking the opportunity to educate Americans by explaining that the purpose of the Census is that it is required to be conducted every ten years by the United States Constitution in order to apportion representatives in Congress among the states, the letter appeals to personal self-interest instead of the interest of the community and the state.
The Obama Administration’s Census Bureau’s letter represents welfare statist propaganda, insofar as it presents government as an entity that gives away its money. Note the letter refers to that money opaquely as “funds,” not as “public money” or as “taxpayer dollars.” The Census Bureau declares in the letter that the “programs” are something the resident and his neighbors “need,” even though welfare programs are not necessarily needed by each resident, if they are truly needed by anyone at all.
The Census Bureau’s letter reveals an anti-federalist bias not only because it emphasizes personal self-interest over interest for one’s state, but also because it refers generally to “government” instead of the “federal government” or “federal and state governments” as if the federal government is the government, i.e. it is responsible for everything, and states are merely its provinces, not the sovereign independent entities that created the federal government though the Constitution. Thus, the Obama Administration is subverting the intent of the Framers who insisted that states retain their sovereignty, instead of allowing their citizens’ money to be confiscated by the federal government for “programs” of dubious constitutionality.
There is one positive aspect to the Obama Administration’s propaganda letter: it refers to the distribution of public money by the federal government proportionate to the population as a “fair share,” which is an admission that those congressional districts or states that receive earmarks or other forms of pork in addition to the base level of funding are receiving an unfair share of tax dollars, despite the Administration’s policies of accepting such unfair appropriations.
Nevertheless, the Obama Administration is wrong to use a letter from the Census Bureau to American residents as an opportunity to indoctrinate the people, contrary to the intent of the Framers who established the Census and the Congress that authorizes the money to conduct it. Americans must have confidence that the Census in being conducted in a non-political manner in order to have confidence in its results. Conservatives must persist in educating Americans about the Constitution by exposing and refuting anti-constitutional liberal statements whenever they see them.
Monday, March 8, 2010
1,500 Visits to My Blog
Thank you for your patronage of my blog. Since I began tracking on April 2, 2009, over 1,500 visits have been logged, not including my own and counting only those hits by individuals at least one hour apart. I shall save further details for the annual report in a few weeks, but wanted to take this time to express my gratitude to those of you who visit my blog, especially those loyal readers. Thank you for your support!
Sunday, March 7, 2010
The Obama Administration Blames Its Predecessor for Terrorism More Than The Bush Administration Did, But Cites Bush Policies as a Model
Bush Did Not Blame Clinton Like Obama Blames Bush
United States President Barak Obama and his Administration have been blaming the Administration of his predecessor, George W. Bush, for the inadequate security measures that failed to prevent the al-Qaeda Christmas Day Bombing aboard a commercial jet bound for Detroit.
Bush could have blamed the Administration of his predecessor, Bill Clinton, for September 11, but he did not and discouraged his Administration from blaming its predecessor for anything. Bush preferred to set a more positive political tone in the hope of achieving reform without unnecessary partisan rancor -- a formula he was successful in using in order to enact education reform, for example.
The Clinton Administration’s policies had encouraged the terrorists and failed to adequately protect the United States. For example, the “Wall of silence” that prevented federal prosecutors from disclosing information learned through grand jury investigations with the F.B.I., the revelation because of a civilian trial of terrorists that bin Laden named as a co-conspirator in an indictment, the massive cutbacks in defense and intelligence -- to the point that there was no longer any human intelligence, the pullout from Somalia after the U.S. victory in the Battle of Mogadishu because of the death of 18 American soldiers, and the launching of cruise missiles against al-Qaeda targets in 1999 instead of risking American servicemen were serious policy mistakes. Additionally, the Clinton Administration had failed to update law enforcement tools in order to keep up with technology and failed to establish better intelligence sharing in general, even after bin Laden had declared that it was the duty of Muslims everywhere to kill Americans.
Although it is impossible to determine whether or not the September 11 Attacks would have been prevented had the Clinton Administration followed policies that the Bush Administration did after September 11, it can be said with certainty that the Clinton Administration did not adequately protect the U.S. from a terrorist attack; its central error was treating terrorism as isolated criminal acts instead of as a war. The Bush Administration resisted the temptation to blame Clinton for every failure and focused instead on preventing terrorist attacks.
I can detect no policy failure that led to the security breach that allowed the Christmas Day Bomber to carry out his attack. The failure was more in terms of procedure than of any policies from either the Bush or Obama Administrations.
The Obama Administration Cites the Bush Administration as a Model
In order to justify its decision to try the September 11 conspirators in civilian court instead of military tribunals, the Obama Administration and its liberal supporters cite statistics of hundreds of terrorists who were tried and convicted in civilian courts during the Bush Administration. The Obama Administration is arguing that it is following the example set by Bush, despite the promise of “change,” because it realizes that the American people had faith in the previous Administration’s policies, which were successful in preventing another September 11-scale attack, which, I should add, is a vindication of some of Bush’s policies in the War on Terrorism.
However, many of the hundreds of civilian trials of terrorists conducted by the Bush Administration were either of terrorists unrelated to al-Qaeda or before the military tribunals were ordered, after plans for them had been developed after September 11. The Bush Administration would have tried more terrorists in military tribunals after that point, but liberal lawyers objected and the federal courts ruled the military tribunals unconstitutional, despite longstanding precedent. Military tribunals were later congressionally authorized. In short, the Bush Administration’s preference was to try the terrorists in military tribunals, not civilian courts, but liberals succeeded in blocking the military tribunals. Now, many liberals are essentially crediting the Bush Administration for these civilian trials for terrorists, which they are holding up as an example worthy of following.
In conclusion, the Obama Administration and its supporters blames the Bush Administration for everything bad when it is politically expedient to blame its predecessor, but claims to be following it when it is politically expedient to be viewed as strong on preventing terrorism. Their inconsistency suggests their insincerity.
United States President Barak Obama and his Administration have been blaming the Administration of his predecessor, George W. Bush, for the inadequate security measures that failed to prevent the al-Qaeda Christmas Day Bombing aboard a commercial jet bound for Detroit.
Bush could have blamed the Administration of his predecessor, Bill Clinton, for September 11, but he did not and discouraged his Administration from blaming its predecessor for anything. Bush preferred to set a more positive political tone in the hope of achieving reform without unnecessary partisan rancor -- a formula he was successful in using in order to enact education reform, for example.
The Clinton Administration’s policies had encouraged the terrorists and failed to adequately protect the United States. For example, the “Wall of silence” that prevented federal prosecutors from disclosing information learned through grand jury investigations with the F.B.I., the revelation because of a civilian trial of terrorists that bin Laden named as a co-conspirator in an indictment, the massive cutbacks in defense and intelligence -- to the point that there was no longer any human intelligence, the pullout from Somalia after the U.S. victory in the Battle of Mogadishu because of the death of 18 American soldiers, and the launching of cruise missiles against al-Qaeda targets in 1999 instead of risking American servicemen were serious policy mistakes. Additionally, the Clinton Administration had failed to update law enforcement tools in order to keep up with technology and failed to establish better intelligence sharing in general, even after bin Laden had declared that it was the duty of Muslims everywhere to kill Americans.
Although it is impossible to determine whether or not the September 11 Attacks would have been prevented had the Clinton Administration followed policies that the Bush Administration did after September 11, it can be said with certainty that the Clinton Administration did not adequately protect the U.S. from a terrorist attack; its central error was treating terrorism as isolated criminal acts instead of as a war. The Bush Administration resisted the temptation to blame Clinton for every failure and focused instead on preventing terrorist attacks.
I can detect no policy failure that led to the security breach that allowed the Christmas Day Bomber to carry out his attack. The failure was more in terms of procedure than of any policies from either the Bush or Obama Administrations.
The Obama Administration Cites the Bush Administration as a Model
In order to justify its decision to try the September 11 conspirators in civilian court instead of military tribunals, the Obama Administration and its liberal supporters cite statistics of hundreds of terrorists who were tried and convicted in civilian courts during the Bush Administration. The Obama Administration is arguing that it is following the example set by Bush, despite the promise of “change,” because it realizes that the American people had faith in the previous Administration’s policies, which were successful in preventing another September 11-scale attack, which, I should add, is a vindication of some of Bush’s policies in the War on Terrorism.
However, many of the hundreds of civilian trials of terrorists conducted by the Bush Administration were either of terrorists unrelated to al-Qaeda or before the military tribunals were ordered, after plans for them had been developed after September 11. The Bush Administration would have tried more terrorists in military tribunals after that point, but liberal lawyers objected and the federal courts ruled the military tribunals unconstitutional, despite longstanding precedent. Military tribunals were later congressionally authorized. In short, the Bush Administration’s preference was to try the terrorists in military tribunals, not civilian courts, but liberals succeeded in blocking the military tribunals. Now, many liberals are essentially crediting the Bush Administration for these civilian trials for terrorists, which they are holding up as an example worthy of following.
In conclusion, the Obama Administration and its supporters blames the Bush Administration for everything bad when it is politically expedient to blame its predecessor, but claims to be following it when it is politically expedient to be viewed as strong on preventing terrorism. Their inconsistency suggests their insincerity.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Alexander Haig, Rest in Peace
General Alexander Haig, adviser to three Republican United States Presidents and Secretary of State, died today at the age of 85. A veteran of the Korean and Vietnamese Wars, he rose to the rank of four-star General, serving as Supreme NATO Commander. Haig was highly decorated for his bravery in Vietnam.
As White House Chief of Staff under President Richard M. Nixon, Haig took on administrative duties while Nixon was embroiled in the Watergate scandal. Haig helped prepare the president’s defense, but when it became apparent that the Democratically-controlled House of Representatives would impeach Nixon and the Democratically-controlled Senate would likely convict him, Haig advised the President to resign. He continued in the same office under President Gerald R. Ford, advising him to pardon his predecessor in order to end the “long national nightmare,” as Ford referred to the Watergate scandal. The courageous decision was the right one, but it cost Ford politically; he lost one of the closest presidential elections in American history in 1976.
Haig served as Secretary of State under President Ronald Reagan from 1981-1982. The liberal media most remembers Haig’s attempt to reassure the American people after the assassination attempt on Reagan in 1981. While the president was in surgery for a near-fatal gunshot wound, Vice President George H.W. Bush was incommunicado aboard an airplane returning from Texas. Secretary Haig declared that he was in charge at the White House. Although the liberal media ridiculed the statement as arrogant and falsely portrayed it as an attempted coup d’etat because the Democratic Speaker of the House was next in line under the Presidential Succession Act, followed by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Secretary Haig meant that he was administratively filling the gap until the Vice President landed, which was an important message to convey to the Soviets and any other enemies who might have been tempted to exploit the opportunity. Contrary to the liberal media, what Secretary Haig was most remembered for as Secretary of State was his shuttle diplomacy between Argentina and the United Kingdom after the former invaded the British-ruled Falkland Islands, which Argentina claimed as its territory. Although Secretary Haig’s efforts were unsuccessful in averting war, they were a testimony to American efforts to resolve the crisis peacefully, which gave the U.S. the diplomatic cover to support its ally, the U.K.
After completing his public service, Haig unsuccessfully sought the Republican nomination for president in 1988. He was a political commentator for many years.
Alexander Haig, a Pennsylvanian and graduate of St. Joseph University in Philadelphia, was a patriot who devoted his life to serving the United States of America. May he rest in peace.
As White House Chief of Staff under President Richard M. Nixon, Haig took on administrative duties while Nixon was embroiled in the Watergate scandal. Haig helped prepare the president’s defense, but when it became apparent that the Democratically-controlled House of Representatives would impeach Nixon and the Democratically-controlled Senate would likely convict him, Haig advised the President to resign. He continued in the same office under President Gerald R. Ford, advising him to pardon his predecessor in order to end the “long national nightmare,” as Ford referred to the Watergate scandal. The courageous decision was the right one, but it cost Ford politically; he lost one of the closest presidential elections in American history in 1976.
Haig served as Secretary of State under President Ronald Reagan from 1981-1982. The liberal media most remembers Haig’s attempt to reassure the American people after the assassination attempt on Reagan in 1981. While the president was in surgery for a near-fatal gunshot wound, Vice President George H.W. Bush was incommunicado aboard an airplane returning from Texas. Secretary Haig declared that he was in charge at the White House. Although the liberal media ridiculed the statement as arrogant and falsely portrayed it as an attempted coup d’etat because the Democratic Speaker of the House was next in line under the Presidential Succession Act, followed by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Secretary Haig meant that he was administratively filling the gap until the Vice President landed, which was an important message to convey to the Soviets and any other enemies who might have been tempted to exploit the opportunity. Contrary to the liberal media, what Secretary Haig was most remembered for as Secretary of State was his shuttle diplomacy between Argentina and the United Kingdom after the former invaded the British-ruled Falkland Islands, which Argentina claimed as its territory. Although Secretary Haig’s efforts were unsuccessful in averting war, they were a testimony to American efforts to resolve the crisis peacefully, which gave the U.S. the diplomatic cover to support its ally, the U.K.
After completing his public service, Haig unsuccessfully sought the Republican nomination for president in 1988. He was a political commentator for many years.
Alexander Haig, a Pennsylvanian and graduate of St. Joseph University in Philadelphia, was a patriot who devoted his life to serving the United States of America. May he rest in peace.
The Attack on the Federal Facility in Austin, Texas Was Not Terrorism
Terrorism is the targeting of innocent civilians in order to intimidate the populace into adopting the policies supported by the terrorists. The attack on the federal office building in Austin, Texas was not an act of terrorism for several reasons.
First, the attack targeted a federal facility, not innocent civilians. Therefore, there was no effort made to terrorize innocent civilians in order to intimidate them into adopting the perpetrator’s policies. Terrorists seek to terrorize the populace by targeting it for attacks. An attack on a federal facility, although a militant act or an act of treason, is not intended to terrorize those who are not targeted. The anti-government perpetrator apparently targeted a facility that housed an office of the Internal Revenue Service, with whom he was in dispute.
Second, the suicidal act was committed by a lone operative. Because the deceased perpetrator no longer represents a threat to commit any further violent acts, he cannot terrorize anyone in order to intimidate them into adopting his policies. His intent was to cause damage or bloodshed to a federal facility, not to terrorize anyone, as a dead man can no longer intimidate anyone.
Third, the perpetrator may have been suffering from mental illness, which was suggested by his act of arson of his own home immediately prior to the attack and the conspiracy-theorist anti-government anti-Catholic screed he published on the Internet, in addition to his suicidal attack.
Some commentators have likened the attack in Austin to the attack of the federal office building in Oklahoma City in 1995 by anti-government militants in order to label this latest attack “terrorism.” The earlier attack, which was committed with the understanding that it could have been a suicidal attack, was not an act of terrorism for similar reasons: the Oklahoma City attack was committed by a perpetrator with some degree of mental illness who targeted a federal facility, not innocent civilians, out of revenge for federal policies, not in order to intimidate the populace into changing policies.
As I have noted in earlier posts where I define terrorism, it is critically important in order to defeat terrorism that all politically-motivated violence not be called “terrorism,” lest the word become diluted. Reserving the word terrorism only for those acts that meet its definition underscores the particular evil of terrorism and prevents the terrorists and their sympathizers from labeling legitimate military methods used to defeat terrorism as acts of terrorism themselves.
First, the attack targeted a federal facility, not innocent civilians. Therefore, there was no effort made to terrorize innocent civilians in order to intimidate them into adopting the perpetrator’s policies. Terrorists seek to terrorize the populace by targeting it for attacks. An attack on a federal facility, although a militant act or an act of treason, is not intended to terrorize those who are not targeted. The anti-government perpetrator apparently targeted a facility that housed an office of the Internal Revenue Service, with whom he was in dispute.
Second, the suicidal act was committed by a lone operative. Because the deceased perpetrator no longer represents a threat to commit any further violent acts, he cannot terrorize anyone in order to intimidate them into adopting his policies. His intent was to cause damage or bloodshed to a federal facility, not to terrorize anyone, as a dead man can no longer intimidate anyone.
Third, the perpetrator may have been suffering from mental illness, which was suggested by his act of arson of his own home immediately prior to the attack and the conspiracy-theorist anti-government anti-Catholic screed he published on the Internet, in addition to his suicidal attack.
Some commentators have likened the attack in Austin to the attack of the federal office building in Oklahoma City in 1995 by anti-government militants in order to label this latest attack “terrorism.” The earlier attack, which was committed with the understanding that it could have been a suicidal attack, was not an act of terrorism for similar reasons: the Oklahoma City attack was committed by a perpetrator with some degree of mental illness who targeted a federal facility, not innocent civilians, out of revenge for federal policies, not in order to intimidate the populace into changing policies.
As I have noted in earlier posts where I define terrorism, it is critically important in order to defeat terrorism that all politically-motivated violence not be called “terrorism,” lest the word become diluted. Reserving the word terrorism only for those acts that meet its definition underscores the particular evil of terrorism and prevents the terrorists and their sympathizers from labeling legitimate military methods used to defeat terrorism as acts of terrorism themselves.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Eliminate the Presidents' Day Holiday
The federal holiday known as “Presidents' Day” should be eliminated and replaced with Washington's Birthday. The holiday, which is also a state holiday in Pennsylvania and other states, replaced Washington's Birthday and Lincoln's Birthday. As a result, the holiday now apparently commemorates all presidents, instead of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln in particular.
Moreover, as the name of the holiday suggests, Washington's Birthday was supposed to honor the Father of our Country for all of his contributions, including as a general during the American Revolution, as a Founding Father, and for other contributions he made after he retired from the presidency, in addition to his presidency. Thus, not only is Washington's greatness as president diminished by including him with all of the other presidents, but also his greatness as the indispensible man of the American Revolution is overlooked by focusing exclusively on his presidency. See also my posts Presidents' Day vs. Washington's Birthday and George Washington, the Great.
Although there is a federal and state holiday called “Columbus Day,” named after Christopher Columbus, that day commemorates his Discovery of America on the Monday closest to October 12, the date of the Discovery, not the birthday of the Discoverer. Therefore, only Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is currently commemorated with a federal holiday for his birthday. King successfully used arguments based upon the American Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution to advance the cause of equality, yet neither the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, nor the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, are honored with holidays for their birthdays, for example. Although the anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence is celebrated with a holiday, Constitution Day is not.
School tests, public surveys and sometimes voting results all suggest an ignorance about the United States among the American people. Reforming the federal holidays by restoring Washington's Birthday to its rightful place on the American calendar would educate Americans better about their independence and the founding of their Union.
Moreover, as the name of the holiday suggests, Washington's Birthday was supposed to honor the Father of our Country for all of his contributions, including as a general during the American Revolution, as a Founding Father, and for other contributions he made after he retired from the presidency, in addition to his presidency. Thus, not only is Washington's greatness as president diminished by including him with all of the other presidents, but also his greatness as the indispensible man of the American Revolution is overlooked by focusing exclusively on his presidency. See also my posts Presidents' Day vs. Washington's Birthday and George Washington, the Great.
Although there is a federal and state holiday called “Columbus Day,” named after Christopher Columbus, that day commemorates his Discovery of America on the Monday closest to October 12, the date of the Discovery, not the birthday of the Discoverer. Therefore, only Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is currently commemorated with a federal holiday for his birthday. King successfully used arguments based upon the American Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution to advance the cause of equality, yet neither the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, nor the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, are honored with holidays for their birthdays, for example. Although the anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence is celebrated with a holiday, Constitution Day is not.
School tests, public surveys and sometimes voting results all suggest an ignorance about the United States among the American people. Reforming the federal holidays by restoring Washington's Birthday to its rightful place on the American calendar would educate Americans better about their independence and the founding of their Union.
Iraq's Chemical Ali Executed
Recently, infamous war criminal Ali Hassan al-Majid was executed by the Iraqi government for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Known as “Chemical Ali,” for his use of chemical weapons against Kurdish Iraqis, the Iraqi was hanged for crimes committed against them in the late 1980s. Ali had been sentenced to death after an Iraqi trial.
Ali was captured after the Liberation of Iraq in 2003. Like his cousin, Saddam Hussein, Chemical Ali and many other war criminals from Hussein's Baathist regime have finally been brought to justice because of the war.
The main purpose of the Liberation of Iraq was to remove a terrorist-sponsoring regime with a history of aggression from power, but enforcing United Nations resolutions, liberating the Iraqi people from oppression and providing them an opportunity for self-determination, and bringing war criminals to justice were other justifications cited by United States President George W. Bush. An additional benefit of the war has been the defeat of al-Qaeda and other Jihadist forces that came to Iraq to resist the American-lead Coalition of the Willing.
Ali was captured after the Liberation of Iraq in 2003. Like his cousin, Saddam Hussein, Chemical Ali and many other war criminals from Hussein's Baathist regime have finally been brought to justice because of the war.
The main purpose of the Liberation of Iraq was to remove a terrorist-sponsoring regime with a history of aggression from power, but enforcing United Nations resolutions, liberating the Iraqi people from oppression and providing them an opportunity for self-determination, and bringing war criminals to justice were other justifications cited by United States President George W. Bush. An additional benefit of the war has been the defeat of al-Qaeda and other Jihadist forces that came to Iraq to resist the American-lead Coalition of the Willing.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Charles Wilson, in Memoriam
Former United States Representative Charles Wilson (Democrat, Texas) died at the age of 76. He was known for his efforts to gain American aid for the Afghan resistance during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Wilson was successful in securing the aid during the Administration of President Ronald Reagan, especially the critically important shoulder-fired Stinger missiles that helped the Afghan Mujaheddin down many a Soviet helicopter. The Soviets' loss in Afghanistan contributed to their defeat in the Cold War. Wilson served in Congress from 1973-1997.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Ten-Month Blog Hit Report
Thank you for your patronage of my blog. Last month, there were nearly 200 visits to my blog, bringing the total since April 2, 2009 to nearly 1,370. Even though I had been posting for over four months before I installed the counter, over half of my total posts have been visited, not including those whose visit to my blog started on its homepage. I am also especially pleased at how many have been visited considering that about a tenth of my posts are blog reports or other personal notes.
As always, I define a visit as a hit at least one hour after the individual’s last hit and do not count my own visits.
Two significant milestones were passed last month: 1) over a thousand people have visited my blog in the 10 months I have been tracking visits, and 2) those whose visit did not begin on my blog's homepage have visited over a thousand times.
The Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization continues as the most popular post, with over 280 hits, followed by The Economy, Deficit and Debt at George W. Bush’s inauguration, with nearly 170. The most visits from the United States have come from California, other than Pennsylvania. Visitors outside the U.S. have come from 57 foreign states and Hong Kong, with the most still coming from Malaysia.
Your comments and suggestions are welcome. Please visit my blog a few times a week. Thank you for visiting.
As always, I define a visit as a hit at least one hour after the individual’s last hit and do not count my own visits.
Two significant milestones were passed last month: 1) over a thousand people have visited my blog in the 10 months I have been tracking visits, and 2) those whose visit did not begin on my blog's homepage have visited over a thousand times.
The Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization continues as the most popular post, with over 280 hits, followed by The Economy, Deficit and Debt at George W. Bush’s inauguration, with nearly 170. The most visits from the United States have come from California, other than Pennsylvania. Visitors outside the U.S. have come from 57 foreign states and Hong Kong, with the most still coming from Malaysia.
Your comments and suggestions are welcome. Please visit my blog a few times a week. Thank you for visiting.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Conservative Analysis of the Public Disapproval of Obama and Congressional Democrats
Candidate Barak Obama promised change during the 2008 presidential campaign, which reflected public disapproval of President George W. Bush and Congressional Republicans. Obama’s rhetoric at times hinted that he intended more than a change in personality, style and a few policies, however; he intended radical transformation. Despite concerns about Obama’s association with radical leftists, a slight majority of voters demanded the replacement in office of the Party they rejected and Obama was elected president.
Public opinion polls, Tea Party protests, the expressions of opposition at congressional town hall meetings, and electoral results suggest that the American public disapproves of some of Obama’s major policies, particularly his massive spending and corresponding increase in federal power, taxpayer funding of abortion and softness on terrorism.
Obama and other Democrats criticized Bush for deficits, but he and the liberal Democratic Congressional leadership have dramatically increased in federal spending, which has increased the deficit and added to the debt. Little of the spending has been economically stimulative in nature, while much of it is in the form of pork or political payoffs. Obama and his allies have attempted to credit their deficit spending for the economic recovery, even though the natural business cycle and previous federal action are more responsible. But their contention that the stimulus caused the recovery undermines their argument that all of the hundred of billions of dollars in additional spending that has been approved is still necessary. Their insistence that deficit spending is good for the economy also undermines their argument that Bush was wrong for deficit spending. The true motive of Obama and his Congressional Democratic allies to use the deficits as an excuse to raise taxes is being exposed. They have proposed little in spending cuts.
The American people are rightly concerned about the increased borrowing, taxing and spending by the Obama Administration and Congressional liberal Democrats. The pork and political favoritism for special interests, political allies or politicians makes Obama appear to be the same or even worse than a stereotypical politician. The public is frightened by the significant increase in federal control over sectors of the economy that Obama feels comfortable in accepting, despite his lack of significant business experience. The American people had applauded when Democrat Bill Clinton declared “the era of big government is over,” but those on the radical left, like Obama and the liberal Democratic leadership, apparently did not agree with them. Obama’s focus on his proposal to take over federal health insurance made him appear less focused on the economy than the public prefers.
Obama’s early pessimism about the economy harmed it, while his threats to raise taxes create more uncertainty, which discourages investment – actions which make him appear to the public either as a fool or a radical. Instead of trying to federalize health insurance, he should have focused on bank reform.
The lack of transparency for congressional legislation, despite Obama’s promises as a candidate, makes the public even more distrustful of the massive bills Congress approves that Congressmen have not even read and the backroom deals for special interests at the expense of the public. By allowing the liberal Democratic Congressional leadership to draft bills instead of submitting proposals himself, Obama he appears to be part of the political culture of Washington, D.C. the American people oppose. His lack of leadership on legislation also has the effect of confusing and frightening the public as to what exactly the Democrats in the executive and legislative branches are proposing. In short, Obama has given the impression that he is part of the politics of spending money in order to win votes or to help friends while raising taxes to punish enemies – a culture Americans hoped would end with his presidency.
One area of spending a majority of Americans oppose in particular is public funding of abortion, which Obama made possible the first week of his presidency when he signed an executive order allowing public money to be given to nongovernmental organizations that promote abortion abroad. His proposed federalization of health insurance would fund domestic abortions with taxpayer dollars.
Obama’s strategy of blaming Bush for all that is bad economically and fiscally is a strategy that is becoming less effective with the public, which expects the 44th president increasingly to take responsibility for that which he controls, especially given that he has more power over the economy than any previous president.
Obama’s model of bipartisanship is to propose that Congress consider approving actions the Republican Congressional minority finds totally unacceptable because they have either been proven ineffective or are radical, then to blame the Republicans for being partisan for not agreeing with him. Meanwhile, Obama fails to focus on those areas where they could find common ground, preferring an all-or-nothing approach. He expresses little appreciation for the times they do support him more than his own party does, such as on his troop surge for Afghanistan.
A major concern for the American public is Obama’s perceived softness on terrorism. The change they wanted Obama to make from Bush’s security policies was to reform them reasonably, not to weaken them unnecessarily. He is making even some critics of Bush long for the safety and security the Bush Administration’s successful resolve against terrorism made them feel.
The drop in United States President Barak Obama’s popularity and the unpopularity of the liberal Democratic Congressional leadership has not only aided the conservative opposition to liberal legislation, as I discuss in my last post, but caused the people to be more open to conservative ideas. Several Republican candidates campaigning on conservative platforms for major offices have been rewarded already with election victories for offices formerly held by liberal Democrats. As conservatives continue to express common-sense ideas, with which a majority of Americans agree, and stand for better upholding their principles of smaller government than they did when they were last in power, American voters will increasingly look to them for leadership.
Public opinion polls, Tea Party protests, the expressions of opposition at congressional town hall meetings, and electoral results suggest that the American public disapproves of some of Obama’s major policies, particularly his massive spending and corresponding increase in federal power, taxpayer funding of abortion and softness on terrorism.
Obama and other Democrats criticized Bush for deficits, but he and the liberal Democratic Congressional leadership have dramatically increased in federal spending, which has increased the deficit and added to the debt. Little of the spending has been economically stimulative in nature, while much of it is in the form of pork or political payoffs. Obama and his allies have attempted to credit their deficit spending for the economic recovery, even though the natural business cycle and previous federal action are more responsible. But their contention that the stimulus caused the recovery undermines their argument that all of the hundred of billions of dollars in additional spending that has been approved is still necessary. Their insistence that deficit spending is good for the economy also undermines their argument that Bush was wrong for deficit spending. The true motive of Obama and his Congressional Democratic allies to use the deficits as an excuse to raise taxes is being exposed. They have proposed little in spending cuts.
The American people are rightly concerned about the increased borrowing, taxing and spending by the Obama Administration and Congressional liberal Democrats. The pork and political favoritism for special interests, political allies or politicians makes Obama appear to be the same or even worse than a stereotypical politician. The public is frightened by the significant increase in federal control over sectors of the economy that Obama feels comfortable in accepting, despite his lack of significant business experience. The American people had applauded when Democrat Bill Clinton declared “the era of big government is over,” but those on the radical left, like Obama and the liberal Democratic leadership, apparently did not agree with them. Obama’s focus on his proposal to take over federal health insurance made him appear less focused on the economy than the public prefers.
Obama’s early pessimism about the economy harmed it, while his threats to raise taxes create more uncertainty, which discourages investment – actions which make him appear to the public either as a fool or a radical. Instead of trying to federalize health insurance, he should have focused on bank reform.
The lack of transparency for congressional legislation, despite Obama’s promises as a candidate, makes the public even more distrustful of the massive bills Congress approves that Congressmen have not even read and the backroom deals for special interests at the expense of the public. By allowing the liberal Democratic Congressional leadership to draft bills instead of submitting proposals himself, Obama he appears to be part of the political culture of Washington, D.C. the American people oppose. His lack of leadership on legislation also has the effect of confusing and frightening the public as to what exactly the Democrats in the executive and legislative branches are proposing. In short, Obama has given the impression that he is part of the politics of spending money in order to win votes or to help friends while raising taxes to punish enemies – a culture Americans hoped would end with his presidency.
One area of spending a majority of Americans oppose in particular is public funding of abortion, which Obama made possible the first week of his presidency when he signed an executive order allowing public money to be given to nongovernmental organizations that promote abortion abroad. His proposed federalization of health insurance would fund domestic abortions with taxpayer dollars.
Obama’s strategy of blaming Bush for all that is bad economically and fiscally is a strategy that is becoming less effective with the public, which expects the 44th president increasingly to take responsibility for that which he controls, especially given that he has more power over the economy than any previous president.
Obama’s model of bipartisanship is to propose that Congress consider approving actions the Republican Congressional minority finds totally unacceptable because they have either been proven ineffective or are radical, then to blame the Republicans for being partisan for not agreeing with him. Meanwhile, Obama fails to focus on those areas where they could find common ground, preferring an all-or-nothing approach. He expresses little appreciation for the times they do support him more than his own party does, such as on his troop surge for Afghanistan.
A major concern for the American public is Obama’s perceived softness on terrorism. The change they wanted Obama to make from Bush’s security policies was to reform them reasonably, not to weaken them unnecessarily. He is making even some critics of Bush long for the safety and security the Bush Administration’s successful resolve against terrorism made them feel.
The drop in United States President Barak Obama’s popularity and the unpopularity of the liberal Democratic Congressional leadership has not only aided the conservative opposition to liberal legislation, as I discuss in my last post, but caused the people to be more open to conservative ideas. Several Republican candidates campaigning on conservative platforms for major offices have been rewarded already with election victories for offices formerly held by liberal Democrats. As conservatives continue to express common-sense ideas, with which a majority of Americans agree, and stand for better upholding their principles of smaller government than they did when they were last in power, American voters will increasingly look to them for leadership.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Conservative Successes During Obama’s First Year in Office
Even though there is a liberal President of the United States and his Democratic Party holds a large majority in Congress under liberal leadership, conservatives have nevertheless been able to achieve a number of successes during Barak Obama’s first year in office. Although Obama was successful in obtaining Congressional approval of the massive spending bills he signed into law, conservatives were successful in opposing some major items on his and the Congressional liberal Democratic majority’s legislative agenda. Conservatives also won a number of landmark victories at the U.S. Supreme Court.
As a presidential candidate, Obama had promised as his first act to sign the so-called Freedom of Choice Act, which would eliminate all state restrictions on abortion and end the prohibition of federal funding of abortion. Public disapproval of abortion on demand and taxpayer funding has made Congressional liberal Democrats reluctant to pursue this item on their legislative agenda. In the face of conservative opposition, Obama has not expressed support for Congressional liberal Democrats' effort to pass the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which would require equal broadcast time for opposing points of view, regardless of what the market wants, which, for example, would effectively silence conservative talk radio. Congressional Republicans have united successfully in opposition to liberal legislative agenda item that is supported by Obama: card check, which effectively would eliminate the secret ballot in union elections. Conservatives were also successful in substantially defunding the scandal-plagued leftwing ACORN group at the federal level, as well as in some states.
Obama’s proposal to address the supposed issue of climate change, known as “cap and trade,” has also been blocked by conservative opposition in Congress. Similarly, his proposal to federalize health insurance has also been thwarted. Although these proposals, both of which would raise taxes, has been blocked thus far, as well as any other substantial increase in taxes, Obama’s support for them and other tax increases has continued to harm the economy by creating uncertainty among investors and businesses, which causes them to loose confidence and not invest or expand their businesses.
So far, Obama has been unable to close the U.S. terrorist detention center at its base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and transfer its inmates to the United States, an unpopular proposal opposed by conservatives.
Meanwhile, conservative principles were upheld in three landmark cases by the Supreme Court. The Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms was upheld as a universal right. The Civil Rights Act was modified in support of states’ rights so as to allow minor decision-making to be made at the local level in certain states, without federal approval, as is the case in the other states not covered by the Act. Corporations, including non-profit issue-advocacy organizations that have incorporated, and labor unions are now free to expend funds for political advertisement because the Court struck down as unconstitutional certain restrictions on political expression supported by some liberals, including the Obama Administration.
These successes should give encouragement for conservatives both to express their beliefs and to seek election to political office. In my next post, I shall examine how the policies and political mistakes of Obama and the liberal Congressional Democratic leadership have contributed to their unpopularity and provided opportunities for conservatives.
As a presidential candidate, Obama had promised as his first act to sign the so-called Freedom of Choice Act, which would eliminate all state restrictions on abortion and end the prohibition of federal funding of abortion. Public disapproval of abortion on demand and taxpayer funding has made Congressional liberal Democrats reluctant to pursue this item on their legislative agenda. In the face of conservative opposition, Obama has not expressed support for Congressional liberal Democrats' effort to pass the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which would require equal broadcast time for opposing points of view, regardless of what the market wants, which, for example, would effectively silence conservative talk radio. Congressional Republicans have united successfully in opposition to liberal legislative agenda item that is supported by Obama: card check, which effectively would eliminate the secret ballot in union elections. Conservatives were also successful in substantially defunding the scandal-plagued leftwing ACORN group at the federal level, as well as in some states.
Obama’s proposal to address the supposed issue of climate change, known as “cap and trade,” has also been blocked by conservative opposition in Congress. Similarly, his proposal to federalize health insurance has also been thwarted. Although these proposals, both of which would raise taxes, has been blocked thus far, as well as any other substantial increase in taxes, Obama’s support for them and other tax increases has continued to harm the economy by creating uncertainty among investors and businesses, which causes them to loose confidence and not invest or expand their businesses.
So far, Obama has been unable to close the U.S. terrorist detention center at its base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and transfer its inmates to the United States, an unpopular proposal opposed by conservatives.
Meanwhile, conservative principles were upheld in three landmark cases by the Supreme Court. The Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms was upheld as a universal right. The Civil Rights Act was modified in support of states’ rights so as to allow minor decision-making to be made at the local level in certain states, without federal approval, as is the case in the other states not covered by the Act. Corporations, including non-profit issue-advocacy organizations that have incorporated, and labor unions are now free to expend funds for political advertisement because the Court struck down as unconstitutional certain restrictions on political expression supported by some liberals, including the Obama Administration.
These successes should give encouragement for conservatives both to express their beliefs and to seek election to political office. In my next post, I shall examine how the policies and political mistakes of Obama and the liberal Congressional Democratic leadership have contributed to their unpopularity and provided opportunities for conservatives.
Friday, January 29, 2010
State of the Union vs. State of the Country
When the president of a club reports to the body on the state of the organization he leads, he focuses on the organization’s administration, finances, membership and activities, not on the condition of the personal lives of the members. Similarly, when the Secretary General of the United Nations delivers the State of the U.N. speech, it is expected that he address the condition of the organization he leads, not the collective condition of the 192 members of that body.
But when modern presidents deliver the State of the Union address, there is little surprise that they spend much of their speech discussing the collective condition of the states, instead of focusing strictly on the federal Union.
Modern presidents focus on the American economy, which is not the responsibility of the federal government, or what plans they have to benefit this or that group of citizens. If a club president strayed so far from where he is supposed to focus, the members would be shocked and demand that he focus on fulfilling the responsibility with which they had entrusted him. If a UN Secretary General were to loose such focus, Americans, who are protective of their sovereignty, would rightly object. But they are not shocked when the President of the United States strays equally far from where he is supposed to focus. Indeed, they expect it and, at times, they even encourage it!
As I have noted in previous posts, the United States of America is not a country, but a union of states. In other words, it is a union of countries, which are sovereign independent states. The Constitution that created the U.S. requires the president to report annually on the State of the Union. That same document limits this federal union to certain enumerated powers, all of which are federal in nature. While the United States (the United States is the name of the federal union) has responsibility for defense and foreign affairs, as well as a few other common matters (e.g. commerce between, but not within, the states of the Union, naturalization, currency, copyrights and patents), domestic matters such as the macroeconomic conditions or health insurance are left to the sovereign states, just as member states of the U.N. have sovereignty over their domestic affairs. Put another way, the United States does not mean the 50 states that have been admitted to the Union, but only the Union that those states have formed, just as the U.N. does not mean its 192 members, but the organization they have formed. In short, the United States is not a place, but a federal union, just as the United Nations is not a place, but an international organization.
Therefore, the State of the Union means only the condition of that Union, not of the states that have been admitted to it. This distinction is critical to understanding the principle of federalism. It is imperative that conservatives maintain this distinction in language, as well as all such federalist distinctions, in order to educate their fellow citizens. Avoiding terms that erode the principle of federalism, examples of which I have cited in earlier posts, helps to restore the system established by the Framers of the Constitution that is a safeguard of liberty against the centralization of power.
But when modern presidents deliver the State of the Union address, there is little surprise that they spend much of their speech discussing the collective condition of the states, instead of focusing strictly on the federal Union.
Modern presidents focus on the American economy, which is not the responsibility of the federal government, or what plans they have to benefit this or that group of citizens. If a club president strayed so far from where he is supposed to focus, the members would be shocked and demand that he focus on fulfilling the responsibility with which they had entrusted him. If a UN Secretary General were to loose such focus, Americans, who are protective of their sovereignty, would rightly object. But they are not shocked when the President of the United States strays equally far from where he is supposed to focus. Indeed, they expect it and, at times, they even encourage it!
As I have noted in previous posts, the United States of America is not a country, but a union of states. In other words, it is a union of countries, which are sovereign independent states. The Constitution that created the U.S. requires the president to report annually on the State of the Union. That same document limits this federal union to certain enumerated powers, all of which are federal in nature. While the United States (the United States is the name of the federal union) has responsibility for defense and foreign affairs, as well as a few other common matters (e.g. commerce between, but not within, the states of the Union, naturalization, currency, copyrights and patents), domestic matters such as the macroeconomic conditions or health insurance are left to the sovereign states, just as member states of the U.N. have sovereignty over their domestic affairs. Put another way, the United States does not mean the 50 states that have been admitted to the Union, but only the Union that those states have formed, just as the U.N. does not mean its 192 members, but the organization they have formed. In short, the United States is not a place, but a federal union, just as the United Nations is not a place, but an international organization.
Therefore, the State of the Union means only the condition of that Union, not of the states that have been admitted to it. This distinction is critical to understanding the principle of federalism. It is imperative that conservatives maintain this distinction in language, as well as all such federalist distinctions, in order to educate their fellow citizens. Avoiding terms that erode the principle of federalism, examples of which I have cited in earlier posts, helps to restore the system established by the Framers of the Constitution that is a safeguard of liberty against the centralization of power.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Update on the Italian Crucifixes in Schools Case
The Italian government will appeal the European Court of Justice ruling that Crucifixes in its schools must be removed, according to a report in ANSA, the Italian news agency. I discussed this issue in my post entitled Berlusconi Defies European Court, Keeps Crucifixes in Italian Schools.
The court ruling was widely unpopular in predominately Catholic Italy, which refused to implement it. Although some on the left were in favor of removing the Crucifixes, even the Communists supported keeping them, according to a recent editorial in the Philadelphia Bulletin, where I had first seen a story on this subject in November. The case was brought by a Finnish woman. Italy’s appeal will be supported by a number of other European states, according to ANSA.
The Italian Supreme Court had ruled in 2004 that Crucifixes may remain in both schools and classrooms, but its opinion was not detailed, according to ANSA. This time, an Italian Cabinet member stated that the government plans to present “an abundance of documentation and evidence” in its appeal, according to the Italian news agency.
ANSA reports that around that time Nativity scenes were removed from the schools, however, and Christmas plays no longer performed so as not to offend Muslims. Nativity scenes were invented in Italy by St. Francis of Assisi in the Thirteenth Century. Pope John Paul II the Great warned that Europe was losing its Christian identity.
Meanwhile, ANSA reports that a judicial disciplinary body has removed a Jewish judge who refused to hear cases in courtrooms with a Crucifix. He intends to appeal the decision to Italy’s highest court of appeal, and, if failing there, to the European Court of Human Rights, according to the report.
As the Bulletin noted, the Italians, on both the left and the right, recognize that their equality and liberty comes from their faith, of which the Crucifix serves as a reminder. Perhaps even the Communists are sensitive about the removal of Crucifixes from public places because of their removal by the atheist Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, who had large portraits of himself installed in the classrooms in their place.
The court ruling was widely unpopular in predominately Catholic Italy, which refused to implement it. Although some on the left were in favor of removing the Crucifixes, even the Communists supported keeping them, according to a recent editorial in the Philadelphia Bulletin, where I had first seen a story on this subject in November. The case was brought by a Finnish woman. Italy’s appeal will be supported by a number of other European states, according to ANSA.
The Italian Supreme Court had ruled in 2004 that Crucifixes may remain in both schools and classrooms, but its opinion was not detailed, according to ANSA. This time, an Italian Cabinet member stated that the government plans to present “an abundance of documentation and evidence” in its appeal, according to the Italian news agency.
ANSA reports that around that time Nativity scenes were removed from the schools, however, and Christmas plays no longer performed so as not to offend Muslims. Nativity scenes were invented in Italy by St. Francis of Assisi in the Thirteenth Century. Pope John Paul II the Great warned that Europe was losing its Christian identity.
Meanwhile, ANSA reports that a judicial disciplinary body has removed a Jewish judge who refused to hear cases in courtrooms with a Crucifix. He intends to appeal the decision to Italy’s highest court of appeal, and, if failing there, to the European Court of Human Rights, according to the report.
As the Bulletin noted, the Italians, on both the left and the right, recognize that their equality and liberty comes from their faith, of which the Crucifix serves as a reminder. Perhaps even the Communists are sensitive about the removal of Crucifixes from public places because of their removal by the atheist Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, who had large portraits of himself installed in the classrooms in their place.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
U.S. Supreme Court Issues Landmark Ruling for Freedom of Expression
The United States Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion today on political advertisements by corporations. In a 5-4 ruling, the majority overturned decades of federal case law and part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
At issue was a movie produced by Citizens United, a non-profit corporation. The Federal Elections Commission had ruled that the movie amounted to a political advertisement, which violated federal election law banning such advertisements by corporations. Citizens United argued that the movie was an expression of free speech, a ban of which was unconstitutional.
The Court could have ruled narrowly that a corporate-funded movie or book was not a violation of the law, while retaining the ban on advertising for political candidates or issues by corporations. But in a sweeping decision, the Court ruled that corporations could use their own funds for any political advertising, subject to disclosure regulations, although not by donting those funds directly to candidates. The Court thus overturned as unconstitutional various federal cases and part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that banned corporate and union political advertisement within 30 days of an election.
The liberal argument in support of the federal restriction of political expression was that corporations, which are groups of people who freely associate themselves, are not people, despite longstanding legal precedent that they are legally understood as such. Liberals were concerned that people’s voices would be drowned out by corporations (i.e. groups of people). The Obama Administration recognized the flaw in the left’s argument that citizens united in non-profit corporations, like Citizens United, should be barred from exercising their collective freedom of expression. It attempted to limit the Court’s ruling to allow only non-profit corporations to use their funds for political advertising while continuing the restriction on for-profit corporations, but because federal election law made no distinction between for-profit and non-profit corporations, the Court struck the entire provision.
The ruling is believed also to allow political advertising by labor unions. Citizens United was joined by an unusual alliance of business and labor, conservatives and liberals. The Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, along with conservative organizations like the NRA supported Citizens United's case.
I would have voted with the majority, but in a concurrent opinion. The majority upheld its precedent that spending money equals freedom of speech. I would have argued that such political expression represents freedom of the press, i.e. the freedom to publish, a point upon which I intend to elaborate in a future post.
At issue was a movie produced by Citizens United, a non-profit corporation. The Federal Elections Commission had ruled that the movie amounted to a political advertisement, which violated federal election law banning such advertisements by corporations. Citizens United argued that the movie was an expression of free speech, a ban of which was unconstitutional.
The Court could have ruled narrowly that a corporate-funded movie or book was not a violation of the law, while retaining the ban on advertising for political candidates or issues by corporations. But in a sweeping decision, the Court ruled that corporations could use their own funds for any political advertising, subject to disclosure regulations, although not by donting those funds directly to candidates. The Court thus overturned as unconstitutional various federal cases and part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that banned corporate and union political advertisement within 30 days of an election.
The liberal argument in support of the federal restriction of political expression was that corporations, which are groups of people who freely associate themselves, are not people, despite longstanding legal precedent that they are legally understood as such. Liberals were concerned that people’s voices would be drowned out by corporations (i.e. groups of people). The Obama Administration recognized the flaw in the left’s argument that citizens united in non-profit corporations, like Citizens United, should be barred from exercising their collective freedom of expression. It attempted to limit the Court’s ruling to allow only non-profit corporations to use their funds for political advertising while continuing the restriction on for-profit corporations, but because federal election law made no distinction between for-profit and non-profit corporations, the Court struck the entire provision.
The ruling is believed also to allow political advertising by labor unions. Citizens United was joined by an unusual alliance of business and labor, conservatives and liberals. The Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, along with conservative organizations like the NRA supported Citizens United's case.
I would have voted with the majority, but in a concurrent opinion. The majority upheld its precedent that spending money equals freedom of speech. I would have argued that such political expression represents freedom of the press, i.e. the freedom to publish, a point upon which I intend to elaborate in a future post.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Conservative Analysis of Obama's First Year in Office
Today is the first anniversary of the inauguration of Barak Obama as the 44th President of the United States of America. Although it is too early to completely judge the success or failure of Obama's presidency, it is possible to analyse his performance based upon what is already known.
On the War on Terrorism, Obama has mostly followed the policies initiated by his predecessor, George W. Bush, including in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even increased the use of missiles strikes against terrorists from unmanned drones. However, he has weakened a number of policies, such as for interrogations. The Obama Administration has even published the U.S. methods of interrogation, which allows the terrorist enemy to train how to evade them. His civilian trials for the September 11 conspirators reflect the pre-September 11 view of terrorism still held by most liberals that terrorism is a criminal matter, not a war being waged against the U.S. by its enemies. The trials risk acquittal and the revelation of sources and methods of intelligence, while providing the terrorists with a platform to justify their evil deeds and imposing a greater security challenge to New York City. Obama is sticking with his pledge to close the terrorist prison at the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; he has proposed sending the terrorists to the United States. These moves, combined with his apologetic, accomodationist rhetoric, have encouraged the terrorists who interpret such an attitude a weakness worthy of contempt, while undermining the morale of U.S. allies and American troops.
Similarly, Obama has dealt weekly and ineffectively with Iran, in regard to its nuclear weapons program, while softening the U.S. embargo on Cuba. Meanwhile, he has disrespected American allies, such as by abandoning Bush's agreement with Poland and the Czech Republic to place missile defense components on their soil as protection against Russia and Iran, while imposing sanctions on Honduras for thwarting its leader's attempt to become a dictator in the style of Venezuela's anti-American Hugo Chavez. In short, Obama has exhibited the typical liberal pattern of treating American enemies better than its allies.
On a more positive side, Obama expanded the response to Mexican border drug violence, withheld aid to Nicaragua's government led by Marxist Daniel Ortega, rescued an American captain from Somali pirates and responded appropriately to the Haitian earthquake.
Obama has failed to submit free trade agreements Bush had negotiated with Columbia, Panama and South Korea to the U.S. Senate for ratification, while he sparked unnecessary trade conflicts with with Mexico, Canada, the European Union and China.
Obama's pessimistic speech damaged the economy by undermining consumer confidence. He further undermined confidence in the economy with his massive borrowing and spending, which has dramatically increased the debt. Obama quietly repealed welfare reform, by replacing the incentive for states to reduce welfare rolls with an incentive to increase them, thereby further adding to the debt and government dependency. Although he extended Bush's middle class tax cuts, Obama raised the cigarette tax, while his proposals to raise income taxes for small businesses and upper income-earners, as well as his proposals to raise various taxes on the middle class through his environmental policy of cap and trade and proposed federalization of health insurance have seriously eroded investor confidence.
The centralization of power by the Obama Administration has been staggering, as the federal government took over two of the big three automakers and the student loan business, in addition to most mortgages. These moves provided Obama the opportunity to help political allies like the labor unions, for example, who were given large shares of the auto companies that they had helped send into bankruptcy, at the expense of creditors and stockholders. Additionally, Obama required prevailing wage contracts, meaning that contractors for federally-funded projects must pay workers at higher union rates than if the projects were more competitively bid by including contractors who paid their workers at non-union rates, which means that taxpayer-funded projects will be more expensive than necessary.
Obama has continued Bush's education reforms and faith-based initiatives, but has required federal tax dollars to be spent for abortion, specifically through non-governmental organizations that promote it abroad and throughout he District of Columbia, as well as the for the destruction of human embryos. He also extended federal health insurance benefits to homosexual partners.
Obama has appointed liberals to the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts.
In conclusion, Barak Obama's first year as president has been characterized by massive deficit spending and the expansion of the federal government at the expense of liberty, the promotion of liberalism socially, politically and legally, and the weakening of U.S. policies in the War on Terrorism.
On the War on Terrorism, Obama has mostly followed the policies initiated by his predecessor, George W. Bush, including in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even increased the use of missiles strikes against terrorists from unmanned drones. However, he has weakened a number of policies, such as for interrogations. The Obama Administration has even published the U.S. methods of interrogation, which allows the terrorist enemy to train how to evade them. His civilian trials for the September 11 conspirators reflect the pre-September 11 view of terrorism still held by most liberals that terrorism is a criminal matter, not a war being waged against the U.S. by its enemies. The trials risk acquittal and the revelation of sources and methods of intelligence, while providing the terrorists with a platform to justify their evil deeds and imposing a greater security challenge to New York City. Obama is sticking with his pledge to close the terrorist prison at the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; he has proposed sending the terrorists to the United States. These moves, combined with his apologetic, accomodationist rhetoric, have encouraged the terrorists who interpret such an attitude a weakness worthy of contempt, while undermining the morale of U.S. allies and American troops.
Similarly, Obama has dealt weekly and ineffectively with Iran, in regard to its nuclear weapons program, while softening the U.S. embargo on Cuba. Meanwhile, he has disrespected American allies, such as by abandoning Bush's agreement with Poland and the Czech Republic to place missile defense components on their soil as protection against Russia and Iran, while imposing sanctions on Honduras for thwarting its leader's attempt to become a dictator in the style of Venezuela's anti-American Hugo Chavez. In short, Obama has exhibited the typical liberal pattern of treating American enemies better than its allies.
On a more positive side, Obama expanded the response to Mexican border drug violence, withheld aid to Nicaragua's government led by Marxist Daniel Ortega, rescued an American captain from Somali pirates and responded appropriately to the Haitian earthquake.
Obama has failed to submit free trade agreements Bush had negotiated with Columbia, Panama and South Korea to the U.S. Senate for ratification, while he sparked unnecessary trade conflicts with with Mexico, Canada, the European Union and China.
Obama's pessimistic speech damaged the economy by undermining consumer confidence. He further undermined confidence in the economy with his massive borrowing and spending, which has dramatically increased the debt. Obama quietly repealed welfare reform, by replacing the incentive for states to reduce welfare rolls with an incentive to increase them, thereby further adding to the debt and government dependency. Although he extended Bush's middle class tax cuts, Obama raised the cigarette tax, while his proposals to raise income taxes for small businesses and upper income-earners, as well as his proposals to raise various taxes on the middle class through his environmental policy of cap and trade and proposed federalization of health insurance have seriously eroded investor confidence.
The centralization of power by the Obama Administration has been staggering, as the federal government took over two of the big three automakers and the student loan business, in addition to most mortgages. These moves provided Obama the opportunity to help political allies like the labor unions, for example, who were given large shares of the auto companies that they had helped send into bankruptcy, at the expense of creditors and stockholders. Additionally, Obama required prevailing wage contracts, meaning that contractors for federally-funded projects must pay workers at higher union rates than if the projects were more competitively bid by including contractors who paid their workers at non-union rates, which means that taxpayer-funded projects will be more expensive than necessary.
Obama has continued Bush's education reforms and faith-based initiatives, but has required federal tax dollars to be spent for abortion, specifically through non-governmental organizations that promote it abroad and throughout he District of Columbia, as well as the for the destruction of human embryos. He also extended federal health insurance benefits to homosexual partners.
Obama has appointed liberals to the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts.
In conclusion, Barak Obama's first year as president has been characterized by massive deficit spending and the expansion of the federal government at the expense of liberty, the promotion of liberalism socially, politically and legally, and the weakening of U.S. policies in the War on Terrorism.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Conservative Wins Critical Special Election in Massachusetts
Conservative Republican Massachusetts State Senator Scott Brown won an upset victory today in a critically important special election for the United States Senate seat formerly held by Democrat Edward Kennedy.
Brown's victory will bring to 41 the number of Republican Senators, meaning that the Democrats will no longer have the 60-seat supermajority necessary to cut off debate, i.e. end filibusters. Once Brown is certified and seated, the Republican minority essentially would have a legislative veto over harmful Congressional Democratic bills, most notably their proposal to federalize health insurance. Brown promised to be the 41st vote in favor of continuing debate on the matter, thus forcing the Democrats either to negotiate a more bipartisan reformist bill with the Republican minority or abandon their increasingly unpopular big-government proposal altogether.
Brown ran a populist conservative campaign that focused not only on opposing the federalization of health insurance, but on reducing federal spending and taxes. Lt. Colonel Brown also opposed the treatment of terrorists with the rights and privileges of Americans accused of crimes, instead of as unlawful combatants. In short, Brown emerged as the candidate of change -- from the policies of U.S. President Barak Obama.
Indeed, the special election was widely interpreted as a referendum on Obama's policies. Obama's last-minute campaign appearance in Massachusetts for the Democratic candidate only added to the evidence that Brown's victory represented a rejection of Obama's overspending and tax-raising, political payoffs to supporters and fellow Democratic politicians and special interests, and softness on terrorism.
The Brown campaign invoked President John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts with advertisements including Kennedy's voice in which he argues for cutting taxes, in contrast to the record of his more liberal younger brother, Edward, which was a clever way for Brown to escape from the shadow of the late Senator. In response to a question at a candidates' debate about whether Brown would be comfortable in Edward Kennedy's seat opposing the federalized health insurance for which the long-serving Kennedy had advocated, the Republican delivered one of the best lines in campaign history, by noting that the seat was neither Kennedy's, nor the Democrats' seat, but “the people’s seat.”
Brown becomes the first Bay State Republican to be elected to the Senate from the 3:1 Democrat to Republican Massachusetts since 1972. The GOP candidate, who just a few weeks ago was trailing in opinion polls by over 30%, won by a 52-47% margin in a high-turnout election, according to unofficial returns. Brown's election will give encouragement to Republican candidates for many public offices in what otherwise might be considered long-shot campaigns.
Ironically, Brown's election comes on the same day that New Jersey's new governor, Republican Chris Christie, was inaugurated. Virginia's new governor, Republican Bob McDonnell, was sworn in last week. Both replaced Democratic governors. As in both of their elections, the Democrats tried to tie Brown to former President George W. Bush's policies, but the voters rejected the liberal big-government policies of the Democrats instead.
Brown's election victory indicates the strength of the popular Tea Party movement, which represents voter opposition to the borrowing, taxing and spending ways of big government, with its centralization of power and corresponding loss of liberty. Conservatives are now energized by their stunning political accomplishment, which ought to motivate them to support like-minded candidates. The victory also suggests some voter approval of the Republican governors Massachusetts has elected over the last 16 years until the last election, the last of whom, Mitt Romney, campaigned notably for Brown.
This special election win for a populist conservative suggests that Obama and the liberal Congressional Democratic majority do not represent the kind of change (i.e. reform) that voters want. Unless Obama and his allies on Capitol Hill moderate their big-government policies, Scott Brown's election victory will have been a harbinger of the 2010 mid-term congressional elections, which tend to favor the party opposite of the president.
Brown's victory will bring to 41 the number of Republican Senators, meaning that the Democrats will no longer have the 60-seat supermajority necessary to cut off debate, i.e. end filibusters. Once Brown is certified and seated, the Republican minority essentially would have a legislative veto over harmful Congressional Democratic bills, most notably their proposal to federalize health insurance. Brown promised to be the 41st vote in favor of continuing debate on the matter, thus forcing the Democrats either to negotiate a more bipartisan reformist bill with the Republican minority or abandon their increasingly unpopular big-government proposal altogether.
Brown ran a populist conservative campaign that focused not only on opposing the federalization of health insurance, but on reducing federal spending and taxes. Lt. Colonel Brown also opposed the treatment of terrorists with the rights and privileges of Americans accused of crimes, instead of as unlawful combatants. In short, Brown emerged as the candidate of change -- from the policies of U.S. President Barak Obama.
Indeed, the special election was widely interpreted as a referendum on Obama's policies. Obama's last-minute campaign appearance in Massachusetts for the Democratic candidate only added to the evidence that Brown's victory represented a rejection of Obama's overspending and tax-raising, political payoffs to supporters and fellow Democratic politicians and special interests, and softness on terrorism.
The Brown campaign invoked President John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts with advertisements including Kennedy's voice in which he argues for cutting taxes, in contrast to the record of his more liberal younger brother, Edward, which was a clever way for Brown to escape from the shadow of the late Senator. In response to a question at a candidates' debate about whether Brown would be comfortable in Edward Kennedy's seat opposing the federalized health insurance for which the long-serving Kennedy had advocated, the Republican delivered one of the best lines in campaign history, by noting that the seat was neither Kennedy's, nor the Democrats' seat, but “the people’s seat.”
Brown becomes the first Bay State Republican to be elected to the Senate from the 3:1 Democrat to Republican Massachusetts since 1972. The GOP candidate, who just a few weeks ago was trailing in opinion polls by over 30%, won by a 52-47% margin in a high-turnout election, according to unofficial returns. Brown's election will give encouragement to Republican candidates for many public offices in what otherwise might be considered long-shot campaigns.
Ironically, Brown's election comes on the same day that New Jersey's new governor, Republican Chris Christie, was inaugurated. Virginia's new governor, Republican Bob McDonnell, was sworn in last week. Both replaced Democratic governors. As in both of their elections, the Democrats tried to tie Brown to former President George W. Bush's policies, but the voters rejected the liberal big-government policies of the Democrats instead.
Brown's election victory indicates the strength of the popular Tea Party movement, which represents voter opposition to the borrowing, taxing and spending ways of big government, with its centralization of power and corresponding loss of liberty. Conservatives are now energized by their stunning political accomplishment, which ought to motivate them to support like-minded candidates. The victory also suggests some voter approval of the Republican governors Massachusetts has elected over the last 16 years until the last election, the last of whom, Mitt Romney, campaigned notably for Brown.
This special election win for a populist conservative suggests that Obama and the liberal Congressional Democratic majority do not represent the kind of change (i.e. reform) that voters want. Unless Obama and his allies on Capitol Hill moderate their big-government policies, Scott Brown's election victory will have been a harbinger of the 2010 mid-term congressional elections, which tend to favor the party opposite of the president.
Friday, January 15, 2010
A Comparison of the Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina and the Haitian Earthquake
The difficulty in distributing aid to the Haitians quickly underscores the magnitude of the catastrophe of the earthquake near the Haitian capital of Port-au-Prince and the logistical challenges it poses, especially given the weakness of the Haitian government even before much of it was destroyed by the quake. The damage to Port-au-Prince’s airport, the destruction of the city’s port and the blocking of the roads leading into it, as in Louisiana after the catastrophic Hurricane Katrina, will slow the distribution of aid.
The difference between a disaster and a catastrophe is that the former is manageable and the latter not. Put another way, if it is manageable, it is not a catastrophe. Indeed, it is incomprehensible how the critics of the Bush Administration’s response Hurricane Katrina fail to grasp the destructive energy of a hurricane as strong as Katrina, especially considering that many of them claim to be environmentalists who, therefore, ought to understand power of nature.
The biased political critics who maintain that the Bush Administration’s response was “slow” and “ineffective,” do not appreciate that the federal response was nonetheless the largest and fastest in American history, even though the U.S. is not obligated to do anything for individual states in the Union, which must request federal help. In other words, President George W. Bush did not do a bad job in response to Hurricane Katrina, because it was not his job or any responsibility of the federal government whatsoever to respond to natural disasters in the first place.
Nevertheless, because of federal meteorological monitoring, the Bush Administration declared a state of emergency before the storm – an unprecedented step. It urged the states in the path of the storm to order mandatory evacuations, which Louisiana was reluctant to do. Thankfully, some people did obey the order. Even the U.S. Navy had had to evacuate its ships from the area, which meant that they could not be available immediately to participate in the federal relief effort that the Bush Administration’s critics insist should have been managed neatly like a typical disaster.
It is worth noting that Mississippi and Alabama were hit harder by Hurricane Katrina and the storm surge it produced than Louisiana, which was apparent until the waters rose to the catastrophic flood stage. The difference, however, in those states’ responses to what was a major disaster, was also evident. Louisiana had not prepared as properly as they had done and had relatively ineffective leaders. As a result, it was overwhelmed by the catastrophe and had to depend upon federal assistance. A general difference in public attitudes about dependency on government was also in contrast between Louisianans and the citizens of other states, who did not sit and wait for federal help and then complain about the delay in receiving it once it did arrive, but worked to help themselves. The leaders and citizens of the other states expressed their gratitude for the Bush Administration’s help.
The U.S. responded rapidly in Louisiana once that state belatedly requested federal aid. For example, the Coast Guard rescued a record number of people, all of whom had failed to obey the evacuation order. Blocked roads and destroyed bridges made the logistics of providing relief to the U.S. Gulf Coast a significant challenge, but the flood exacerbated the problem. The critical port of New Orleans was rendered unusual because of the damage from the hurricane, which was one of the few legitimate areas of federal responsibility. Assistant U.S. Maritime Administrator Kevin Krick, my good friend from the Reading, Pennsylvania area, invoked a federal contingency plan that had never before been implemented to federalize private shipping in order to reopen the port quickly -- a move, which was successful, and for which Krick was awarded a medal. The Bush Administration also freed up oil from the Strategic Petroleum reserve because of some of the interruption of supply because of damages to the oil industry rigs and facilities in the path of the hurricane. In short, the Bush Administration went above and beyond its call of duty in successfully responding to the largest catastrophe in American history. Instead of criticizing the Bush Administration’s response to the catastrophic hurricane, these critics ought to have expressed gratitude for what it did accomplish.
As in response to Hurricane Katrina, the American military is quickly responding to Haiti’s desperate time of need, which occurred without warning. It has assumed control of the Port-au-Prince airport, but, as was the case in Louisiana, the logistical difficulties caused by the earthquake damage and the lack of adequate support from the local sovereign government will limit what it can do in such a short time, as is the case in any catastrophe.
Political critics have been praising the Obama Administration’s vigorous response to the earthquake in Haiti by contrasting it to the Bush Administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina, which they condemn. The facts already had disproved their criticism of the Bush Administration’s record on the hurricane, which was far batter than they maintain. Now, however, the earthquake in Haiti is beginning to prove just how unfair and biased the criticism directed against the Bush Administration was.
The difference between a disaster and a catastrophe is that the former is manageable and the latter not. Put another way, if it is manageable, it is not a catastrophe. Indeed, it is incomprehensible how the critics of the Bush Administration’s response Hurricane Katrina fail to grasp the destructive energy of a hurricane as strong as Katrina, especially considering that many of them claim to be environmentalists who, therefore, ought to understand power of nature.
The biased political critics who maintain that the Bush Administration’s response was “slow” and “ineffective,” do not appreciate that the federal response was nonetheless the largest and fastest in American history, even though the U.S. is not obligated to do anything for individual states in the Union, which must request federal help. In other words, President George W. Bush did not do a bad job in response to Hurricane Katrina, because it was not his job or any responsibility of the federal government whatsoever to respond to natural disasters in the first place.
Nevertheless, because of federal meteorological monitoring, the Bush Administration declared a state of emergency before the storm – an unprecedented step. It urged the states in the path of the storm to order mandatory evacuations, which Louisiana was reluctant to do. Thankfully, some people did obey the order. Even the U.S. Navy had had to evacuate its ships from the area, which meant that they could not be available immediately to participate in the federal relief effort that the Bush Administration’s critics insist should have been managed neatly like a typical disaster.
It is worth noting that Mississippi and Alabama were hit harder by Hurricane Katrina and the storm surge it produced than Louisiana, which was apparent until the waters rose to the catastrophic flood stage. The difference, however, in those states’ responses to what was a major disaster, was also evident. Louisiana had not prepared as properly as they had done and had relatively ineffective leaders. As a result, it was overwhelmed by the catastrophe and had to depend upon federal assistance. A general difference in public attitudes about dependency on government was also in contrast between Louisianans and the citizens of other states, who did not sit and wait for federal help and then complain about the delay in receiving it once it did arrive, but worked to help themselves. The leaders and citizens of the other states expressed their gratitude for the Bush Administration’s help.
The U.S. responded rapidly in Louisiana once that state belatedly requested federal aid. For example, the Coast Guard rescued a record number of people, all of whom had failed to obey the evacuation order. Blocked roads and destroyed bridges made the logistics of providing relief to the U.S. Gulf Coast a significant challenge, but the flood exacerbated the problem. The critical port of New Orleans was rendered unusual because of the damage from the hurricane, which was one of the few legitimate areas of federal responsibility. Assistant U.S. Maritime Administrator Kevin Krick, my good friend from the Reading, Pennsylvania area, invoked a federal contingency plan that had never before been implemented to federalize private shipping in order to reopen the port quickly -- a move, which was successful, and for which Krick was awarded a medal. The Bush Administration also freed up oil from the Strategic Petroleum reserve because of some of the interruption of supply because of damages to the oil industry rigs and facilities in the path of the hurricane. In short, the Bush Administration went above and beyond its call of duty in successfully responding to the largest catastrophe in American history. Instead of criticizing the Bush Administration’s response to the catastrophic hurricane, these critics ought to have expressed gratitude for what it did accomplish.
As in response to Hurricane Katrina, the American military is quickly responding to Haiti’s desperate time of need, which occurred without warning. It has assumed control of the Port-au-Prince airport, but, as was the case in Louisiana, the logistical difficulties caused by the earthquake damage and the lack of adequate support from the local sovereign government will limit what it can do in such a short time, as is the case in any catastrophe.
Political critics have been praising the Obama Administration’s vigorous response to the earthquake in Haiti by contrasting it to the Bush Administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina, which they condemn. The facts already had disproved their criticism of the Bush Administration’s record on the hurricane, which was far batter than they maintain. Now, however, the earthquake in Haiti is beginning to prove just how unfair and biased the criticism directed against the Bush Administration was.
The International Crisis in Haiti
The recent devastating earthquake in Haiti is especially heartbreaking because the country was just beginning to experience progress, thanks to the restoration of democracy during the Bush Administration and the security provided by the United Nations.
The UN relieved United States troops, who had initially been sent by President George W. Bush after Haiti’s left-wing dictator, Jean Bertrand Aristide, had been overthrown. Bush’s predecessor, Bill Clinton, had restored Aristide to power after he had been overthrown the first time, and sent U.S. troops to keep the peace. As mentioned in my post, A Coup for Democracy in Honduras, Clinton justified his action because Aristide, like Adolph Hitler or Hugo Chavez, had been elected. The recent restoration of democracy had provided Haitians with the hope of political stability, which had been lacking in its two-hundred year history as the first black republic and the only state founded through a slave rebellion. The restoration of democracy in Haiti had allowed the first signs of economic growth in the poorest state in the Western Hemisphere, which attracted foreign investment. It is hoped that the earthquake will provide the opportunity to raise Haiti’s standard of living above what it had been before the catastrophe.
President Barak Obama has thus now become the third straight U.S. president to send troops to Haiti. They were not the first American presidents to send troops to the former French colony. In recent years, only Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and Liberia are comparable. Four straight U.S. Commanders in Chief authorized military action in Iraq, starting with President George H.W. Bush. Clinton was the only one who did not send troops, but he struck Iraq with missiles on several occasions during his administration, while Iraq violated its 1991 cease-fire by attacking American and Coalition aircraft in almost daily combat over the No Fly Zones for the last several years before the Liberation of Iraq in 2003, during both the Clinton and Bush Administrations. In Afghanistan, Clinton ordered a missile strike against an al-Qaeda base, and his two successors have commanded troops in combat there in the War on Terrorism. When Somalia was struck with famine, George H.W. Bush sent troops there to aid the Somalis. U.S. troops engaged in combat under his and his immediate successor’s administrations. Both George W. Bush and Obama ordered missile strikes or bombings in Somalia against al-Qaeda targets there. Both President Bushes sent troops to Liberia, while American soldiers protecting the U.S. Embassy in Monrovia had to engage in combat during the Liberian Civil War while Clinton was president.
To Obama’s credit, he has followed the model set by his immediate predecessor in response to the 2004 Asian Tsunami and asked both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton to co-lead the fundraising effort for the relief of Haiti.
The unprecedented destruction of a national capitol and much of its effective government in peacetime makes the Haitian earthquake an international matter, especially because of the foreign embassies there, as well as the presence of many foreigners, such as tens of thousands of Americans. Haiti is of additional interest to the United States because of its proximity. Problems in Haiti have periodically caused Haitians to set out on boats across the open sea to attempt to get to America. Many were rescued and held at the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Air Base in Cuba for screening. The proximity adds responsibility to the U.S., as the nearest Great Power, to tend to its neighbor within its sphere of influence. It is also in the U.S. interest that Haiti not becomes an anarchical state like Somalia, whereby Marxists like Aristide, who offered to return to power, could try to take over the country.
The Guantanamo Bay base is once again proving to be invaluable, as the Coast Guard flew injured American Embassy staff from Port-au-Prince to the U.S. base within hours of the earthquake. It may once again be needed to screen refugees.
Governments around the world are responding to the humanitarian crisis in Haiti, but it the U.S. that is taking the lead. The American military will, as always, make Americans proud. Together with the famous generosity of the American people, a truer image of the United States will be seen around the world than the one its external and internal critics would have everyone believe.
The UN relieved United States troops, who had initially been sent by President George W. Bush after Haiti’s left-wing dictator, Jean Bertrand Aristide, had been overthrown. Bush’s predecessor, Bill Clinton, had restored Aristide to power after he had been overthrown the first time, and sent U.S. troops to keep the peace. As mentioned in my post, A Coup for Democracy in Honduras, Clinton justified his action because Aristide, like Adolph Hitler or Hugo Chavez, had been elected. The recent restoration of democracy had provided Haitians with the hope of political stability, which had been lacking in its two-hundred year history as the first black republic and the only state founded through a slave rebellion. The restoration of democracy in Haiti had allowed the first signs of economic growth in the poorest state in the Western Hemisphere, which attracted foreign investment. It is hoped that the earthquake will provide the opportunity to raise Haiti’s standard of living above what it had been before the catastrophe.
President Barak Obama has thus now become the third straight U.S. president to send troops to Haiti. They were not the first American presidents to send troops to the former French colony. In recent years, only Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and Liberia are comparable. Four straight U.S. Commanders in Chief authorized military action in Iraq, starting with President George H.W. Bush. Clinton was the only one who did not send troops, but he struck Iraq with missiles on several occasions during his administration, while Iraq violated its 1991 cease-fire by attacking American and Coalition aircraft in almost daily combat over the No Fly Zones for the last several years before the Liberation of Iraq in 2003, during both the Clinton and Bush Administrations. In Afghanistan, Clinton ordered a missile strike against an al-Qaeda base, and his two successors have commanded troops in combat there in the War on Terrorism. When Somalia was struck with famine, George H.W. Bush sent troops there to aid the Somalis. U.S. troops engaged in combat under his and his immediate successor’s administrations. Both George W. Bush and Obama ordered missile strikes or bombings in Somalia against al-Qaeda targets there. Both President Bushes sent troops to Liberia, while American soldiers protecting the U.S. Embassy in Monrovia had to engage in combat during the Liberian Civil War while Clinton was president.
To Obama’s credit, he has followed the model set by his immediate predecessor in response to the 2004 Asian Tsunami and asked both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton to co-lead the fundraising effort for the relief of Haiti.
The unprecedented destruction of a national capitol and much of its effective government in peacetime makes the Haitian earthquake an international matter, especially because of the foreign embassies there, as well as the presence of many foreigners, such as tens of thousands of Americans. Haiti is of additional interest to the United States because of its proximity. Problems in Haiti have periodically caused Haitians to set out on boats across the open sea to attempt to get to America. Many were rescued and held at the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Air Base in Cuba for screening. The proximity adds responsibility to the U.S., as the nearest Great Power, to tend to its neighbor within its sphere of influence. It is also in the U.S. interest that Haiti not becomes an anarchical state like Somalia, whereby Marxists like Aristide, who offered to return to power, could try to take over the country.
The Guantanamo Bay base is once again proving to be invaluable, as the Coast Guard flew injured American Embassy staff from Port-au-Prince to the U.S. base within hours of the earthquake. It may once again be needed to screen refugees.
Governments around the world are responding to the humanitarian crisis in Haiti, but it the U.S. that is taking the lead. The American military will, as always, make Americans proud. Together with the famous generosity of the American people, a truer image of the United States will be seen around the world than the one its external and internal critics would have everyone believe.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
The Liberals' Limitless Limit
The Commerce Clause of the Constitution (Article I Section 8 Clause 3) grants authority to the United States to “regulate commerce . . . among the several states [interstate commerce].” Because the Commerce Clause does not grant authority to regulate intrastate commerce (commerce within a state), it represents a limit to federal authority, as a safeguard to liberty. Liberals, however, falsely interpret it as representing absolutely limitless authority.
It makes sense that federal laws would regulate interstate commerce. The Commerce Clause, for example, ensures that there would be no tariffs between states, thereby making the United States a free trade zone. It also regulates health and safety of goods transported between states. Commerce that occurs only within a state is not a matter subject to federal regulation, but state regulation.
During the early part of the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, liberals, together with a number of Northern conservatives, used the constitutional argument that the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution required that states must treat citizens equally in (e.g. to guarantee voting privileges for all people or to desegregate schools). But liberals were never satisfied with the Constitution. When that founding document limited their authority to do whatever they wanted, they essentially repealed it by changing the meaning of its words – without going through the required democratic process of amending it. They began to expand the interpretation of the Commerce Clause to such an extent that its limitation has become meaningless.
Liberals then claimed that because interstate commerce could potentially be interstate commerce (for example, the owner of a restaurant in a small town might possibly some day be patronized by an out-of-state visitor), all commerce is “interstate commerce,” which gives the federal government the authority to regulate all commerce, not only that among the states. As a result, the federal government now regulates all commerce, whether it is interstate or not, based on this theory that even intrastate commerce could potentially be interstate commerce, which means that the federal government has increasingly grown in its power and size.
In recent years, liberals have begun to interpret the Commerce Clause even more loosely. One state opted to produce guns that would be regulated by that state in such as way that the guns could not be sold to anyone out of state. In other words, this form of commerce would statutorily meet the definition of being intrastate commerce, not interstate commerce, which would thus not be subject to federal regulation. But liberals argued that the federal government would nevertheless be able to regulate it because even intrastate commerce could affect the U.S. economy, which, they claimed, is enough for them to assert their authority to regulate the activity. As I have noted in earlier posts, there is no Constitutional authority for the federal government to regulate the economy, as the economy is not the responsibility of government. Protecting the rights of the people is the responsibility of government.
This more liberal interpretation of the Commerce Clause is being applied to President Barak Obama’s proposed federalization of health insurance, except it is now being interpreted in an even looser way than before. Now, liberals are arguing that the federal government can – for the first time – require people to purchase something from a private business (in this case, health insurance), as a condition of residing in the United States. Their new argument is that even a choice not to engage in commerce at all (i.e. not to purchase health insurance) is nonetheless a form of commerce. Put another way, the liberals believe that they can even force someone to engage in commerce – intrastate commerce, at that, as the federal government bans the purchase of health insurance by citizens from one state from other states – under the Commerce Clause that grants the federal government only the authority to regulate commerce among the states. In short, the constitutional limit on the regulation of intrastate commerce is not being followed because liberals do not want any limitations on the federal government’s absolute authority to regulate whatever they want.
But the larger concern is that the liberal interpretation of the Constitution renders the founding document of the United States subject to the whim of liberals who want to expand the power of government instead of as a limit on government power. If liberals can change the meaning of a limit on power to something that gives them limitless power, then there is no part of the Constitution safe from their power essentially to repeal it through their insistence that words mean only what they intend them to mean, instead of what the Framers of the Constitution and its Amendments intended them to mean at the time they were democratically approved.
In conclusion, the constitutional protections of liberty through the limitation of the power of the federal government are being increasingly weakened, especially by an ever-looser interpretation of the Commerce Clause. It is critical for liberty that conservatives vociferously oppose the loosening of the interpretation of the Commerce Clause, especially as represented in Obama’s and the Congressional liberal Democrats’ proposed federal mandate to purchase heath insurance. Conservatives should demand an answer as to whether or not liberals believe the Constitution establishes any limits whatsoever on federal power.
It makes sense that federal laws would regulate interstate commerce. The Commerce Clause, for example, ensures that there would be no tariffs between states, thereby making the United States a free trade zone. It also regulates health and safety of goods transported between states. Commerce that occurs only within a state is not a matter subject to federal regulation, but state regulation.
During the early part of the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, liberals, together with a number of Northern conservatives, used the constitutional argument that the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution required that states must treat citizens equally in (e.g. to guarantee voting privileges for all people or to desegregate schools). But liberals were never satisfied with the Constitution. When that founding document limited their authority to do whatever they wanted, they essentially repealed it by changing the meaning of its words – without going through the required democratic process of amending it. They began to expand the interpretation of the Commerce Clause to such an extent that its limitation has become meaningless.
Liberals then claimed that because interstate commerce could potentially be interstate commerce (for example, the owner of a restaurant in a small town might possibly some day be patronized by an out-of-state visitor), all commerce is “interstate commerce,” which gives the federal government the authority to regulate all commerce, not only that among the states. As a result, the federal government now regulates all commerce, whether it is interstate or not, based on this theory that even intrastate commerce could potentially be interstate commerce, which means that the federal government has increasingly grown in its power and size.
In recent years, liberals have begun to interpret the Commerce Clause even more loosely. One state opted to produce guns that would be regulated by that state in such as way that the guns could not be sold to anyone out of state. In other words, this form of commerce would statutorily meet the definition of being intrastate commerce, not interstate commerce, which would thus not be subject to federal regulation. But liberals argued that the federal government would nevertheless be able to regulate it because even intrastate commerce could affect the U.S. economy, which, they claimed, is enough for them to assert their authority to regulate the activity. As I have noted in earlier posts, there is no Constitutional authority for the federal government to regulate the economy, as the economy is not the responsibility of government. Protecting the rights of the people is the responsibility of government.
This more liberal interpretation of the Commerce Clause is being applied to President Barak Obama’s proposed federalization of health insurance, except it is now being interpreted in an even looser way than before. Now, liberals are arguing that the federal government can – for the first time – require people to purchase something from a private business (in this case, health insurance), as a condition of residing in the United States. Their new argument is that even a choice not to engage in commerce at all (i.e. not to purchase health insurance) is nonetheless a form of commerce. Put another way, the liberals believe that they can even force someone to engage in commerce – intrastate commerce, at that, as the federal government bans the purchase of health insurance by citizens from one state from other states – under the Commerce Clause that grants the federal government only the authority to regulate commerce among the states. In short, the constitutional limit on the regulation of intrastate commerce is not being followed because liberals do not want any limitations on the federal government’s absolute authority to regulate whatever they want.
But the larger concern is that the liberal interpretation of the Constitution renders the founding document of the United States subject to the whim of liberals who want to expand the power of government instead of as a limit on government power. If liberals can change the meaning of a limit on power to something that gives them limitless power, then there is no part of the Constitution safe from their power essentially to repeal it through their insistence that words mean only what they intend them to mean, instead of what the Framers of the Constitution and its Amendments intended them to mean at the time they were democratically approved.
In conclusion, the constitutional protections of liberty through the limitation of the power of the federal government are being increasingly weakened, especially by an ever-looser interpretation of the Commerce Clause. It is critical for liberty that conservatives vociferously oppose the loosening of the interpretation of the Commerce Clause, especially as represented in Obama’s and the Congressional liberal Democrats’ proposed federal mandate to purchase heath insurance. Conservatives should demand an answer as to whether or not liberals believe the Constitution establishes any limits whatsoever on federal power.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Zero U.S. Combat Deaths in Iraq in December
In what should have been reported as major news, the United States suffered zero combat deaths in Iraq in December for the first time since the Liberation of Iraq began in 2003.
Last month reflected a sharp downward trend in combat deaths in Iraq that began after the troop surge in 2006 as both Saddam Hussein's Baathists and al-Qaeda have been vanquished, and as Shi'ite-Sunni violence has dramatically decreased. The war continues, although to a much-lesser degree than before, but for the U.S. and its allies, which have turned the responsibility for security of more and areas of Iraq over to the Iraqis, the war has increasingly become a minor war -- the opposite trend of the more challenging Afghanistan.
It is becoming, therefore, increasingly difficult to understand the domestic political pressure to withdraw all American troops in order to “bring them home,” as if they would be stationed in their own homes, or even that all U.S. troops are stationed in the U.S., and not in Germany, Japan, South Korea, or even at ongoing special missions like Kosovo. It is reasonable to trust the Iraqis, whom the U.S. has been training, to fulfill their responsibility to secure their own country, and to withdraw American troops only out of respect for Iraqi sovereignty, but to withdraw only because of intimidation from militant Muslims is misguided. It is worth noting that 14 Americans were killed by militant Muslims in acts of Jihad on American soil in 2009, one in Arkansas and 13 in Texas.
Today, Christians celebrate the Feast of the Epiphany, when Magi (the “Wise Men”) from the East, at least one of whom was from ancient Iraq, made a pilgrimage to pay homage to Jesus Christ, the newborn King of the Jews. It should not have been a surprise to many opponents of the Liberation of Iraq that the Iraqi experiment in self-determination has proven to be successful, now that the modern foreign ideas of totalitarian dictatorship, as represented by the socialist Baathists and by al-Qaeda, have been defeated.
Last month reflected a sharp downward trend in combat deaths in Iraq that began after the troop surge in 2006 as both Saddam Hussein's Baathists and al-Qaeda have been vanquished, and as Shi'ite-Sunni violence has dramatically decreased. The war continues, although to a much-lesser degree than before, but for the U.S. and its allies, which have turned the responsibility for security of more and areas of Iraq over to the Iraqis, the war has increasingly become a minor war -- the opposite trend of the more challenging Afghanistan.
It is becoming, therefore, increasingly difficult to understand the domestic political pressure to withdraw all American troops in order to “bring them home,” as if they would be stationed in their own homes, or even that all U.S. troops are stationed in the U.S., and not in Germany, Japan, South Korea, or even at ongoing special missions like Kosovo. It is reasonable to trust the Iraqis, whom the U.S. has been training, to fulfill their responsibility to secure their own country, and to withdraw American troops only out of respect for Iraqi sovereignty, but to withdraw only because of intimidation from militant Muslims is misguided. It is worth noting that 14 Americans were killed by militant Muslims in acts of Jihad on American soil in 2009, one in Arkansas and 13 in Texas.
Today, Christians celebrate the Feast of the Epiphany, when Magi (the “Wise Men”) from the East, at least one of whom was from ancient Iraq, made a pilgrimage to pay homage to Jesus Christ, the newborn King of the Jews. It should not have been a surprise to many opponents of the Liberation of Iraq that the Iraqi experiment in self-determination has proven to be successful, now that the modern foreign ideas of totalitarian dictatorship, as represented by the socialist Baathists and by al-Qaeda, have been defeated.
Nine-Month Blog Report
I am pleased that after three-quarters of a year since I installed my counter on April 2, 2009, my blog has been visited over 1,175 times. Thank you! A visit is defined as a hit at least one hour after the previous one, not including my own visits.
Since my last report, I have posted for the 150th time since my blog was launched in November of 2008. A single post, The Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization, reached the milestone of 250 visits, not including those who began their visit to my blog through its homepage. Those who began their visit to my blog through one of its posts have viewed 82 posts. Visitors have come from 55 foreign states, with Malaysia continuing to lead, followed by the United Kingdom, Algeria, Canada, India and Pakistan. California continues to be the source of the most visits among American states.
Additionally, my counter has logged visits to unknown pages, especially lately, that I do not count among the visits.
My blog offers not only historical commentary from my unique perspective, but also occasionally Italian news. I usually am able to obtain Italian news in English, but sometimes must translate from Italian, which I am getting increasingly better at doing, I am proud to say.
I have updated the links listed on my blog, adding one to the 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America, and updating the link to the Italian American Cultural Center. I only post links there to which I am personally connected, as a cousin was among those killed in the September 11 Attacks, while the connections to the other links are explained in my profile. Please visit these web pages.
Again, thank you for your support of this blog. Happy New Year!
Since my last report, I have posted for the 150th time since my blog was launched in November of 2008. A single post, The Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization, reached the milestone of 250 visits, not including those who began their visit to my blog through its homepage. Those who began their visit to my blog through one of its posts have viewed 82 posts. Visitors have come from 55 foreign states, with Malaysia continuing to lead, followed by the United Kingdom, Algeria, Canada, India and Pakistan. California continues to be the source of the most visits among American states.
Additionally, my counter has logged visits to unknown pages, especially lately, that I do not count among the visits.
My blog offers not only historical commentary from my unique perspective, but also occasionally Italian news. I usually am able to obtain Italian news in English, but sometimes must translate from Italian, which I am getting increasingly better at doing, I am proud to say.
I have updated the links listed on my blog, adding one to the 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America, and updating the link to the Italian American Cultural Center. I only post links there to which I am personally connected, as a cousin was among those killed in the September 11 Attacks, while the connections to the other links are explained in my profile. Please visit these web pages.
Again, thank you for your support of this blog. Happy New Year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)