May Political Notes

Special Elections
Special elections for United States Representative are often seen as harbingers of political trends, but they often are the result of other factors like local politics or some fluke. The two special elections within the last week are examples.

In Hawaii, a Republican, Charles Djou, won for the first time in decades. The result does not necessarily indicate a trend, however. Instead of uniting behind one Democratic candidate in the non-partisan special election, two Democrats sought election, which caused the votes of Democratics to be split between them and allowed a Republican to be elected by winning a plurality.

Similarly, the Pennsylvania special election I reported on in an earlier post does not suggest either a trend or the lack of a trend. The simultaneous Democratic primary increased the Democratic turnout in the special election, as there were contested statewide races for U.S. Senate and Governor. Meanwhile, there was a simultaneous Republican primary for the nomination for the general election for the same House seat that pitted the previous nominee against the candidate selected by the party conferees for the special election, meaning that the Republican candidate for the special election, Tim Burns, was not only running against a Democrat for the special election, but also successfully fending off a serious challenge from a Republican for the nomination for the general election. Some conservatives were upset at the GOP leadership for choosing Burns over the previous nominee. Also, the Democrat ran as a conservative, expressing his opposition to some of U.S. President Barak Obama’s policies, such as his fellow Democratic President’s spending spree and federalization of health insurance. There will be a closely-watched rematch between Burns and the newly elected Democrat Representative.

Rand Paul is Not a Conservative
Rand Paul won the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate for Kentucky. Although he campaigned as a conservative, like his father, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), he is not a conservative, but a libertarian/isolationist. Paul’s support for conservative ideas like limiting the size of government is sincere, as conservatives and libertarians hold some ideas in common, but he also holds a number of views anathema to conservatives.

Obama Follows Another Bush War on Terrorism Policy
The Obama Administration successfully argued in federal court to maintain President George W. Bush’s War on Terrorism policy of holding suspected terrorists prisoner at Bagram, Afghanistan. The court ruled that the detainees are not entitled to the writ of habeas corpus – a legal process that forces a government to justify the detainment in a hearing. The only distinction between Bagram and Guantanamo Bay apparently is that the former is recognized by the court as in the battlefield and the latter is not.

Proposed Textbooks Debunk a Liberal Myth of American Racism

The proposed Texas school text books would be the standard textbooks in all but a handful of states across the Union. There has been a rigorous debate between conservatives and liberals in regard to the content of these books.

As a historian, I have long been concerned about the accuracy of textbooks, which are known to contain factual errors and reflect (usually a liberal) bias, which I observed both as a student and later as a School Director. In fact, I notified the school district administrators of examples in my school district’s proposed new history textbook that I took the initiative to review, which inspired other members of the School Board to also review textbooks.

The school textbooks that I was required to read as a student misled students by presenting erroneous information in regard to the internment of German and Italians by the United States during World War II. The textbooks declared that only Japanese-Americans had been interned, which, in the liberal opinion of its authors, was proof of American “racism.” However, as the federal government has acknowledged, Germans, Italians, and immigrants of other Axis Powers were also interned – mostly aliens, including many permanent residents, but even some American citizens. In addition to those who were interned or whose movements were restricted (e.g. Italian-American fishermen along the West Coast), all German and Italian-American resident aliens were required to carry I.D. cards labeling them “enemy aliens,” were made to give up their short-wave radios, and all German-Americans and Italian-Americans, along with Japanese- Americans, were discouraged from speaking “the enemy’s language.” There were other serious abuses of civil liberties.

Moreover, even Japanese-American citizens were considered Japanese subjects by the Empire of Japan, which, unlike the United States under President Ulysses Grant, had not abolished the feudal doctrine, which holds that an immigrant renounces his citizenship by being naturalized by another state. Therefore, even though the U.S. recognized Japanese-Americans as American citizens, Japan did not, whereas neither Germany nor Italy made such claims in regard to German and Italian emigrants, respectively.

I was pleasantly surprised that the school textbook I reviewed for the Reading School District in Pennsylvania had corrected the error of denying the internment of German and Italians by stating that some of them had also been interned by the U.S. during World War II, despite the textbook's other problems. The proposed influential Texas school books will also correct this error, thereby debunking a liberal myth of American racism.

Blog and Personal Notes; Cinfici's Reelection

My last post was my 200th. Thank you for visiting my blog, especially all of you loyal readers.

One personal note I did not mention in my analysis of the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary Election is that I was reelected as Republican Committeeman representing my precinct, Reading 17-7 on the Berks County Republican Committee (actually, my old precinct was combined with another one during my current term, meaning that I was actually elected to represent a new precinct that included my old one). I was first elected in 1992 and have been serving as Chairman of the Reading Republican City Committee the last six years. I have also been serving on the Executive Committee of the Berks GOP during nearly that entire time.

I have still been following up on issues from my service as Reading School Director, as well as advising current Board members, which is why I have held off on issuing a post I had drafted about my experiences, as promised. I am pleased to continue to be of service even as a private citizen.

I continue to enjoy blogging. Again, thank you for visiting. I appreciate the positive feedback I have been receiving privately. Please continue to give me suggestions for topics or to ask me good questions.

Commentary on the New Shield Reverse of the United States Lincoln Cent

The new reverse design for the United States Lincoln Cent is being minted to commemorate the bicentennial of the birth of President Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was born in 1809. His centennial was commemorated with the issuance of the Lincoln Cent in 1909, the 150th anniversary of his birth in 1950 by the Lincoln Memorial reverse replacing the original Wheat Ear reverse, and his bicentennial in 2009 with a series of four reverse designs depicting stages of Lincoln’s life. The new reverse is expected to continue at least until the 250th anniversary.

The new reverse of the Lincoln Cent features a shield with thirteen stripes, representing the Thirteen Original States (See the new design on the website of the U.S. Mint: http://www.usmint.gov/ under the Coins and Medals link). The shield is a symbol of the Union that has appeared on United States coinage since the earliest days of the Republic. Because of the thirteen stripes, the symbol evokes the original unity of the thirteen states under the Federal Union formed by the U.S. Constitution, instead of the Northern triumphalism associated with the Lincoln Memorial design that appeared from 1959-2008.

Together with the recent commemorative series for Dollar Coins and for the reverses of the Sacajawea Dollar Coin (now known as the “Native American” Dollar), Washington Quarter, and Jefferson Nickel (which also includes new obverse designs), the commemorative series for the Lincoln Cent leaves the Roosevelt Dime as the only remaining circulating coin that has remained mostly unchanged for decades. The Roosevelt Dime has changed little since it was first issued in 1946.

As I noted in my post, Commentary on Current U.S. Coins in April of 2009, U.S. coin designs used to be changed every generation, but have become more frozen in recent decades, especially since the inception of the practice eschewed by the Founding Fathers of portraying individuals on U.S. coins. Placing the images of individuals on coins politicizes coinage and makes coins more divisive than unitive. The practice has contributed to the stagnancy of coin designs, particularly on the obverses, because any replacement of one favored political figure with another is perceived as a slight to the one proposed to be replaced (e.g. proposals to replace Democratic Presidents Franklin Roosevelt or John F. Kennedy with President Ronald Reagan), although this concern did not stop the Congress from passing a bill signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson to replace Founding Father Benjamin Franklin with fellow Democrat Kennedy on the Half Dollar or President Jimmy Carter to replace Republican President Dwight Eisenhower with Susan B. Anthony on the Dollar Coin.

I again call for a return to the custom of placing images of the allegorical figure of Liberty on the obverses of American coins. The images of less divisive figures, such as those that are currently on U.S. Coins like Founding Fathers George Washington and Thomas Jefferson or other significant figures like Sacajawea, are not as objectionable as those of later politicians, even revered ones. However, if politicians are going to continue the practice of honoring their favorite political heroes on U.S. coinage, then at least more equal partisan treatment should be expected. At least the new Shield Reverse Lincoln Cent is a more appropriate symbol of unity, like the eagle, that has traditionally appeared on the reverses of American coins.

Analysis of the Pennsylvania Primary Elections

There were no surprises in the 2010 primary elections in Pennsylvania.

Attorney General Tom Corbett was easily nominated for Governor by the Republicans, as was Bucks County Commissioner Jim Cawley for Lieutenant Governor, whom I have known since our days as College Republicans. Both were endorsed by the Republican State Committee. Corbett has prosecuted both Democratic and Republican state legislators for public corruption and joined the class-action lawsuit against the federal mandate to purchase health insurance passed by the liberal Democratic Congress and signed by President Barak Obama.

Former United States Representative Pat Toomey won the GOP nomination for U.S. Senate. His strong challenge to then-Republican Arlen Specter forced the moderately liberal incumbent to switch back to the Democratic Party, which he had left in the 1960s to run for Philadelphia District Attorney as a Republican. Specter's opportunistic move did not pay off this time, as Democrats did not trust him and nominated a more staunchly liberal member of Congress, as I had privately predicted to other political observers. Toomey was well on his way to a remarkable total of over 600,000 votes by the time of this post.

There were no upsets in the various primaries for U.S. House in either party. Indeed, all of these results were as I had predicted. There was, however, also a simultaneous special election in Pennsylvania, in which the Democrats retained the seat of the late Jack Murtha with the help of the high Democratic turnout for the gubernatorial contest in Pennsylvania where Democrats outnumber Republicans by several hundred thousand voters. Republican Tim Burns lost the special election, but won the primary against the 2008 nominee, setting up a November rematch between him and the victorious Democrat in the conservative blue-collar district. As I noted last month in my Report on the 2010 Pennsylvania Leadership Conference, the Keystone State will be a battleground for control of Congress.

At the state level, like the federal government, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania faces the daunting challenges of financial insolvency because of too much taxing, borrowing and spending, as well as a looming massive pension crisis on top of it. The state's high taxes, especially on businesses, are reducing its competitiveness, damaging its weak economy and increasing the exodus of its youth. In addition, Pennsylvania suffers from a climate of political corruption and is need of better transparency and political reform.

The main positive for Pennsylvania is its abundant energy resources, namely coal, oil and natural gas. Tax and spend liberal politicians see an opportunity for even more tax revenue from the huge natural gas reserves in the Marcellus Shale formation that has already brought in billions of dollars in economic activity to the Commonwealth, without which its tax revenues would have fallen even more. Conservative state legislative candidates would be wise to follow Republican gubernatorial nominee Tom Corbett's lead in resisting liberal Democratic Governor Ed Rendell proposal to kill the goose that laid the golden egg through a severance tax on natural gas.

Indeed, the Corbett/Cawley Republican ticket will campaign on a platform of cutting spending and avoiding tax increases, reforming the state's government and tapping the Commonwealth's natural resources while protecting its environment. The challenges Pennsylvania faces are nearly overwhelming, but common-sense conservative ideas have been proven before to work even under such circumstances.

Primary Elections in Pennsylvania and Other States

Significant primary elections will be conducted on Tuesday, May 18 in Pennsylvania and several other states across the Union.

At stake in the Keystone State are party nominations for the offices of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, United States Senator and all of Pennsylvania's U.S. Representatives, as well as half of its State Senate seats and all of its seats in the House of Representatives. In addition, in some municipalities, such as my city of Reading, there are referenda on the ballot.

A number of closely-watched primaries for both major political parties are also being held for U.S. Senate in other states, among other contests.

These primary elections in Pennsylvania and other states, like many that are being held this year throughout the United States, are significant not only because of the importance of the offices for which the parties are nominating candidates, but also, in some cases, because of the contrasts in ideology. A number of incumbents are facing stiff challenges, while there are also many contests for the nomination for open seats. Moderately liberal Democrats are being challenged by far-left wing candidates while conservative Republicans are being challenged by more strongly conservative candidates or by libertarians/isolationists trying to capitalize on the conservative momentum by portraying themselves as conservative and everyone else as equally leftist.

These contested primary elections have generated much interest and enthusiasm and provided voters with the opportunities to chose between sharply-contrasted candidates. Electors this year will have little reason to complain about the lack of choices in the General Election, as the primaries are providing them an abundance of choice. Remember to vote!

Update on the European Debt Crisis

There has been an increased amount of discussion since my post last month, The Decline of the European Monetary Union, of either eliminating members from the European Monetary Union or abolishing the euro altogether. Financial experts are acknowledging the fundamental weakness of a single currency without a single monetary policy, a situation that has allowed states like Greece to overspend without the ability for such states to print more of their national currency in order to monetize their debt. Instead, Greece has sought a bailout from the European Union and the International Monetary Union, the latter of which is funding partially by the United States, which has also overspent.

I fear that the European centralizers will conclude that the solution is to adopt a single monetary policy at the loss of sovereignty for the individual member states instead of abandoning altogether the single currency that was intended more for political than fiscal or economic reasons. In other words, they will conclude that the prescription for the problem produced by centralization is more centralization, just as in the United States centralizing liberals like President Barak Obama and the Democratic Congress have concluded that the solution to economic problems caused by government interference in the economy is more government interference.

The Euroscepticism of the British Conservatives has been vindicated. The British parliamentary elections have produced a coalition that is unlikely to give up pound sterling and bring the United Kingdom into the Eurozone, as a left-wing coalition would have. The British thus have retained the sovereign right to address their fiscal problems their own way, although the European debt crisis is affecting the world economy.

The difference between Greek and British fiscal policy is interesting. Both the Socialist Greek government and the new British coalition government will cut spending, but the former will also raise taxes while the latter will not and might even lower them. Raising taxes will reduces economic growth, which, paradoxically, lowers revenue to the government, while cutting them increases economic growth, which increases government revenue. The Greek debt crisis is more severe than that of the U.K. The Greeks must, therefore, make larger budget cuts than the British, but the difference in tax policy will demonstrate which strategy is better economically and, in turn, fiscally.

So far, the United States under President Obama and the liberal Democratic Congress has increased spending while mostly keeping taxes at current levels, but its decision to allow the tax cuts signed into law by President George W. Bush expire will effectively raise taxes, including on many small businesses, as well as the various tax increases enacted as part of the federalization of health insurance. The Obama Administration’s spending spree still has not produced as much of an economically stimulative effect as was intended, at the cost of undermining confidence in the ability of the United States to service its debt owed to its bondholders and in the American economy, as well as the long-term increased cost to the Treasury for the hundreds of billions of dollars in increased spending. Thus, the U.S. is following the model of the Greek Socialist instead of the British one.

The Liberal Overreach of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution

Two issues have arisen recently in which liberals have cited the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI) in order to attempt to justify their positions. In both cases, in regard to the federal mandate to purchase health insurance, which the liberals support, and state border control laws, which they oppose, they are misinterpreting the Supremacy Clause to the detriment of the rights of the States – the principle of limited government (federalism) reflected in the Constitution by its Framers.

The Supremacy Clause deems the Constitution and federal laws and treaties “the supreme Law of the Land.” But the federal law or treaty must be constitutional in the first place. The federal government of the United States has no power to mandate individuals to purchase health insurance. It only has the power to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3), not intrastate commerce, which is the domain of the States. Because the federal mandate to purchase health insurance is thus unconstitutional, it cannot be the supreme law of the land.

Unlike intrastate commerce, border control is a federal responsibility, as Article I, Section 3, Clause 4 of the U.S. the Constitution gives the federal government responsibility for naturalization (immigration). However, border control is a broader issue than immigration. Temporary visitors, such as migrant workers, for example, are not immigrants. Thus, border control is also a state issue. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the states from controlling their borders by regulating visitors, particularly from foreign states. Therefore, state laws regarding border control (regulating visitors, but not naturalization) are not unconstitutional, as long as they augment and do not contradict federal border control law.

In short, liberals are wrongly trying to use the Supremacy Clause to justify their rejection of federalism by portraying the Clause as granting the federal government authority to do whatever they want, despite the delicate balance the Framers of the Constitution established between federal and state rights for the preservation of liberty. The Supremacy Clause grants certain powers to the federal government – the powers enumerated in the Constitution that relate to the Union of States – and prohibits the states only a few powers, but that document reserves all other powers to the states that formed that Union, which was made even clearer by the adoption of the Tenth Amendment as the summation of the Bill of Rights: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Conservative Cameron is the new U.K. Prime Minister

David Cameron is the new Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the first Conservative British Premier in thirteen years. Queen Elizabeth II asked the Tory leader to form a government after Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the Labour Party resigned after failing to form a liberal coalition with the leftist Liberal Democrats. Labour had been in government since 1997.

A coalition was necessary because no party won a majority in Parliament for the first time since 1974. The opposition Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were successful in forming a coalition that will focus on areas of agreement: reducing the British budget deficit by cutting spending and not raising taxes, education reform and opposing a national identity card, despite their ideological differences on other issues, as I anticipated in my last post.

It remains unclear how the Liberal Democratic priority of election reform will be addressed, other than through a possible referendum for which the Tories would not campaign in favor, as the Liberal Democratic demand for proportional representation in Parliament would be politically detrimental to the Conservatives.

The Liberal Democratic leader, Nick Clegg, will become Deputy Prime Minister and his party will hold a number of seats in the Cabinet for the first time in several decades.

The coalition may prove unstable, but the successful negotiations that brought it about will eliminate the immediate uncertainty produced by the hung parliament that had reduced confidence in the British economy. New elections -- as early as six months from now -- are possible.

But by focusing on accomplishing a few goals, the unusual center-right/far left coalition may bring about the temporary stability the United Kingdom, Europe and the world need economically. Indeed, the rest of the world will be watching the U.K. to see whether the British are able to reduce their deficit without weakening their economy -- the standard by which the Conservative-Liberal Democratic coalition will be judged, regardless of how long the union lasts or whatever other reforms it is able to achieve.

The Conservatives Win the British Parliamentary Elections

The opposition Conservative Party won the British parliamentary elections by gaining the most seats in Parliament. The Conservatives captured 306 seats in Parliament out of 650, an increase of around 100 seats since the last election in the United Kingdom. The Tories also won a plurality of the popular vote.

The Conservative gains came mostly at the loss for the Labour Party of U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, which has been in power since 1997, as well as the Liberal Democratic Party, which had been expected to gain seats because of the performance of their leader in the unprecedented debate of the party leaders. The center-left Labour was damaged by a parliamentary expense scandal and the global recession. The increased attention to the Liberal Democrats might have exposed British voters to the party’s far-left platform, which includes open immigration, eliminating the British nuclear weapon deterrent, ending the special relationship with the United States and joining the European Monetary Union, which would mean eliminating the British pound in favor of the euro.

The Conservatives fell short of a majority, which means that a coalition government will have to be formed, as often is necessary in many parliamentary democracies, although this election is the first since 1974 in which no party gained a majority in British parliament. The Liberal Democratic Party will be the kingmaker in forming a coalition government either with the Conservatives, or with Labour and smaller Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish parties or others.

It was unclear which party leader the Queen would ask first to form a government under the unwritten British Constitution. Constitutionally, the party of the Prime Minister is given the first opportunity, but the Conservatives declared the elections results demonstrated that Labour had lost the confidence of the British people. After the Liberal Democratic leader stated that the Conservatives should be given the first opportunity, Brown concurred, standing ready to form a leftist coalition between Labour and the Liberal Democrats and the smaller parties if the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are unable to form a government.

A Conservative-Liberal Democratic coalition would likely be viewed by investors as unstable and necessitate early elections later this year. One area for possible compromise between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats is election reform, although they disagree on their specific proposals.

The Conservatives, who last were in government from 1979-1997, have also pledged spending cuts to reduce the United Kingdom’s massive public debt, and tax cuts to spark economic growth. The centre-right Tories, led by David Cameron, are pro-American and support the War on Terrorism, including in Afghanistan, although they want a clearer strategy for that battlefield, and are opposed to surrendering British sovereignty by joining the European Monetary Union.

Although the United Kingdom Independence Party did not win any seats in Parliament, the leading Eurosceptic British party came in fourth place in the popular vote with over 900,000 votes, which represented over 3% of the total, a gain since the last election that is probably attributable to the debt crisis within the Eurozone.

If the Conservatives are able to form a coalition government led by Cameron, the election would mean that the United Kingdom would have joined all of the other major European states, namely France, Germany and Italy, in electing centre-right pro-American governments.

Liberalism, Not Conservatism, is to Blame for the Greek Debt Crisis

Liberals are blaming the previous conservative Greek government for phony accounting that masked the size of Greece’s public debt. Regardless of the truth of their allegation, Greece has amassed a massive debt not because of conservative policies, but because of the entrenched liberal spending of its government. Lavish welfare entitlements, including extremely generous pensions even for early retirees and a bloated public sector (including socialism) with extremely generous wages and benefits have brought statist Greece to the brink of default. Now a Socialist Greek government is imposing austerity measures, including spending cuts, as well as even higher taxes, in order for the European Monetary Union and the International Monetary fund to bail Greece out of debt, lest the rest of the Eurozone collapse.

Liberal governments increase public debt because of too much domestic spending, despite tax increases, which reduce economic growth and lower government revenue, even though they make massive cuts in defense and intelligence. As in the United States under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, European conservatives are unable to eliminate popular welfare entitlements and then get blamed by the left for the debt the liberal policies create.

The solution to overspending is not bigger government in the form of higher taxes, the socialization of more of the private sector, more regulation and more programs to help those harmed by liberal policies. The solution to too much domestic spending is to cut domestic spending by decreasing the size of government and cutting taxes to spark economic growth, which increases government revenue. In short, the solution for liberalism is not more liberalism, but conservatism.

Commentary on the Times Square Car Bomb

The Times Square car bomb was a terrorist attack because it targeted innocent civilians. In previous posts, I have defined terrorism as a violent targeting of innocent civilians in order to intimidate the populace into acquiescing to the terrorists’ political demands (See my post “Terrorism” vs. “Militancy” from June of 2009). This attempted car bombing meets the definition of a terrorist attack not because of the tactic, but because of the intent and the target. The Times Square car bomb was carried out by militant Muslims against innocent civilians in order to terrorize innocent Americans into giving into their political demands.

The Times Square car bomb was a failed bombing, unlike the Christmas Day airplane bombing, which detonated. However, like the Christmas Day attack, it was not a failed terrorist attack (See my post Christmas Day Terrorist Attack Was a Successful, Not a Failed Terrorist Attack from December of 2009), as it succeeded in disrupting transportation and commerce and, more importantly, in terrorizing Americans.

United States law enforcement was able to track down the terrorist through matching a telephone number the terrorist used to its database. His arrest happened because the United Arab Emirates airline notified U.S. authorities of a suspicious passenger. These law enforcement tools and procedures were initiated by President George W. Bush – some of its many anti-terror policies the Obama Administration is following.

Law enforcement responded to the car bomb because of tips from alert citizens. It is often civilians who thwart terrorist attacks, such as in the Christmas Day terrorist attack and the attempted shoe bombing of an airplane in 2002. When the Bush Administration urged Americans to report anything unusual to law enforcement in order to prevent terrorism, its critics, claiming to be concerned about civil rights, accused it of urging Americans to “spy on each other” and lamented a supposed “loss of liberties” because of the War on Terrorism. Thankfully, good citizens ignored such nonsense and fulfilled their moral and legal duty to report suspicious activity, which helped protect American liberty from terrorists.

The Times Square car bomb is the latest in a series of jihadist attacks in the United States by militant Muslims during the Obama Administration: the shooting at the Arkansas military recruiting center, the Ft. Hood Massacre, the Christmas Day bombing, as well as a number of foiled terrorist plots. These attacks demonstrate the resolve of a determined enemy. Militant Muslims are opting for softer targets than before, but with the same strategy of terrorizing Americans through spectacular and deadly attacks.

That the enemy has been unsuccessful in carrying out its last two attempted bombings suggests either the difficulty in penetrating American security with simpler weapons, in the case of the Christmas Day bombing, and a lack of adequate terrorist training in the case of the Times Square car bomb. However, little solace can be taken from these failures as militant Muslims are likely to continue to attempt terrorist attacks on Americans. Therefore, all Americans must remain vigilant and the U.S. must continue to use appropriate law enforcement tools to preserve American liberty.

Analysis of the Sudanese Elections

The Southern Sudanese opposition boycotted the recent elections in Sudan because of a lack of proper election safeguards. Sudanese dictator and war criminal Omar al-Bashir was easily reelected. He threatened that the boycott would jeopardize next year’s referendum on Southern Sudanese independence. The planned referendum was part of the deal negotiated by the United States under President George W. Bush that ended the two-decade-long civil war that claimed more than a million lives. The predominantly Arab Muslim Sudanese government in Khartoum had grossly violated the human rights of the Christian and animist Southern Sudanese.

In addition to human rights violations, Sudan has a history of sponsoring terrorism (e.g. it harbored Osama bin Laden in the 1990s). The Southern Sudanese independence referendum is significant to the war being waged against non-Muslims by militant Muslims, like the one held in East Timor a decade ago to which militant Muslims reacted violently, as they oppose giving up any territory to non-Muslims.

The civil war that was fought in Southern Sudan is separate from the current violence in Darfur, where the Arab Muslim government is complicit in the genocide against black Muslims being committed by Arab militia.

Blog Notes and Update on the Federal Student Loan Monopoly

I am sorry that I have not posted as frequently lately, although two of my posts this month were unusually long, as one was a report on the Pennsylvania Leadership Conference (PLC) and the other was a digest of foreign news. Also, I posted a lengthy comment in response to a question posted by a visitor to my post Two Big Myths about the Founding Fathers, from April of 2009.

I would like to thank the Commonwealth Foundation for linking to my report on the PLC on its blog. That post represents an example of how bloggers can be journalists, a legal question that has arisen again recently.

I hope my readers do not mind my occasional repetition, but, as in broadcast journalism, there is a “tune-in factor,” as my counter reveals; Visitors may view a newer post, but not necessarily a previous similar or related one.

Please make use of the search bar on my blog. However, I discovered recently that it no longer seems to be picking up my earliest posts. I shall endeavor to work around this deficiency in order to better serve my readers, at least by specifying the month and year, as I did above, in order to be able to find it through the archives listed on the left-hand column.

I shall take this opportunity to note my prediction of job losses because of the federal takeover of students loans came true (See my post Anti-Monopoly Liberal “Progressives” Create a Student Loan Monopoly, March of 2010), as Sally Mae, the largest lender to students in the United States, announced the next day that it would lay off 2,500 student loan experts.

Three Facts the Obama Administration Needs to Learn

I am sure that there are more, especially matters of basic economics, but I have compiled a list of facts the Obama Administration needs to learn:

Bonuses are not extra pay. They are lump-sum payments that are part of an employee’s annual salary, which is understood by the employee at the time of hiring and often are even part of the conract. Therefore, bonuses are not necessarily awarded for merit, although they often are related to the performance of the company;

The purpose of insurance is to spread risk for future contingencies. A person with a pre-existing condition is, therefore, uninsurable for health. Such an individual does not spread risk because there is no chance that he might be healthy and thus continue to contribute to the pool of money, but instead would certainly receive money without contributing anything to the pool. Therefore, there can be no such thing as “health insurance” for a person with a pre-existing condition. There would have to been another kind of contingency insurance for such individuals with some other name;

Anywhere a terrorist strikes is a battleground, such as aboard an airplane, not just in war zones.

Perhaps you can develop further the list of facts the Obama Administration needs to learn.

The Decline of the European Monetary Union

As a federalist, I have long been a skeptic of European centrism, especially the European Monetary Union that replaced the national currencies of its members with the Euro. At the time of its formation, I expected that union eventually to fail because of the loss of sovereignty of each member state over monetary policy to respond to changing conditions. That failure has begun.

Overspending in some members of the Eurozone has weakened the value of the Euro by causing inflation. Greece has had to launch a drastic austerity program in order to reduce its massive debt. Portugal’s debt rating has decreased, while Ireland and even Spain and Italy are also under pressure to reduce their debt.

It has become necessary for the wealthier states that use the Euro, namely Germany, together with the International Monetary Fund, to bail out Greece. Greece has lost temporarily even the sovereign right to vote at the European Monetary Union over monetary policy.

There are other problems with European integration in general. I was skeptical from the beginning also of the creation of the European free trade zone, which, because the European Union did not adopt a free trade policy with the United States, appeared to be intended as a rival to the U.S. instead of a partner. Free trade within the European Union makes economic sense, just as it does within the American Union. However, just as the American federal government has centralized more and more power, those who advocate a European superstate have been centralizing more and more power in the European Union. For example, the integration of entry and immigration policies within the E.U. has caused security problems and disparities and European coordination over defense and foreign policy has encouraged weakness, while European integration has supplanted Europe’s Christian heritage with the faith of Statism. European integration minimizes the cultural diversity of Europe, in the name of “diversity,” which usually refers only to non-Christians. Indeed, growing European integration increasingly has reduced the sovereignty of its member states in ever more ways.

Perhaps the Greek debt crisis will encourage the European centralizers to reconsider their ideas and instead adopt a more minimalist approach to federalism, just as Americans should demand that the federal government abide by the principles of the Framers of the United States Constitution and limit federal power only to federal matters. Both the European and American Unions should respect the principle of subsidiarity by leaving other powers in the hands of their member states, where it is closer to the people.

Report from the 2010 Pennsylvania Leadership Conference

For the first time in several years, now that my service on my local school board is complete, I was able to attend the annual Pennsylvania Leadership Conference, the annual gathering of conservative activists in the Keystone State. A project of the Pennsylvania Leadership Council, the conference is sponsored by the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association and was co-sponsored by Let Freedom Ring and the Constitutional Organization of Liberty.

United States Senate Candidate Pat Toomey was among the speakers, as well as the two major Republican candidates for Governor, Attorney General Tom Corbett and State Representative Sam Rohrer. Major speakers included political consultant Dick Morris, pollster Kellyanne (Fitzpatrick) Conway and former Governor and U.S. Attorney General Richard Thornburgh.

Morris, the keynote speaker, discussed voter disapproval of the overspending, borrowing and taxing of the federal government under Democratic leadership, as well as the federal takeover of more and more of the economy. He noted that the U.S. had controlled 30% of the economy at the start of the Obama Administration, which increased to 35%, but would rise to 40% because of the federalization of health insurance. “Socialism is a statistic,” because it is a measure of government control of the economy, Morris said, and the 40% federal government share, which he compared to some of the Western European economies, represents socialism. He stated his belief that President Barak Obama’s goal in increasing spending was to force the Republicans to raise taxes, which they will not.

The former advisor to President Bill Clinton recalled how Clinton was in negotiations with the new Republican majority in Congress in 1995 to balance the budget. The plan being discussed was intended to balance the budget with spending cuts by 2008 (note: otherwise, the Clinton Administration, despite its so-called “deficit-reduction” tax increases, had predicted $200 billion budget deficits indefinitely). House Speaker Newt Gingrich insisted on a reduction of the capital gains tax rate from 28% to 20%, to which Clinton agreed. Morris confirmed the theory I put forth in earlier posts that it was the Republican Congress that led to the balanced budget, not only because of the spending cuts, but because of the tax cuts, as he noted that revenues increased dramatically because of the capital gains tax cut and the budget was balanced in just 18 months!

Morris predicted a Republican takeover of both houses of Congress in November, with the GOP winning at least 52 Senate and 228 House seats (for a majority of at least +2 and +10, respectively). The political destiny of the U.S. “is in Pennsylvania’s hands,” Morris declared, as he predicted that Pennsylvania would elect Toomey to the Senate to replace Democrat Arlen Specter, and that Democratic Representatives Dahlkemper, Altmire, Murphy, Carney, Kanjorski and Holden would all be defeated and the GOP would win the open seat formerly held by Democrat John Murtha. The former liberal Democrat observed that “there is no such thing as a moderate or conservative Democrat” in Congress because no matter how conservative he might be, he is pledged to vote for Nancy Pelosi for House Speaker or Harry Reid for Senate Majority Leader. “No other vote matters,” Morris said, because it is the vote that determines the legislative agenda.

Morris said that the value of the Tea Party movement was both to energize the Republican Party and to cleanse it. He urged the support only of Republican candidates who take the Americans for Tax Reform pledge not to raise taxes. Morris called for an end to congressional earmarks. He refuted Obama’s contention that he inherited a $1.3 trillion budget deficit for 2009, noting that the deficit was $600 billion, plus the $700 billion TARP program, which was a loan, of which $500 billion has been repaid with interest, which Obama has spent.

Morris explained how a Republican Congressional majority could defund the federalization of health insurance without even repealing it, first by restoring its cuts to Medicare and second, because the act is an authorization bill and not an appropriation bill, the Congress can reject any appropriations to implement it.

Kellyanne Conway revealed interesting polling data: She affirmed that “women’s issues” are the same as men’s issues; women are equally concerned about economic issues; Whereas the 2008 elections were about the attributes of individual candidates, the 2010 elections would be about issues; Jobs were the main issue of voter concern; Despite the liberal belief that people would like the federalization of health insurance once they understood it, they object to the costs and are opposed to the federal mandate to buy health insurance. Like Morris, she urged people to run for public office, as free market conservatives believe in competition. Conway cited statistics about Tea Party activists that dispelled the liberal stereotypes; she found that they are mostly female and educated better than average, for example. Also like Morris, she explained the advantage of using communication technology to advance conservatism instead of through the media. Conway emphasized the importance of framing the issues as “conservative vs. liberal,” instead of “Republican vs. Democrat,” and observed that liberals no longer even want to be called by that name, preferring to be called “progressive,” which she urged conservatives not to use. Conway advised Pennsylvania’s conservatives to support the democratic election its judges over proposals to let the Governor appoint them. She is confident of significant conservative gains in the 2010 elections.

As always, there were numerous policy panels, including ecnomic and fiscal issues, education and marriage, some of which I was able to attend. One panel of particular interest to me was entitled “Beyond Corruption: Transparency, Accountability and Reform.” Columnist Chris Freind observed that because of corruption, citizen access to government is denied and there are increased costs to the taxpayers and businesses. He called for more sunshine to deter corruption. My good friend, Joseph Sterns, of the Citizens Alliance of Pennsylvania noted the state Constitution declares the people to be sovereign, but does not enumerate the means, such as referendum and initiative. He explained that constitutional amendments may be approved by referendum, but only after the General Assembly has approved the proposed amendment in two consecutive legislative sessions. Because of the corruption in Pennsylvania, Sterns called for a limited citizens’ constitutional convention (See http://www.empowerpa.org/). State Representative Curt Schroeder agreed with Sterns and discussed Pennsylvania’s lack of proper oversight of gambling and also lamented the lack of proper judicial discipline. Representative Doug Reichley expounded on Freind’s comments about no-bid contracts, including for Democratic Governor Ed Rendell’s own law firm for legislative advice even though the state has lawyers employed for that purpose. He called for an end of the abuse of such “emergency” contracts and for a requirement that that requests for proposals be sought for contracts for services above $100,000.

Former Governor Thornburgh stressed the individual over big business, big government and big labor. He objected to the imposition of uniformity despite the diversity of the states and declared that because state government is closer to the people, it is wiser than the federal government. Thornburgh emphasized the need for smaller government and lower taxes and called for a federal balanced budget amendment and line item veto, tools he used to balance Pennsylvania’s budget and cut taxes. The former U.S. Attorney General under Presidents Ronald and George H.W. Bush expressed support for toughness on crime, including public corruption, for which he called for greater transparency, and on terrorism.

Foreign Notes: Afghan and Iraqi Elections; U.S.-Russian Treaty; Sympathy for Poland

Afghan elections
The Afghan elections a few months ago have generated an ongoing controversy because of the disputed results and because of recent accusations from Afghan President Hamid Karzai of interference by the Obama Administration on behalf of his opponent. Although the liberal media and the Obama Administration and its supporters made much of the accusations of fraud committed by Karzai’s party, the fact is that he easily won a plurality of the vote for reelection, which would be sufficient in many foreign and American states for victory. However, Afghanistan’s Constitution requires a run-off election by the top two candidates. The only issue, then, was whether the incumbent had won a majority over former Foreign Minister Abdullah.

I am confident that Abdullah, the former leader of the Northern Alliance – the U.S. recognized government of Afghanistan that controlled the northeast of the country during the Taliban regime – would make a good Afghan president, but Karzai won far more votes than did Abdullah.

Iraqi elections
I have held off on commenting about the recent parliamentary elections in Iraq first because of the delay in the vote count and second because without any party winning a majority, a coalition must be formed to govern the republic. But I can take this opportunity to analyze what is known about the elections thus far, which appear to be highly successful. Unlike in Afghanistan, there were no serious incidents of fraud.

Millions of Iraqis voted, despite the threat of militant Muslim terrorists. The elections were mostly peaceful. A significantly increased number of votes cast by Sunni Muslim Arabs produced a record turnout. The participation of the Sunni Arabs is recognized as essential for Iraq’s democracy.

A secular Sunni party led by former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi won a plurality of votes, barely edging out the party led by current Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shi’ite. It is possible that both parties could be part of the governing coalition. The results are thus a clear rejection of militant Islamists, in the form of either pro-Iranian Shi’ites or pro-al Qaeda Sunnis.

U.S.-Russian nuclear treaty
The Obama Administration negotiated nuclear weapons cuts with Russia without giving up missile defense, although the treaty does allow Russia to back out if it objects to NATO’s implementation of missile defense in Eastern Europe. After United States President George W. Bush won unanimous backing from NATO to host the missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, the Obama Administration plans to locate it instead in Southeastern Europe, which Russia regards as less objectionable (See my post Obama Betrays Allies, Appeases Russia).

A treaty must be ratified with the advice and consent of at least two thirds of the U.S. Senate. Many Senators are concerned about the treaty’s linkages to missile defense. Other objections from Republican and other Senators are less about the treaty, but more about the Obama Administration’s overall nuclear policy, which it recently announced. Among other changes, the Obama Administration has ended longstanding U.S. policy of ambiguity by announcing in which situations the U.S. would or would not use nuclear weapons, which has concerned Senators that American enemies might be emboldened to attack without fear of nuclear annihilation.

The Moscow Treaty negotiated by George W. Bush and Russia cut nuclear weapons more than Obama’s treaty. It easily was ratified by the Senate. Bush successfully implemented missile defense on American soil, despite Russian objections.

Sympathy for Poland
The loss of Poland’s President Lech Kaczynski in a plane crash in Russia was tragic, but the loss of so many senior Polish governmental and civic leaders is devastating.

The Conservative president had been a leader of the Solidarity union in 1980, during the Cold War. Kaczynski was pro-American, although the Obama Administration’s decision to relocate missile defense from Poland left him feeling betrayed.

The plane was primarily full of Polish leaders on a delegation to Katyn, Russia to observe the 70th anniversary of the Katyn massacre, during which over 20,000 Polish officers and priests were murdered by the Soviets after the Soviet Union and its Nazi German allies had invaded and divided up Poland. Indeed, much of Poland’s intelligentsia was slaughtered by the Nazis and Soviets during the Second World War, which makes the plane crash especially ironic.

The Catholic Church in Poland was one institution that worked to maintain Polish cultural identity, in addition to faith and morals, an effort for which Karol Wojtyla, the Bishop of Cracow who later became Pope John Paul II, was especially successful. He backed the Solidarity movement that helped bring down Communism in Eastern Europe.

When the Polish Communist government banned Solidarity and imposed martial law in December, 1981, U.S. President Ronald Reagan imposed economic sanctions on Poland and worked with the Vatican to support Polish dissidents. I remember that he asked Americans to place a candle in their windows in order to remember the suffering of the Poles. May we keep Poland in our thoughts and prayers once again.

Annual Blog Report; Happy Easter

I am grateful to you, my dear readers, for having visited my blog 1,650 times since I installed StatCounter on April 2, 2009. Thank you for making it a success!

Note: I strictly define a visit as a web page view at least one hour after the previous page view, and I do not count my own visits, which are blocked by the counter. If I counted all page views as hits, except my own, there would be nearly 2,300.

Approximately 100 people initiated their visit to my blog on its homepage, visiting over 350 times. Another approximately 1,180 people initiated their visit to my blog at one of its posts, accounting for nearly 1,300 visits; nearly a tenth of this group of visitors additionally went on to view my homepage or other posts.

My blog has been visited from at least 49 American states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, as well as 63 foreign states and Hong Kong. It was even visited from states like Djibouti, Burkina Faso and Samoa! Other than visits from my state of Pennsylvania, the ones from American states tend to be fairly proportionate to the population, with the most from California with over 100, followed by a group of the largest states nearly in descending order, with New Jersey and Washington being exceptionally higher than their size. Among foreign states, the most visits came from Malaysia, with over 100, followed by Canada (48), and the United Kingdom (36). There were over 20 visits each also from Algeria, India and Pakistan. After my own city of Reading (with well over 100), the next most visits came from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia with over 60.

My blog has been visited by the Holy See in Vatican City, and several times by the United States House of Representatives, as well as several other federal agencies (the U.S. Department of Labor, the General Accounting Office, the Navy, the Marines and the Centers for Disease Control), as well as by the State of Utah, the Pennsylvania Senate, agencies in several other American states and numerous municipalities, as well as the Irish Government, the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Canadian Province of British Columbia.

Visits to my blog have come from 40 American and 9 foreign colleges and universities, as well as numerous American and Canadian public schools, and the state education departments of Utah, Georgia and Kentucky.

Visits from the media have included The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The San Antonio Express, NBC and CBS (twice). There have been numerous visits from other businesses, including a number of Fortune 500 Companies, including three of the 30 industrials that comprise the Dow Jones Industrial Average, although one of them, General Motors, could also be listed as a federal agency.

More than half of the posts to my blog have been visited, even though it was launched over four months before the counter was installed and about a tenth of the posts are reports like this one or other personal notes. The most popular posts to my blog among those visitors whose visit was initiated at one of its posts were the following: The Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization (327); The Economy, Deficit and Debt at George W. Bush’s Inauguration (185); Obama Did Not Inherit the Economy From Bush (85); Radicals in the Obama Administration (68); and Follow-up on the Fall of Islamic Civilization (52). Other posts that were visited 25-50 times included the following, in descending order: Lepanto, by G.K. Chesterton; Analysis of Obama’s Economic and Fiscal Policies; Father Stanley Jaki, Rest in Peace; The Commerce Clause Limits Federal Power to Mandate the Purchase of Health Insurance; Two Big Myths About the Founding Fathers; Misleading Media Phrases; Herb Denenberg, In Memoriam; and A Comparison of the Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina and the Haitian Earthquake.

The most visits in one day was 22 on March 19, 2010, followed by 18 on April 8, 2009, 17 on January 20, 2010 and March 25, 2010, and 16 on March 24, 2010.

Again, thank you for visiting my blog! Please visit at least once a week. As always, your comments and suggestions, whether posted on the blog or communicated to me privately, are always welcome.

I wish you all a Happy Easter!

The Center-Right and Federalism Gain in Italian Elections

The ruling center-right coalition made gains in regional elections held in 13 of Italy’s 20 regions this week. Candidates backed by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi held onto the two regions the center-right had, but wrested four major regions from the center-left coalition, according to ANSA, the Italian news agency.

The results in Italy contrasted sharply with those in France, where the conservative ruling party of Nicholas Sarkozy suffered losses in regional elections. The Italian regional elections are seen as a referendum on Berlusconi’s performance, although turnout was low by Italian standards, with only two-thirds of the voters turning out to cast their ballots, ANSA reported. The center-right victory was particularly surprising in the central region of Latium, where, according to ANSA, the center-right list of candidates had missed a filing deadline, which precluded them from appearing on ballots in the province of Rome.

ANSA reports that the regional election results showed an increase for the Northern League party, an ally of Berlusconi’s People of Freedom Party. The devolutionist Northern League was founded in the 1990s by supporters of secession from Italy because of the economic disparity between the industrial North and agrarian South – a major economic and political divide in Italy. Significantly, the centre-right not only made gains in the North, but even in the South (in Campania and Calabria, where the ruling party has cracked down on organized crime), according to ANSA, because the Northern League has broadened its appeal by adopting a more federalist and less anti-Southern platform that appeals to Southern Italians who favor more regional autonomy.

This growing movement toward federalism in Italy is in contrast to the growing centralization within the Europe Union in its various forms, a topic which I shall address soon in another post.

Anti-Monopoly Liberal “Progressives” Create a Student Loan Monopoly

Liberals, who nowadays prefer to call themselves “progressives,” share many beliefs with the Progressive movement of the turn of the Twentieth Century. One of the goals of the Progressive movement was to eliminate business monopolies. But the liberal “progressives” of today have created a new business monopoly themselves – a government one.

Today, United States President Barak Obama signed into law a bill that fixed the law which federalized health insurance that he had signed last week. Included among the new law’s provisions is one that also federalizes the student loan program. No private lender will be able to participate any longer in the program. The “progressives” have thus established a federal government monopoly for student loans.

The liberal “progressives” argue that the federalization of student loans eliminates the private middleman, which would lower costs. But it also means that the federal workforce will have to grow, at the loss of the private workforce, as lenders will no longer require the services of student loan specialists. Government overhead will also grow. With the growth of the federal government, there will be increased deficit spending, which will add to the rapidly growing federal debt.

Moreover, a government monopoly is as dangerous as a private one. It means that there will be no free market competition to keep prices (in this case, in the form of interest rates) down. The rates will be whatever the federal government wants them to be. Without the fear of a loss of business, there is also no incentive to save costs or to provide for good customer service. Indeed, bureaucrats are not known for innovation.

Conversely, federal politicians could make promises to lower student loan interest rates or to make riskier loans than private lenders would for political expedience – at the expense to the taxpayers. Students are now among the Americans who are being made by the Obama Administration and the liberal Democratic Congress to be increasingly more dependent on the federal government they control.

The liberal “progressives” would argue that a public entity is responsive to the will of a people in a representative republic, but a bureaucracy is less responsive to the people than a private business is to customers who can take their business somewhere else. It has become increasingly apparent that the liberal “progressives” believe ideologically in government control over the private sector, regardless of the economic consequences.

The takeover of major financial institutions by the Obama Administration and its predecessor was a cause of concern, although it was intended to be temporary. However, the federal takeover of half of the mortgage industry and two of the three major automobile makers (and the manner in which the latter was accomplished, whereby labor unions were favored over bondholders), the federalization of health insurance and now the takeover of the student loan industry are alarming. With more and more centralization of power in the federal government, there is less and less liberty for the states and the people.

Bunning’s Heroic Stand, and Update

Recently, Senator Jim Bunning (R-Kentucky) objected to a $15 billion appropriations bill to extend unemployment compensation that was not offset by cuts in other spending, despite an act approved by Congress only the week before to require that all such spending be paid for.

One liberal Senator declared that Bunning’s principled stand demonstrated what is wrong with the Senate: that one liberal Democratic Senator can hold up people’s unemployment payments. What is wrong with the liberal-dominated Senate is that it gives away so much public money that it makes many Americans dependent on politicians. Americans’ economic well being should not depend upon the political process.

People were afraid of losing their benefits, even though no one – not even Bunning – was opposed to extending them. Thus, there was never a doubt that the benefits would be extended. The only source of fear came from liberal scare tactics, not conservative Senators.

This unemployment compensation debate is like the claims during every federal election by Democrats that the Republicans will cut or eliminate Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. The Democrats fail to see that their scare tactics – although politically effective in the short term – undermine their intent of providing economic security for everyone by exposing the fact that no one is secure who depends upon politicians.

Bunning’s reasonable argument is that the debt created by appropriations that are not paid for undermines the economy by increasing the federal debt, which burdens future generations of Americans. Liberal Democrats, however, seized the political opportunity to villify Bunning as cruel. Joined by only a handful of other conservative Republican Senators, Bunning agreed to a compromise that allowed votes on whether to pay for the measure, but the Democrats had the votes to add to the debt in order to be seen as helping the poor, as if the debt does not harm the poorest the most.

Update: Another measure extending unemployment insurance and other spending provisions that were not offset with spending cuts was objected to by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), who was supported by a number of other Republican Senators, who were able to reach a bipartisan compromise with the Democratic leadership of the Senate to pay for it. However, the Democratic leadership of the House of Representatives declined to agree. Today, Senate Democrats rejected the bipartisan compromise they had reached and decided to accept the House version, calling the measure “emergency spending,” meaning that it does not have to be paid for under budget rules.

Despite the vilification of Bunning, Senate Republicans are succeeding in raising public awareness of the increasing burden of debt and should continue to pressure Congressional Democrats to offset spending increases with spending cuts, as they promised to do.

House Impeaches Clinton-Appointed Judge

Thomas Porteous, a federal district judge who as appointed by United States President Bill Clinton in 1994, was impeached by the United States House of Representatives, becoming only the ninth federal judge ever impeached.

The liberal Porteous allegedly accepted gifts from lawyers who appeared before him, which he failed to disclose. He was impeached unanimously on four charges, including one of corruption, one of perjury and another of making false financial disclosures.

Perjury is lying under oath – an offense that is inconsistent with holding public office, for which an oath is required. Clinton himself was impeached for perjury, but acquitted by the Senate, even though it has convicted lesser officials, like judges, for perjury, despite the extra constitutional requirement in Article I that the president “take care that the laws are executed.” Clinton was later disbarred in a plea bargain in which he escaped criminal prosecution.

Representative Alcee Hastings (D-FL) did not vote against impeachment. He had been impeached and convicted by the Senate and removed from office as a federal judge, but the Senate did not impose the only penalty it constitutionally is permitted to impose: a ban on holding public office.

Conservatives should demand that the Senate convict Porteous and ban him from ever holding public office.

Conservative Analysis of the Federalization of Health Insurance

The liberal Democratic-led United States Congress has approved President Barak Obama’s plan to federalize health insurance, which he has signed into law. The law federalizes health insurance not through federal ownership, as in the case of other industries and enterprises, but through heavy government regulation, at the loss of liberty in various ways.

Among the many provisions of the law, the federal government will oversee the collection of insurance premiums, fine those employers with over 50 employees who do not provide health insurance benefits as a form of compensation and individuals who do not have insurance policies, require that insurance policies provide whatever benefits it decides, and approve all insurance policies. With government control, bureaucrats will decide whether or not individuals are worth the expense of coverage (i.e. rationing). Therefore, the law truly meets the definition of a “government takeover” of health insurance. It is not communist-style socialism whereby the government owns the industry, but fascist-style socialism, whereby the government does not own it, but effectively controls it. Individuals will thus lose their commercial rights.

That the main intent of Obama and the liberal Democrats is government control, instead of only their stated goal of helping those in need by extending insurance coverage to many who do not have it, is suggested by the extent of these regulations that affect all Americans, even though most Americans are satisfied with their insurance policies. Obama and the Democrats believe that government control is the solution to every problem because they do not believe in free market solutions. Yet the law neither reduces the cost of insurance for many Americans, for which it was advertised as necessary, nor prohibits one of the practices its proponents claim it will end: the dropping of coverage for those who are ill; the insurance companies are simply replaced with government bureaucrats who would deny coverage.

It was government policy that contributed to the problems with health insurance in the first place. During World War II, the federal government implement wage controls, which forced companies to compensate employees with health insurance in lieu of cash, which has caused many employees to overuse health care, which they regard as free because they are ignorant of the cost, even though the higher the cost of insurance premiums, the lower their wages and salaries. Furthermore, health insurance benefits represented a tax-free form of compensation, which is not only unfair to those who pay for their insurance out of their pockets without any tax benefit but also contributed to the sense of health insurance as not costing anything. Instead of gratitude toward those employers who provide health insurance, Obama and the liberal Democrats believe that employers have an obligation to provide it and now will force them to do so.

Other government causes for the increased costs of health insurance the law was supposed to address include the federal ban on purchasing it across state lines and the higher costs of law suit awards for medical malpractice. The health insurance federalization law addresses neither of these concerns. It continues the dependency on employers, whom it makes agents of the federal government, for health insurance. It even increases the tax unfairness and reduces freedom because it limits health savings accounts, the tax-advantaged instruments enacted by Obama’s predecessor to liberate Americans from dependency on their employers for health insurance.

By extending insurance coverage to some who do not have it – regardless of whether they want it – the law that federalizes health insurance creates a massive new welfare entitlement, which reflects the goal of Obama and the liberal Democrats to redistribute wealth instead of liberating the economy from government interference in order to unleash prosperity. In other words, the government steals from those who earn money and gives it to those who do not. Welfare is not charity. Because welfare decreases liberty by taking away the people’s freedom to engage in charity, it nullifies charity.

Even with the increases in taxes not only on the wealthy, but on anyone who purchases certain medical devices and on pharmaceutical companies, the imposition of fines and increases in insurance premiums for many, the law will nonetheless result in cuts in health care, as well as increase the deficit, in addition to the massive increase in federal spending already undertaken by the Obama Administration. In addition to the rationing of health care, the law to federalize health insurance will provide federal funds for insurance companies that cover abortion, in addition to the anti-life aspect of health care rationing.

These taxes and the higher costs of goods and services that will result because of the increased costs to businesses will be harmful to the economy and further reduce economic liberty, as well the increase in federal debt. In addition to violating states’ rights by unconstitutionally expanding the federal power to regulate interstate commerce to the power to force individuals to engage in commerce, the law represents an unfunded federal mandate to the states to provide even more welfare benefits in the form of health insurance coverage for certain individuals.

In conclusion, instead of using free market solutions to problems in health insurance or leaving the matter up to the states, or eliminating the federal interference in the market that caused some of the problems in the first place, the Obama Administration has seized the opportunity to control a major sector of the economy as part of its policy of centralizing power in the federal government. The law that federalizes health insurance is costly to both the economy and individual liberty, as well as to the constitutional rights of the states.

Federal Courts Would Rule that the Law Takes Precedent over an Executive Order

The federal courts would rule that a statute would take precedent over an executive order signed by a president.

United States President Barak Obama has promised to sign an executive order to ensure that no federal funds are made available for insurance coverage for abortion by his proposed federalization of health insurance. The pro-abortion president, who in the past has expressed support for federal funding for abortion, made the promise in order to gain the necessary votes of several pro-life liberal Democrats for his proposal.

Not only could a successor overturn Obama's executive order with another executive order, but Obama could even overturn his own order. Regardless, his proposal that passed the U.S. Senate, upon which the U.S. House is set to vote, requires federal funds (i.e. taxpayer money) to be made available for companies that provide insurance coverage for abortion. Therefore, federal courts would rule that the law requires that the federal government not discriminate against insurance companies that provide coverage for abortion, despite any executive order, which would make Obama's promise meaningless. In conclusion, the House vote for the Senate bill that would be signed into law by the President, would be a vote to provide federal funds to companies that insure abortion, notwithstanding any executive order to the contrary.