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

     Lately, the Obama Administration has been blaming the recent economic slowdown in the United States on the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, the European debt crisis and the Arab Spring and the global rise in energy prices. At least now the Administration is not blaming everything on former President George W. Bush. 
 
     There is some merit to the argument of the Obama Administration and its defenders that external influences and other such matters beyond a president’s control can have an impact on the economy, although the economy’s current underlying weakness is at least partly attributable to some of the Administration’s policies. But it was different when Bush was in office. Then, he was blamed for every economic ill that befell the American economy caused by external influences by the same liberals who are now excusing Obama.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Allied Bombings in the Second World War Were Not Terrorism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terrorism Is Never Committed out of “Revenge”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     We conservatives must use the word terrorism correctly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bombay vs. Mumbai; Peking vs. Beijing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Independence for South Sudan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Governor Corbett Signs Pennsylvania’s Budget and Welfare Reform Legislation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Morocco: First Fruits of the Arab Spring

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

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

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

European Digest: Serbia, European Monetary Union, Geert Wilders

Serbia Captures Ratko Mladic

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

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

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

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

Update: Geert Wilders Is Acquitted

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

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

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

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

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

Peace Sign Restoration Would Threaten the Environment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Language for Conservatives to Avoid: Gender vs. Sex

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cinfici's Interview on Rick Santorum's Presidential Candidacy

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

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

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

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

Election Results in Portugal, Peru

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Santorum-McCain Enhanced Interrogation Controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow-Up on the Bin Laden Raid

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     One key al-Qaeda operative was captured by the U.S. in Iraq, on his way to support Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Zarqawi was wanted by the U.S. before the Liberation of Iraq for the murder of an American diplomat in Jordan. In other words, contrary to the claims of critics of the Liberation of Iraq that the war distracted the U.S. from its goal of defeating al-Qaeda, the killing of bin Laden was one of the many fruits of the Liberation of Iraq, in addition to the destruction of al-Qaeda in Iraq.
    
     In addition, the Bush Administration also reportedly had reached an agreement with Pakistan that the U.S. would send its forces into Pakistan without the latter’s knowledge or consent in pursuit of bin Laden or other high value targets in the War on Terrorism.

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

The Primary Election in Pennsylvania

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

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

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

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

     Vote on Tuesday, May 17.

3,000th Visit to My Blog Tracked by StatCounter

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

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

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

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