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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report on Senator Pat Toomey's Remarks

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

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

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

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

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

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

Use Dollar Coins and $2 Bills

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

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

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

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

Conservative Praise for Two More Obama Policies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Virtue, Liberty and Independence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two-and-a-Half Year Blog Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personal Reflections on the Tenth Anniversary of the September 11 Attacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dollar Coins Are Not a Waste of Money

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Study Confirms Doubts about the Alleged Jefferson-Hemmings Affair

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update: The Italian Government Drops Its Proposal to Raise Taxes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The European Monetary Union Violates More National Sovereignty

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

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

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

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

European Monetary Union Update: Spain and Italy

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

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

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

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