Nellie Gray, Rest in Peace

The foundress of the annual March for Life, Nellie J. Gray, passed away today at the age of 88 in Massachusetts, where she resided.

Gray served as a corporal in the Army during Word War II, earned a bachelor’s degree in economics and served in the United States federal government for nearly three decades, first in the Department of State, then the Department of Labor.  Meanwhile, she earned a law degree and later argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.  Through the help of a Priest Gray met, she converted to Catholicism. 

After the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton Supreme Court decisions of 1973, Gray organized the first March for Life on January 22, 1974 on the anniversary of those infamous rulings, which became an annual event drawing hundred of thousands of attendees from across the U.S.  She served as the mistress of ceremonies at every March.  Other events are held across America on the day.  The effort is even mirrored by pro-life movements around the world.  The March for Life and the annual report on abortion Gray produced calls attention to the evil of abortion and the harm it causes both to babies and their parents and highlights respect for life from conception until natural death and human liberty.  Priests for Life leader Father Frank Pavone has announced that the 2013 March for Life will be dedicated in Gray’s honor.

Gray recognized the similarity of the evil of fascism and the Holocaust she fought during the Second World War and the evil of tens of millions of abortions committed in the U.S. since Roe v. Wade.  In both cases, she fulfilled her duty to use her God-given talents to do good, thereby serving as an inspiration to all.

May Nellie Gray’s example continue to inspire all Americans to respect the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness with which our Creator endows all of us, born and pre-born.  

Update on the Pennsylvania Voter ID Law

Liberals are arguing that because there have been no prosecutions of election fraud, there must not have been any fraud.   The liberals argue a priori that Pennsylvania’s voter identification requirement thus solves a problem that does not exist.  However, there is no legal requirement in the first place that a problem must already exist before legislators address it. 

Indeed, it would be unreasonable to wait for a problem to occur in order to prevent it, like waiting for terrorists to attack instead of neutralizing the threat beforehand.  The voter ID law reasonably address that problem. 

In attempting to minimize voter fraud and other irregularities strictly through the quantification of successful prosecutions, liberals contradict their claims in other cases.  For example, they claim that because most cases of the sexual abuse of minors by legal adults are unreported, the problem is significantly worse than the number of successful prosecutions suggests.  Thus, it appears that in regard to voter fraud, liberals are simply close-minded to the possibility of its existence.

But proof of election fraud does, in fact, exist.  Liberals should have learned their lesson of the truth of the legal maxim that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”  Just as liberals were proven wrong about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after the United States reported in 2006 that it had found several hundred artillery shells topped with chemical warheads in Iraq, among other prohibited materiel, that had been suspected by United Nations inspectors as never having been destroyed by the Baathist Iraqi regime, liberals are again being proven wrong about voter fraud in Pennsylvania and elsewhere across the Union, where there have been several hundred prosecutions for election fraud, often involving elected officials.

            I had already cited an example of voter fraud in Pennsylvania in my March of 2012 post, Corbett Signs the Voter ID Requirement into Pennsylvania Law http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2012/03/corbett-signs-voter-id-requirement-into.html, I was among the candidates on the ballot in the 2000 General Election who were victimized by voter fraud.  For example, in a number of voting precincts in Muhlenberg Township, which was dominated by a Democratic “Gang” that was later removed from power after its leader pleaded guilty to federal corruption charges, voters were fraudulently impersonated by unknown individuals.  After one such incident of impersonation, when a Judge of Elections in one of the precincts questioned a second individual who attempted to impersonate another voter, the impersonator ran out of the polling place!  Therefore, even though there was no fraud prosecution, there was at least one successful voter fraud and a second attempt to commit fraud in just one precinct alone.  That precinct was the only one in the Township that was majority Republican with a Republican Judge of Elections, meaning that there was no safeguard against Democratic fraud in the other precincts.  As I noted in the earlier post, this example is just one of many of various voter irregularities in Democratic strongholds of which I have observed or heard reports of over the years, such as in the City of Reading, both in terms of fraud or other irregularities.  Efforts are made whenever possible to report them to election authorities or encourage witnesses to report them.

Furthermore, a recent investigative report (http://media.philly.com/documents/Voting+Irregularities+Report.pdf) by an election official in Philadelphia County highlighted the problem of voter fraud and related election irregularities.  Even though the report was based only on spot-checking, it nevertheless details numerous examples of voter impersonation, voting by individuals in more than one precinct, voting by non-citizens or others ineligible to vote, more votes cast in precincts than voters who officially voted and various other irregularities.  In short, serious voting irregularities, whether constituting fraud or not, are committed in Pennsylvania in Democratic-dominated areas, of a kind that would be reduced by the requirement of voters to provide photographic identification.  Indeed, liberals mislead by focusing on the term “election” or “voter fraud,” which is legally defined as a crime, while ignoring the more common irregularities of allowing ineligible people to vote when the criminal intent to commit “fraud” is absent. 

Philadelphia County is the same place where armed members of the New Black Panthers engaged in voter intimidation during the 2008 General Election.  The liberal Obama Administration’s Attorney General Eric Holder opted not to prosecute them for voter intimidation, while liberals play the race card by accusing proponents of voter identification of voter intimidation, especially of blacks – a convenient argument that allows Democrats to continue to commit election fraud, especially in Philadelphia, with impunity. 

The liberals’ argument against the voter identification requirement would be worse than saying that a crackdown on bank robbery would represent the taking away of the right to bank.  It would be even worse than saying that cracking down on bank robbery is itself the crime of bank robbery (like saying “the cure is the disease”) because exercising the privilege to vote, as the means to hold government accountable and thereby to safeguard liberty, is more basic to freedom than even the right to bank.

European Monetary Union Update: Cyprus and Italy

            While the fiscal situation in Greece and Spain continues to deteriorate, despite the measures taken by the European Monetary Union to resolve the crisis, Cyprus has asked the European Monetary Union for a bailout, as it holds much Greek debt in the form of bonds.  The island republic inhabited mostly by ethnic Greeks is the most immediate example of the spread of contagion of fiscal crisis from Greece.

            Italy announced over five and a half billion dollars worth of additional budget cuts that will allow a six-month delay of a previously-approved increase in the value added tax, according to ANSA.  The tax cut is intended to increase economic growth.

Additional Thoughts on the United States Supreme Court Ruling on the Federalization of Health Insurance

            I noted several positives in my last post for conservatism and federalism in the recent United States Supreme Court ruling on the federalization of health insurance, which I hope my readers found heartening. 

Many fellow conservatives have expressed deep disappointment over the ruling because it upheld the individual mandate to purchase health insurance, which was the lynchpin of the legislation passed by the liberal Democratic Congressional majority and signed by President Barak Obama.  The entire law could have been overturned had the mandate been ruled unconstitutional.  I write this post to hearten further my fellow conservatives.

            We conservatives ought not to act like liberals.  Conservatives should avoid the practice of many liberals to make unnecessary ad hominem arguments against those with whom we disagree.  We should not expect an outcome of a case to be based upon ideology or politics, like liberals do, but the Constitution or the law, as originally intended.  We must also accept that the principle of judicial restraint requires deference to the powers of the Legislative Branch, which is representative of the People, even if the law were bad, unpopular, or were approved dishonestly, as long as it is constitutional.  

In significant cases, I read the entire majority, concurring and dissenting opinions, particularly of the conservative Justices, including all of their footnotes – a practice I recommend.  The scholarly opinions of Supreme Court Justices are generally based upon legislative history, precedent and reason.  The Justices are influenced by ideology, but generally not by partisan politics. 

            Although I agree more with the conservative dissenters in this case, I believe Chief Justice John Roberts was reasonable in reaching his decision in favor of upholding the individual mandate.  The conservative dissenters noted that this case was “difficult” because it was one of “first impressions” in a number of areas, meaning that there was little or no precedent.  Thus, Roberts cannot be accused of overly adhering to precedent. Unlike liberals, the Chief Justice did not base his decision on his desire for a particular outcome.  Indeed, he upheld the law on constitutional grounds even though he did not support it on its merits.  In reaching his decision, Roberts neither changed the meaning of the words of the Constitution nor discovered new rights nor cited foreign law as an authority, as liberals do.

            In fact, the Chief Justice deftly got liberals to agree with several conservative and federalist principles in gaining a number of important victories in this case.  In some respects, Roberts was successful even without the conservative Justices, whose opinion, although called a “dissent” was actually only a dissent in part and a concurrence in part.  Where they concurred, he and the conservatives thus gained a larger margin of victory than otherwise would have been expected.  In other words, Roberts reached an outcome favored by the liberals, but in a conservative manner. 

            I should note an additional benefit of Roberts’ opinion: in going out of his way to defer to the Legislative Branch, Roberts now has a free hand to strike down Executive Branch mandates, for which no judicial deference is due, such as the Obama Administration’s mandate that employers provide health insurance for sterilization, contraception and abortifacients.       

It can only be speculated that perhaps there were some intimidation of the Supreme Court by the media or Obama.  Public confidence in the Court is a legitimate concern for a chief justice, although it must be balanced by judicial independence.  Even though there was a history until recently of Republican-appointed Justices voting for liberal positions, Bush v. Gore subjected the Court to the unfair criticism of partisanship.  The open disagreements between Obama and the Court exacerbated the perception.  Henceforth, because of this case, whenever Roberts joins with his fellow conservatives on the Court, he can no longer be dismissed as lacking independence in terms of partisanship or ideology. 

One area of particular concern raised by the conservative dissenters in this case is worth further examination.  Because of Chief Justice Roberts’ necessary deference to the Legislative Branch, he argued in his opinion that the remedy to fix a law is required by precedent to be narrow in order to save as much of the law as possible.   However, fixing the law is not the job of the Court.  The conservatives observed that Roberts’ fixes seem to substitute his view for the Legislative Branch’s intent.  For example, the right of the States to opt out of the Medicaid expansion was arguably not the legislative intent of Congress because the result could be a patchwork of vastly different health insurance coverage among the States instead of uniform coverage.   

In appellate law, jurists must often balance competing principles.  Sometimes, they err to one side or the other.  Roberts may fairly be criticized in this case, but not for being unreasonable.  Moreover, the Chief Justice deserves praise for his use of legal reasoning through which he gained some remarkable victories for conservatism and federalism.

Conservative, Federalist Analysis of the Arizona Border Control and Federalization of Health Insurance Rulings

There were significant federalist implications of the United States Supreme Courts rulings on the Arizona border control law and the federalization of health insurance that I have posted on frequently.  Although there were no sweeping victories for federalism and conservatism, there were some major narrow victories.

In the Arizona border control case, the Court ruled that States may enforce federal laws, even if the federal government declines to enforce its own laws.  In this case, Arizona was requiring its law enforcement officers to inquire as to citizenship status of suspects it had probable cause to stop and pass the information along to federal authorities.  The ruling meant that the Obama Administration’s attempt to prevent Arizona from even enforcing federal laws would have violated states’ rights.

            Had Chief Justice John Roberts not sided with the liberals to form a 5-3 majority, the votes would have been split 4-4 because of the recusal of Justice Elena Kagan.  A split decision would have left the Appeals Court ruling stand, which was that Arizona’s law was totally unconstitutional.  Thus, Roberts got the liberal Justices to go along with him in a narrow victory for states’ rights, although the ruling restricted Arizona from exercising its sovereign right over the entry of people onto its soil. 

            The liberals had argued that because of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, federal law would supersede state law because the Constitution granted the federal Union the power to enact a uniform rule of naturalization, “immigration” was strictly a federal power.  However, as the conservative dissenters pointed out in an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the right to police a State’s borders to keep out those it does not want is an inherent right of sovereignty.  He noted the point I mentioned in my post from April of this year, Chester Arthur, the Most Underrated U.S. President, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2012/04/chester-arthur-most-underrated-us.html, that there were no federal immigration laws before the 1880s, meaning that the issue was recognized as strictly a state one.  Indeed, naturalization, the process of obtaining citizenship, which is understandably a federal matter, is not the same thing as immigration, let alone the broader matter of border control. 

The Court gave deference to the Legislative Branch and to its precedents that federalize an issue if Congress enacts comprehensive legislation to address it.  Although there are joint federal and state powers, the Court only permitted Arizona to exercise power over the issue to the limited extent of enforcing federal law, while rejecting the less controversial parts of the law that it ruled went beyond the strict limit.  Considering that the Obama Administration and the Left did not even want to allow a State such a limited power, the ruling was a landmark victory for states’ rights.

            On the constitutional challenge of the federalization of health insurance brought by a majority of the States, among others, conservatives won greater victories, despite the major disappointment of the refusal of the Supreme Court to declare the federal mandate to purchase health insurance unconstitutional. 

            Seven of the Justices agreed that the federal government lacked the power to mandate the purchase of a good or service under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause under the General Welfare Clause, both of which were cited by the Obama Administration, the liberal Democratic Congressional majority and others on the Left as the unquestionable source of its limitless power.  Thus, the ruling is a landmark case that finally placed some significant limits to federal power under these provisions liberals have used to do whatever they want that is not expressly prohibited under the Constitution, its other provisions, such as the Tenth Amendment, notwithstanding.

The Obama Administration, after having denied that the mandate was a tax during the public debate over the bill, then argued in the alternative in federal court that the federal Union had the power to issue such a mandate under its taxing authority.  A majority of five Justices agreed.  Congress is not constitutionally obligated to tell the truth, but it is accountable to the electorate for misleading the public, as it is for bad law.  Although federal power now seems to be unlimited to force individuals to do what liberals want through the taxing power, their efforts will be exposed for what they are: a tax, which, as an unpopular power requiring the consent through representation of those who are taxed, would be difficult for the representatives of the people to impose.

As in the Arizona border control case, Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion, deferred to the Legislative Branch.  The counterargument from the four conservative Justices who dissented on the taxing power question was that by inferring legislative intent even when it was not expressed at the time, he substituted his judgment for that of the Legislative Branch.  Indeed, the question of which taxing power the federal government was exercising under the Constitution remains.  Therefore, once the tax begins to be collected, someone harmed by its collection could challenge its constitutionality.  I should add that there is no criminal penalty under this law for the failure to pay the tax.  Congress may further limit the enforcement of its collection.

This ruling does not affect the litigation against the other mandates that have been or will be issued under the federalization of health insurance, such as the one requiring the free coverage for sterilization, contraception and abortifacients I have posted about previously. 

            The federal government’s attempt to coerce the States into expanding Medicaid under the plan to federalize health insurance was the second of the two challenges brought by the States.  The Court ruling on this issue is another landmark victory for states’ rights.

            The federal government may not coerce the States into doing what it wants by threatening to withhold all of its Medicaid funds instead of only the additional funds the state would have received had it agreed to implement the expansion.  In fashioning a remedy, however, as the dissenters noted, some taxpayer money collected from the citizens of a state will be used to fund Medicaid expansion in other states.  Nevertheless, this case represented the most significant limit ever to federal attempts to force the States to do its bidding.  In deferring to the Legislative Branch and in keeping with the practice of not issuing rulings beyond the necessary scope of the issue, the remedy the Court fashioned was narrow: instead of striking down the expansion entirely, it ruled that the penalty for a State that opted out of the Medicaid expansion could only be the loss of the funds for expansion, not all its Medicaid funds.   Many States are declining to expand their Medicaid programs because of the ruling.        

            The Arizona border control and the federalization of health insurance rulings acknowledged Court precedent in expanding federal power, but finally placed some major limits to those powers and acknowledged some states’ rights.  The Supreme Court did so without subjecting itself to a false charge of judicial activism, but by restraining itself to narrow rulings and remedies to which even the Left had difficulty in objecting to legally.  The Legislative and Executive Branches will henceforth have to exercise power more honestly and narrowly.  Although conservatives were disappointed that these rulings were not as great as hoped, they provide much support for federalism and liberty.

Conservative Commentary on the Mexican Presidential Election

            The result of the Mexican presidential election is the return of power of the center-left Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), after a hiatus of twelve years, with the victory of Enrique Pena Nieto.  The center-right, whose candidate came in third place, had ruled in the meantime, leading to increased prosperity, but without being able to end the drug gang wars near the border with the United States.  The main rival to Pena Nieto was a far-left candidate sympathetic to Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez. 

The PRI had ruled Mexico as a notoriously-corrupt dictatorship for seventy years.  Towards the end of its rule, while it clung to power by election fraud, it had begun to reform democratically and liberalize the economy, which it pledged during the campaign to continue.  The PRI will have to be more successful than its predecessor in defeating the vicious drug gangs. 

Pennsylvania Governor Corbett Signs His Second Balanced Budget without Raising Taxes

            Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett, a Republican, signed the Commonwealth’s budget for fiscal year 2012-2013, which the majority Republican General Assembly approved on time for the second year in a row – a rare feat in Pennsylvania. 

Like Corbett’s first year budget, this year’s balances the budget by cutting spending – limiting it to less than the inflation rate, plus the rate of population growth – without raising taxes.  Additional revenue from taxes allowed for less cuts in spending for education and other programs than originally proposed, and the inclusion of an emergency fund for distressed schools.  The Governor won the inclusion of a tax credit for businesses’ scholarships for school choice, as well as tax credits to lure an ethane plant.  The budget continues the phase-out of the onerous capital stock and franchise tax (a tax on assets, in addition to income).  It also includes the block-granting of welfare programs to counties in order for them to prioritize funds more effectively.

            Meanwhile, Corbett was also involved with a successful bipartisan state and federal effort to keep a major oil refinery in Philadelphia open and even to expand it.  The Corbett Administration continues to crack down on welfare fraud.  Since he signed his last budget, the Governor also signed legislation to ban the dangerous drugs known as “bath salts” and the voter identification law.  See Corbett Signs Voter ID Requirement into Law, from March of 2012:  http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2012/03/corbett-signs-voter-id-requirement-into.html.  He was also hailed for his handling of devastating floods in Pennsylvania.

Governor Corbett has held off on implementing the establishment of exchanges under the federalization of health insurance scheme approved by the liberal Democratic Congress and United States President Barak Obama; the Governor and Legislature are considering opting out of the costly Medicaid expansion, now that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the federal threat to withhold all of the Medicaid funds to a state that opts out, and not only the additional funds for the expansion, to be an unconstitutional violation of states’ rights.  The Keystone State under then-Attorney General Corbett was a party to the partly-successful state lawsuit led by Florida challenging the constitutionality of the health insurance federalization.

More on September 11 vs. 9/11; Happy Fourth of July

I hope all of my American readers had a happy Independence Day.

I have posted previously on the reasons why the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks on the United States should not be abbreviated “9/11.”  See September 11 vs. 9/11, from April of 2009, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2009/04/september-11-vs-911.html and Personal Reflections on the Tenth Anniversary of the September 11 Attacks, from September of 2011, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2011/09/personal-reflections-on-tenth.html.  The Independence Day holiday caused me to think of another reason why “9/11” is inappropriate: the holiday is usually nicknamed the “Fourth of July” or referred to simply as “July 4,” but never as “7/4.”

Also, I shall take the opportunity to expound on a point about Independence Day I first made on that holiday in a post in 2009.  The Fourth of July represents neither the birthday of the “United States,” nor of the “Country” or “Nation” but the anniversary of the declaration of independence from the United Kingdom of the 13 original American States.  Note: the Continental Congress had approved the resolution of independence on July 2; some States had already declared their independence.  One could say it is the “birthday” of American independence, but the federal union known as the “United States of America” did not exist until 1789, upon the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.   

Update on the European Monetary Union: Spain, Italy, Greece

Developments have been occurring rapidly in the ongoing crisis in the European Monetary Union since my last update.  First, Spain asked the European Union for and received a bailout of its banks.  However, the move undermined confidence in the ability of the Kingdom to repay its sovereign debt, which, along with the ongoing debt crisis in Greece, caused its borrowing costs to spike, as did the Italian Republic’s, despite the reforms that both the Spanish and Italians have successfully implemented and the progress they have made in reducing debt, despite their anemic growth.  In the latest example, the Italian parliament approved a controversial labor reform law, according to ANSA, that gave businesses more flexibility in firing workers, although the measure was diluted.  It was proposed by Prime Minister Mario Monti as critically necessary for Italian fiscal and economic health.

The two Southern European states demanded that the more fiscally responsible Germans and other Northern Europeans agree that the European Central Bank make available loans to ease Spanish and Italian borrowing costs.  They argued that because of their good behavior, they did not deserve to pay higher interest rates, unlike Greece, which is in worse fiscal condition and has not met its commitments.  Investors in sovereign debt have demanded high interest rates for bonds issued by the two states as a premium for higher perceived risk as the crisis continues.  The loans would not represent an embarrassing bailout – with the usual heavy oversight –  because Spain and Italy have complied fully with all the demands of the Europeans to improve their fiscal condition.  The Germans have acceded to the demands, as long as the Spanish and Italian governments continued to reform, as Spain and Italy, with their large economies, are recognized as the European Union’s firewalls against the contagion of debt from Greece and others. There will also be some consideration given to Ireland for a similar deal. 

Meanwhile, the second parliamentary elections in Greece averted the crisis, for now, of a Greek exit from the Euro.  Although the far-leftists who had done well in the first election had promised to keep Greece in the Eurozone, their demand to renegotiate the Greek bailout by the European Union was recognized as what would have been a breach of the terms of the deal that would have resulted in a Greek default on debt and subsequent exit from the Monetary Union.  The conservatives, who had backed the bailout and its necessary harsh conditions of austerity, won a plurality and were able to from a new government with the third-place socialists, the same two parties who were previously in a coalition government before the last election.  The victory was achieved despite the deep five-year recession and the record of overspending and budgetary dishonesty of both parties that had resulted in the crisis in the first place, as well as the unpopularity of the austerity measures. 

Nevertheless, by the time the new government was formed, it had become apparent that new terms of the bailout would have to be negotiated, such as an extension of the length of the term in order to reduce the Hellenic Republic’s borrowing costs, as well as other measures, such as some tax cuts and increases in pay in order to ease the pain of the recession and spur economic growth, which, in turn, would improve Greece’s fiscal health.  As a result, the withdrawal of funds from Greek banks has reversed and Greeks have begun to file tax returns more than before.  The European Union is open to modifying the deal, but only if Greece continues its austerity program to reduce its debt.   The elections and formation of a government have reassured the markets somewhat because of the aversion of a disorderly Greek exit from the single currency, but the future of Greece in the Eurozone remains unresolved not only until the bailout is renegotiated, but also whether or not the Greek government is successful in reducing its sovereign debt. 

The more liberal Europeans have argued for greater European integration to resolve the crisis, while the more conservative Europeans have resisted paying the debts of their profligate spending neighbors, as I have posted previously.  What is remarkable is how the left argues for more integration – “more Europe” – even as the grand project of European integration has been revealed as the reason the crisis has worsened and become continentalized.  To them, there was never enough European integration in the first place, as the problems were only caused by mistakes in establishing the union.  It reminds me of liberal Americans who argue that the trillions of dollars spent on poverty alleviation efforts that have been exposed as catastrophic failures were simply not enough and that far more is needed.  To the left, it is never enough.  It will be, however, when the money runs out. 

More Media Errors, 2012

I have decided to continue my series of posts on errors committed by the media.  See also my posts, Media Errors on Iraq and Afghanistan, from March of 2009, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2009/03/media-errors-on-afghanistan-and-iraq.html, Misleading Media Phrases, from May of 2009, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2009/05/misleading-media-phrases.html, and More Media Errors, from August of 2010, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2010/08/more-media-errors.html.   Most of the errors identified in this post have been initiated by the media, but some are often committed by the public and have been propagated by the generally ignorant media. 

“Robbery” vs. “Burglary”

Robbery is theft by violence or threat of violence, whereas burglary means breaking and entering into a property for the purpose of committing a crime therein.  Note: the crime a burglar intends to commit need not necessarily be theft.  The difference is between a violent crime and a non-violent crime, a felony and a misdemeanor.  Additionally, a building or vehicle cannot be “robbed,” as only people can be robbed.  The confusion the media causes by failing to make this major distinction between the two crimes causes many people to misreport the crime when contacting first responders, which triggers an incorrect response on the part of the first responders.

“Town Hall” vs. “Town Hall-style”

A town hall meeting is an official assembly of residents in order to govern their municipality.  Elected officials, other than municipal officers calling a meeting for such a purpose, who conduct informal meetings with citizens, are not thereby exercising such an administrative function.  Furthermore, candidates for public office cannot exercise any such power.  Such elected officials or candidates, therefore, when convening an assembly in which questions and comments are taken from the floor thereby conduct town-hall style meetings, not “town hall meetings.”

“Imploded” vs. “Collapsed”                                   

            An explosion is the violent ejection of matter from the point of its source, whereas an implosion is the drawing in of matter to that point (such as the filling of a vacuum).  The confusion about the proper usage of implosion arises from the metaphoric use of that word to describe a demolition as if by implosion, whereby the explosive charges are set in such a manner that the building collapses upon itself, instead of outwardly, in order to avoid collateral damage.  As a result, many people wrongly associate implosion with a collapse, especially one that is upon something’s own weight, and thus consider these two unrelated words as synonyms, or at least that implosion is an appropriate metaphor for such a collapse.

            Therefore, many people, especially in the media, describe various events as examples of something having “imploded.”  For example, they describe the collapse of the Communism and the breakup of the Soviet Union as an “implosion,” but the opposite was true.  Neither Communism nor the Soviet Union attracted anyone or anything towards them, but repelled people away from them as they were revealed to be unattractive.  They collapsed both by their own weight and a significant push from the efforts of anti-Communists.  Indeed, it would be expressed better, for example, that the Soviet Union “exploded,” as its constituent parts all broke away, but for the fact that they left willingly instead of being violently ejected.  Similarly, it was stated that former United States Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich’s campaign for the Republican nomination for President had “imploded” in 2011 when much of his senior staff resigned.  Again, this example is one of a collapse, not an implosion, as his campaign was not drawing anyone in – until later, when he was twice the frontrunner, which suggests that the resignations did not even truly represent a collapse, but a restructuring.  More recently, the Democratic Party has been described as having “imploded” for its losing effort to recall Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, a Republican.  Although the election did draw in funds and volunteers to both sides, it is more accurate to describe the losing party to have “collapsed” than to have imploded, especially considering that the successful Republicans drew in more ideas and funds.  None of these examples come close to representing implosions.

            The example of describing Greece as having “imploded” is a less inaccurate example.  Although the metaphor is intended to explain the Greek fiscal and economic collapse, a true monetary implosion is taking place, in a sense, as Greece draws in loans of hundreds of billions of euros from the European Monetary Union and its supporters in order to bail the Hellenic Republic out of its crisis.  Nevertheless, the media is using the incorrect metaphor of implosion in order to describe what it identifies as a collapse. 

            I daresay that much of the media is itself in the process of collapsing, not imploding, as people are drawn away from it instead of toward it.  The only thing the media is drawing towards itself is shame for its bias and ignorance.

William Cinfici: A Successful Conservative School Director in an Urban District, Part III

           Despite being in a minority of two Republicans out of nine members of the Reading School Board of Directors, I was nevertheless successful in achieving significant accomplishments as a result of my principles and the practices I described in Part II of this series of posts.

            I was able to keep my promise of reducing some wasteful spending in order to avoid a tax increase, without sacrificing the quality of education, despite addressing the challenges I mentioned in Part I of this series of overcrowded schools and crumbling buildings, as well as an insufficient (and illegally inadequate) level of support for special education and a lack of adequate safety and security.  In fact, there were even improvements to the education equality during my term, among other positive results.

            Money was saved in a number of ways because of my suggestions, ranging from several hundred to tens of millions of dollars.  Facilities and labor costs were held down, in particular, such as my questioning the need for building six new elementary schools and the offering of less expensive health insurance with increased coverage for employees.  Also, better financial controls were instituted and policies I spearheaded were approved to increase openness and transparency and reduce waste, fraud and abuse: the Board adopted the stronger anti-fraud policy, and the conflict of interest and whistleblower protection policies I championed, as well as a policy I initiated to limit trip expenditures to the Internal Revenue Service per diem guidelines and to improve the policy for facilities usage.  I also led the successful effort to adopt policies for open records, document retention and for requesting bids for goods and services and to improve the policy for employee use of school vehicles.  As a result, the District has not raised real estate taxes in a decade.  It is important to understand that these savings came despite the liberal tendency to spend money in order to do good or to prove one’s commitment to a particular priority, and to reject small savings as insignificant, coupled with the bureaucratic mindset that if the money in an agency’s budget is not spent during the fiscal year, a lesser amount will be appropriated for that agency the next year.

            The quality of education was improved by the establishment of more programs, higher standards and more staff training.  There was also more focus on results.  I identified errors in the proposed high school history textbook.  The school discipline codes and student handbooks were dramatically approved because of my input to the process.  My suggestion was adopted to provide for customer feedback from students in order to improve education.  I was also one of the leaders in drastically reducing the counterproductive lengthy line to process tardy students at the high school.   

But before the quality of education could be addressed, it was necessary to improve the safety and security for students.  The two of us conservative Republican School Directors were successful in protecting students from obscene art at our District-owned Reading Public Museum by getting the Museum Foundation to agree to keep obscene art out of children’s reach and to post warning signs, despite opposition from most of the rest of the Board of Directors.  I was successful in getting the District to install carbon monoxide detectors in the schools, despite resistance from administrators for this initiative.  I also supported my Republican colleague’s successful initiatives to increase cameras, security guards and police in the schools.  One of my ideas that was implemented was a student I.D. card swipe for building access at the high school.  A policy I spearheaded required that all volunteers in unsupervised direct contact with students obtain their state child abuse clearances.           

            Our support for a conservative Democratic colleague’s proposal to restore the names “Christmas Break” and “Easter Break” to the school calendar resulted in a favorable compromise: “Winter Break” and “Spring Break” were replaced with “Holiday Break,” which at least reflected the religious origin of the state and federal holidays.  I was also successful in my initiative to treat Columbus Day the same as other official holidays, either by inclusion of it in the curriculum or by a day off from school, which was accomplished by the scheduling of an in-service day on Columbus Day.  Both of these initiatives were especially appreciated by the public and staff.

            Although my efforts to increase openness and transparency and improve fiscal controls to allow greater accountability and eliminate waste, fraud and abuse were partly successful, as I mentioned in Part II of this series, the liberal Democratic majority of the Board resisted more serious efforts to eliminate corruption in the Reading School District.  Similarly, although the spending cuts I proposed helped avoid tax increases, the Board treated the increase in funding the District received from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania under Governor Ed Rendell, a Democrat, as an opportunity to go on a spending spree.  The Board was unprepared for the return of pre-Obama stimulus levels of funding under Governor Tom Corbett, a Republican, despite my warnings of an eventual change in governor or the legislature, or at least the end of their tolerance of wasteful spending, and my reminder of the temporariness of the Obama stimulus. 

Nevertheless, I can say that matters would have been worse without my efforts, which served as a model for reformers, conservative or liberal, to establish good government.  Indeed, several moderate Democratic candidates with whom I campaigned in 2011 for school director on a reform platform were victorious, although my loss left them short of a majority.  I continue to advise them and stand ready to serve again should I be called upon to fulfill my duty.   I have proven that a conservative elective official – even in a minority within an elected body – can be successful in an urban district.  I hope this series of posts inspires other conservatives in urban districts to seek elective office and reformers of any ideology in public service to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse.  

A Lesson from the Baltics for Southern Europe and Obama

An interesting article on CNBC’s website today contrasted the rest of the European Union with the relative prosperity of Estonia, despite the Estonians’ entry into the European Monetary Union in 2010.  The state is enjoying robust growth and low unemployment.  The other Baltic States, Latvia and Lithuania, which are not part of the Eurozone, are also prosperous.  The reason these three former Communist states are enjoying prosperity is their government policies of austerity, i.e. cutting government spending, without raising taxes, which has held down public debt in the Baltics to far lower levels than in Western Europe, and their people’s willingness to sacrifice in order to avoid worse problems.  The low debt which keeps interest rates low naturally, coupled with the pro-business environment, makes the Baltic States attractive to investors. 

In my update on the Monetary Union last month, I observed the rejection by many Greek and French voters, among others, of austerity policies.  United States President Barak Obama has also voiced opposition to austerity, just as he supports increased federal spending (“economic stimulus”) instead of reducing unnecessary spending.  The Baltic States are proving the Southern Europeans and Obama wrong.  Austerity does work.  Indeed, more public spending only exacerbates the problem.   

William Cinfici: A Successful Conservative School Director in an Urban District, Part II

            I am posting about my experience in public office as an example of how to be an effective officeholder, and especially how a conservative elected official can successfully advance the cause of good government even in a challenging environment, such as a liberal urban one.  I shall not reveal all of my methods of effectiveness, in case I am called upon to serve again, but I can note, for example, that I was inspired by Ronald Reagan’s belief that one can achieve much if one is not concerned with getting the credit.

            I asked many questions of the staff, contractors, vendors and solicitors, both in order to inform myself in order to cast an informed vote, but also to establish accountability by exercising my oversight responsibility.  I also learned that it was necessary to follow-up with administrators even after a resolution was passed or the Superintendent issued an order to ascertain whether or not the staff was following the instructions.  The Reading School District was shockingly lacking in openness and transparency, which became apparent almost immediately.  It was the reason the District is under federal and state criminal investigation for corruption.  Thus, asking questions was also a method of increasing transparency.  Other successful methods were requesting documents, making unannounced visits to District buildings and opposing violations of the Sunshine Law.  I also advocated for better openness for the public in several ways in order to increase accountability and was a model of it myself by informing both my colleagues of my actions and explaining matters to the public at meetings and keeping the citizens informed through the media.

            There was one natural advantage of being a Republican in a Democratic-dominated city: I received few requests for patronage from members of my party.  Most of the handful of such requests came from Democrats.  I only promised the courtesy of an interview if my name were used by the applicant as a reference, in accordance with District policy.  As a result, I was not burdened by patronage concerns and my interest in the taxpayers and students and not upon self-interest or partisan interest was thereby made all the more apparent.

            Indeed, my mostly liberal Democratic colleagues recognized and respected my commitment to the students (e.g. in terms of safety and education) and taxpayers, my knowledge of parliamentary procedure and concern for process, and my preparation.  Despite strong ideological differences, they entrusted me to draft all of the District’s new policies, for example.  My colleagues came to respect me, at least to some degree, because I spoke my conscience in standing up for taxpayers, students and staff.  I courageously expressed conservative views, even if I believed that my colleagues would sharply disagree.  Not surprisingly, sometimes they did, even when an idea seemed non-ideological.  However, I was often relieved that they agreed with some of my common-sense ideas, which encouraged me to feel free to express my principles, regardless of what they thought.  Although we had very different ideas, there was much common ground, beyond the many non-controversial issues.  When my colleagues and I did argue publicly, it was usually conducted in a respectful manner.  I criticized the Superintendent publicly, but I seldom personally criticized my colleagues in public and only when necessary to defend myself.  I avoided ad hominem arguments, even when the liberals did not.  I did not carry grudges against my colleagues in order to work with them on whatever the next issue was. 

I found it effective, if necessary, to force a debate on a matter and a vote, whether by a resolution or amendment.  I rejected the anti-democratic argument advanced by one liberal colleague that a new board of directors cannot overturn something approved by a prior board.  I was not afraid to cast a vote knowing that I would lose, even if I were the lone vote in opposition.  I usually explained my vote briefly to the public, although there were times when I found it prudent to be silent.  Sometimes when I did explain my vote clearly and with conviction, enough of my colleagues would gradually be persuaded to agree with me that when the issue arose again, the outcome was changed in favor of my position. 

            I would like to conclude by offering general advice to any other school director, some of which could also be helpful for municipal or county elected officials.  Consider the students and their parents as customers, while never losing focus on the taxpayers.  Participate in voluntary board duties, such as negotiations or hearings, in order to lighten the burden on colleagues.  Be prepared for meetings by reading the materials provided by the administration ahead of time and by knowing parliamentary procedure, board policy and relevant law.  Ask questions in order to clarify something the administration presented or to suggest alternative methods, as well as to exercise good oversight, at least by letting the administration know that someone on the board is reading the materials.  Insist upon transparency and the rights of the public to know how their tax dollars are being spent.  Defend the rights of elected officials, such as their access to public information.  Keep the public informed by explaining issues at public meetings, by nurturing positive relationships with members of the press and, if necessary, through new media.  Find out how other school boards have addressed similar issues as models.  Force a debate and a vote on important matters, even if victory is uncertain.  Have the courage to speak your mind by expressing your ideas respectfully, clearly and as succinctly as possible and to vote your conscience, but exercise good judgment in picking your battles.  When a majority agrees with your ideas, encourage the board or administration to develop a plan to implement them.  Follow up with administrators after a resolution is passed or order is given to find out whether it is being implemented. 

William Cinfici: A Successful Conservative School Director in an Urban District, Part I

           In this three-part series of posts, I shall describe my experience as a conservative school director in a liberal urban political environment, as promised.  The first part will be an introduction.  Part II will focus on my example of methods and advice for other school directors or other officeholders.  In the final part, I shall discuss the specific successful results of my service.

            I was elected a School Director of the Reading School District in 2005, winning the highest number of votes for the four seats open that year, thereby becoming only the third known Republican ever to serve on the Reading School Board of Directors in a city where Republicans are outnumbered 5:1 that was once a bastion of the Socialist Party.  I won not by campaigning as a moderate, but because of my conservative platform of fiscal responsibility, having promised to be the taxpayers’ advocate – a promise I was able to keep by cutting wasteful spending without raising taxes or sacrificing the quality of education.

            While Republicans re-nominated me without opposition, a changing electorate prevented me from again winning the Democratic nomination in 2009 and 2011, despite seldom receiving any public criticism and hearing only praise from the public.  As a result, I did not win those general elections, although I was able to both times to help a number of my like-minded Democrats to win and I have continued to advise current School Directors.  I should note that I did not begin the campaign season with the intent to seek public office in any of those three elections, but duty called when prominent members of both parties urged me to run for school board. 

            The Reading School District has about 18,000 students and a budget of about $230 million.  The District has the highest poverty rate in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, a high number of special needs children and a high number of students who do not speak English as their native language.  There are nine seats on the School Board.  Directors serve without compensation.

            In short, the District seemed an unlikely place for a conservative to be elected, let alone successful.  But a number of natural circumstances made it possible, such as the presence on the board of colleagues who were either relatively conservative Democrats or were liberal but held moderate views on some issues.  Another key factor was the District’s considerable problems, such as overcrowding, antiquated buildings that were in disrepair, a lack of adequate safety and security, etc. which made it open to effective solutions.  Its lack of a tax base meant that the usual liberal method of raising taxes was not an option, which created an opening for conservative fiscal ideas.  Thus, liberal urban areas do create potential opportunities for conservative leadership, not only for mayors, but even for school directors.

Memorial Day: A Day of Mourning and Remembrance for American War Dead

Memorial Day is a United States federal holiday intended to honor all American servicemen who died in hostile action in wartime.  It was first commemorated after the Civil War (the War Between the States).

In my post from May of 2009, Memorial Day Is Not Meant to be Happy, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2009/05/memorial-day-not-meant-to-be-happy.html, I explained the error of those who observe the holiday as if it were a celebration.  Yet there is another error in recognition of the significance of this holiday that also dilutes its significance by broadening it far beyond its intended purpose: that of honoring people other than those whom the holiday is intended to honor. 

Memorial Day is not a day of mourning and remembrance for all who died.  It is neither a day to honor veterans who survived war, nor to commemorate those veterans who died in peacetime service or service not in the theater of war.  Instead, Memorial Day is intended to mourn and remember those servicemen who died in war.  It is them – and only them – whom we hallow on this holiday.

Among those to be honored should include those servicemen who died at Little Rock and Ft. Hood at the hands of jihadists as part of the War on Terrorism, as I noted in my post from February of this year, American Casualties of Jihad in the U.S. Homeland Should be Awarded Purple Hearts,  http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2012/02/american-casualties-of-jihad-in-us.html.

May all U.S. servicemen who sacrificed their lives in war for freedom rest in peace and may we honor their memory by bequeathing the blessings of liberty they bequeathed to us to our posterity. 

Foreign Digest: Liberia, Iran, The European Monetary Union

Liberia

            Former Liberian dictator Charles Taylor was convicted in an international court for war crimes.  Not only did he oppress the people of Liberia, he aided the notoriously brutal rebels of Sierra Leone by trading arms for “blood” diamonds.  Taylor’s conviction in international court was the first for a head of state since the Nazi successor to Adolph Hitler was convicted in 1946.

Iran

            The results of the runoff of the Iranian elections confirm the point I made in my previous post on this subject – that the hardliners won the pseudo-democratic elections, but they control Iran regardless of the outcome of such elections.  The opposition was not permitted to participate fully in the election.  The only issue, therefore, was the independence of the president from the theocratic mullahs.  The election proved that he has none.  Meanwhile, Iran continues its nuclear program and its aid to Syria as its only Arab ally continues to oppress its people while the world dithers.

The European Monetary Union

            The presidential elections in France bucked the global trend toward the right in recent years.   The Socialist presidential candidate defeated the conservative incumbent, Nikolas Sarkozy, returning the Socialists to power for only the second time and the first time since the 1990s.  The 2012 French elections reflect the fickle nature of voters.  In systems where there is universal adult suffrage, voters tend to cast ballots based primarily on the economy, as well as personal perceptions about the candidates, unless there are major scandals, usually regardless of national security concerns or moral issues.  Thus, they elect one party to lead government and then throw out that party in the next election or two and then, in turn, throw that party out after a similarly brief while and return its predecessor to power, giving credit for prosperity to whichever party is in power and blame for recession to whichever party is in power, usually without factoring in the previous government’s policies or external factors beyond its control.  France had been an exception to the trend of changes in governments from one party to the other in the West in the first elections after September 11, as Sarkozy succeeded an unpopular government from the same party.  As President, he had presided over a warmer period of Franco-American relations, cooperated in the War on Terrorism, had led the effort to protect the Libyan people from Muammar Qaddafi and played a major role in attempting to resolve the European debt crisis.  Sarkozy had implemented some austerity measures to reduce French debt, as he had promised during his campaign, but was not as successful in winning as many reforms as he had hoped.  There will be parliamentary elections in June.

            The major issue in the French elections was austerity.  Although the differences between the two candidates were narrow, the Socialist promised more government spending.  Spending cuts are unpopular among the dependent class of voters who are allowed to elect leaders to take from those who have earned the money and distribute it to the dependent class, which is a legal form of stealing.  The election results in France were mirrored in the Greek parliamentary elections, which were part of a larger trend across Europe against government policies in regard to the European fiscal and economic crisis.  

          In Greece, the ruling center-left-right national unity coalition lost ground to the far-left.  Although the conservatives remain the largest party in parliament, no party won a majority of seats and no party could form a coalition, setting the stage for another parliamentary poll in June.  The far-left party won more votes than the Socialists, who were members of the pro-austerity governing coalition.  The vote for the far-left represented a popular rejection of austerity, as in France.  As I have posted before, the Greeks are unwilling to pay the price for their past overspending while the wealthier Northern Europeans, especially the Germans, are unwilling to continue to bail out the Greeks if they do not reduce their public debt.  The Greeks who voted against austerity are betting that the European Union is bluffing when it insists that Hellenic Republic must continue to reduce its massive public debt in order to receive additional bailout funds or be forced to abandon the euro and return to the drachma.  A Greek debt default and subsequent unprecedented exit from the eurozone would lead to uncertain economic shock to the European Union, the spread of fiscal contagion in the form of higher borrowing costs to the most vulnerable members of the eurozone, whose borrowing costs would rise even further, and a significant devaluation of the drachma, which would plunge Greece even deeper into a fiscal and economic abyss.  Greeks have already been withdrawing euros from banks in case of a return to the drachma, at the risk of a self-fulfilling prophecy that could further weaken Greek banks.  The uncertainty about the situation is discouraging economic activity and increasing interest rates in European states most vulnerable to contagion, thereby worsening the situation for the entire European Union.  Both the Greeks and the Europeans want Greece to remain in the eurozone, but contingency plans are being considered for a Greek exit, as the Northern Europeans are more confident that Spain and Italy can survive the shock.  The Greeks must continue to reduce spending or face the consequences while the Europeans must continue to assist Greece, should it want the euro to endure and to avoid an uncertain fate for Europe.

1,000th Visit of a Post to My Blog

          A post to my blog, The Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization, from April of 2009, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2009/04/my-recent-posts-about-lepanto-and-fr.html, has become the first to be visited for the 1,000th time, as tracked by StatCounter.  I count hits (pageviews) at least one hour from the last one as visits and do not count my own.  This figure does not include those who viewed my blog homepage or the archive for that month, but only those who landed on posts.  The Follow-Up on the Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2009/05/follow-up-on-fall-of-islamic.html, from May of 2009, has been visited 135 times, the seventh most among all 414 posts since November of 2008.

          StatCounter has been tracking hits to my blog since April of 2009.  There have been 4,500 visits to my blog since then.  Thank you for visiting!

Conservative Analysis of the 2012 Pennsylvania Primary Election

          The focus on the 2012 Pennsylvania Primary had been on the Republican presidential race, but the significance of even the beauty contest had decreased significantly within the last few days of the campaign with the suspension of the campaign of former United States Senator Rick Santorum.  Still on the ballot, the Pennsylvania favorite son received a respectable 18% of the vote, while native Pennsylvanian Newt Gingrich won 10.5% of the vote in the first competitive Republican presidential primary in the Keystone State in decades.  The combined 29% represented a still-significant conservative protest vote against the moderate

front-runner whose campaign tried to portray his chief rival as less than conservative, despite Santorum’s conservative voting record over sixteen years in Congress.

            As I noted in my last post, however, the significance of the race was mostly for Delegates to the Republican National Convention.  Many conservatives were among the victors.

            The major significance of the Pennsylvania primary was on the Democratic side for U.S. Representative.  The Democratic primary results in Pennsylvania were characterized by a noticeable shift leftward among Democratic voters, as two incumbent U.S. Representatives lost in newly-drawn districts to more liberal opponents, including Rep. Tim Holden, who was the dean of the state congressional delegation.  The smaller Democratic state congressional delegation would thus continue to become more liberal, regardless of whether the primary winners are victorious in the general election.

            The results, which were heavily influenced by redistricting, nonetheless sent a shockwave across America, as they may signal the demise of “conservative Democrats,” especially the Blue Dog Democrats, like Holden, a group that billed itself as fiscally moderate.  Several pro-life members of that group had lost in 2010 to Republican challengers because of their support for President Barak Obama’s federalization of health insurance, which would allow the federal funding of abortion.  The primary in the Keystone State suggests that liberal Democratic voters have become even less tolerant of occasional conservative votes, even from representatives with mostly liberal voting records who had represented conservative districts.  See my post from October of 2010, Some House Democratic Candidates are Trying to Run Away from Obama and the Liberal Democratic Congressional Leadership, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2010/10/some-house-democratic-candidates-are.html. The opposition from both left and right to this dwindling group that claims to be in the middle is squeezing it into an ever-smaller size, leaving it even less influential than it ever was.  It was never successful in eliminating wasteful spending even at its full strength.  The Pennsylvania primary has cast even more doubt on its effectiveness.

            There has been some debate about the significance in the Pennsylvania primary of the issue of abortion and the effectiveness of a considerable amount of money spent by Planned Parenthood, the leading abortion provider in the U.S.  Although the results were somewhat favorable to Planned Parenthood in state legislative Democratic primaries, it came up short in a simultaneously-held special election for state representative, despite spending $100,000. 

The Democrats did, however, net a gain of one in the three special elections for the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.  They will remain several seats short of a majority in the chamber.

            The Republicans nominated a candidate for U.S. Senate, Tim Smith, a farmer and coal mine owner, who has been tying the incumbent Democratic Senator to the fiscally irresponsible policies of Obama that Senator has supported which have increased the federal debt to $15 trillion.  The Obama Administration’s hostility to the coal industry in particular, and opposition to the Keystone natural gas pipeline and to more drilling for oil will undoubtedly also be a major issue in the general election campaign.

            The 2012 Pennsylvania primary election confirms my longstanding opinion that Pennsylvania is not a “moderate” state, as many pundits have asserted over the years, but a closely, sharply ideologically divided one, despite the massive Democratic voter registration advantage.  For example, pro-life liberal Democrats, whose ranks are dwindling, are liberal, not “moderate.”  Conservatives must build on the edge gained in 2010 and elect more of their own to public office in the Keystone State.

Pennsylvania Primary Election Day 2012: Elect Conservative Delegates

     With most political commentators dismissing the Republican presidential nomination as over, voters might miss the significance of today’s Republican primary in Pennsylvania, as well as in several other states simultaneously conducting primaries.  The significance is not the presidential primary in the Keystone State, which is a beauty contest, but the election of delegates to the Republican National Convention.

     Candidates for Delegate and Alternate Delegate to the GOP Convention run uncommitted and are not obligated to vote for the candidate who wins the presidential primary.  Three Delegates and Alternates are elected from each of the 18 congressional districts.  Not all delegates are chosen by this process, as several  “Superdelegates” serve by right or appointment, but most are elected today.  Therefore, conservatives have the opportunity to elect fellow conservatives to choose the Republican presidential and vice presidential nominees (the nominee for vice president is elected, not appointed by the presumptive presidential nominee) and party platform.  It is imperative that we conservatives send a strong message to the party and its potential presidential and vice presidential nominees of commitment to our principles.

     In my district, the 16th, for example, which is new to me because of reapportionment and redistricting, former United States Representative Robert Walker, a staunch conservative, is a candidate for Delegate.  He is also the U.S. campaign chairman of his former colleague and fellow conservative, Newt Gingrich, a native Pennsylvanian.

     Additionally, there are significant primaries for U.S. Senate and Representative and state legislators.  Many conservative candidates are on the ballot in these races.

     Today is also a dry-run for the new voter identification requirement. See my post from last month, Corbett Signs the Voter Identification Bill into Law: http://www.williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2012/03/corbett-signs-voter-id-requirement-into.html. 

     If you have not already voted in Pennsylvania or in another state holding a primary election today, vote for  candidates who can stand for conservative principles.

Chester Arthur, the Most Underrated U.S. President

     The latest United States Presidential Dollar Coin released by the United States Mint honors Chester Alan Arthur, the 21st President of the United States from 1881-1885.

     The coin should provide an opportunity to educate the public about President Arthur’s accomplishments. Alas, Arthur’s coin is the first that will not be released into general circulation, for the Obama Administration has suspended the Presidential Dollar series. See my post from December of 2011, The Obama Administration is Penny-Wise and Pound Foolish about Dollar Coins http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2011/12/obama-administration-is-pennywise-and.html. Presidential Dollars will henceforth only be minted specially for collectors. I hope this article, therefore, helps to inform the American people about this underrated President, who is often, along with Millard Fillmore, ignorantly made the butt of jokes about mediocre presidents.

     Arthur, of New York, was elected Vice President on the Republican ticket in 1880. He had been placed there as the running mate of General James Garfield of Ohio as a compromise between the reform wing of the GOP, represented by Garfield, and the patronage wing, led by Senator Roscoe Conkling of New York. Arthur had been a political protégé of Conkling, who had run the patronage-rich New York Customs House. President Rutherford Hayes, a fellow Republican, had fired Arthur in a modest step toward civil service reform of the “spoils system.” Thus, when President Garfield was murdered in 1881 by an assassin who was denied a patronage job and who declared “Arthur is President!” after firing the fatal bullet, Arthur acceded to the presidency lacking public confidence in his integrity.

     It must have been shocking to all Americans, therefore, when President Arthur decided to break with his faction and end the spoils system by signing the Pendleton Civil Service Act into law. This landmark legislation established a federal hiring system for most jobs based upon qualifications, not political party. It did much to reduce self-interest and corruption in federal politics and to improve the competence of appointed public officials. Arthur’s remarkable conversion reflected the seriousness with which he took his office after the tragic death of his predecessor whose death was attributable to the spoils system.

     President Arthur’s greatest accomplishment would have been sufficient to count him among the better presidents, but he also is credited with several other significant achievements. He signed the first federal immigration act into law; this liberal legislation barred only undesirables, except for Chinese immigrants, as Congress went against President Arthur’s wishes to allow them to immigrate. President Arthur lowered the tariff, which was the main tax of the time; Congress prevented him from lowering it more. Meanwhile, he held federal spending down. President Arthur respected federalism, vetoing, for example, the River and Harbors Act because he did not regard the proposed projects as sufficiently federal in nature. He increased education aid to American Indians, although Congress did not go along with his proposal to allow individual Indians to own land, and he supported civil rights by backing Southern independents for federal employment over Democrats. President Arthur is also the “Father of the Modern American Navy,” having replaced the fleet of wooden ships with steel ships. 

     Arthur knew he had a fatal kidney disease. He formally entered the Republican presidential nomination race in order not to alert the public to the seriousness of his condition, but did not actively campaign. President Arthur’s short term and his failure to be elected or nominated may have adversely affected his reputation among the American public today, even though he left office well respected, his clashes with Congress notwithstanding. Although historians judge his presidency well, the public has forgotten the good deeds of the 21st Chief Executive, who has become one of the most obscure Presidents, thus leaving Arthur the most underrated of all of them. 

     Chester Alan Arthur deserves the gratitude and respect of all Americans commensurate with his accomplishments as President of the United States. It is unfortunate that the educational benefit of the Dollar Coin engraved with his portrait will likely be diminished by its lack of general circulation. I ask that you, my dear readers, spread this essay to as many of your fellow Americans as possible, not only to right a historical wrong, but to ensure that President Arthur’s heroic deeds may continue to inspire courage today, especially among elected officials.

Foreign Digest: Mali, Burma, Sudan, Cuba

The Coup in Mali

     There has been a longtime separatist Tuareg rebellion in the north of Mali. The returning Tuaregs, who were mercenaries for Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi, were boosted recently by their acquisition of Libyan weapons after the fall of the Qaddafi dictatorship. Malians had grown increasingly concerned about the progress of the rebellion and the apparent lack of sufficient effort on the part of the representative government to crush it. Finally, the Malian military recently staged a coup d’etat. The president went into hiding.

     The Tuaregs are loosely allied with a jihadist affiliate of al-Qaeda that wishes to impose Sharia on the unwilling populace. Thus, the Malian coup has major international significance, especially in regard to the War on Terrorism, as al-Qaeda could potentially establish a base of operations in the Sahara Desert. Alas, the effect of the coup was the opposite as intended, as the chaos provided the opportunity for the Tuaregs and their allies to seize all of the north, including Timbuktu, a World Heritage Site. The rebels declared the vast area they call “Azawad” independent.

     The successful coup was internationally condemned and aid cut off. A visitor of this blog returned to Bamako, the Malian capital, shortly after the coup; the source reported the city was calm and was mostly returning to normal. However, pressure built on the leaders of the coup to restore representative government, as they had promised. The popularly-elected President resigned in order to allow the constitutional transition to power to the leader of parliament, who will take power later this week. 

     I call for a peaceful restoration of representative civilian government. I hope the new government of Mali will defeat the jihadists and deny them their safe harbor in the Sahara. I call for the international community to support the new Malian government in its efforts.

Burmese Parliamentary Elections 

     The parliamentary elections in Burma were characterized by the participation of opposition candidates, particularly Aung San Suu Kyi, the human rights activist and chief opponent of the authoritarian military junta that has ruled Burma for decades. However, Burma remains a dictatorship and the elections, in which only a relatively small number of seats were contested, thereby guaranteeing the junta would remain in power, were not free and fair. Nevertheless, Suu Kyi was among the victors and she will take her seat in parliament as the leader of the opposition. 

     The tolerance of opposition candidates is part of a softening of the rule, including the release of many political prisoners. The Burmese government has been making a number of such moves in order to soften international sanctions for its repression. It has also distanced itself somewhat from its ally, China. 

      The election of Suu Kyi legitimatizes her while delegitimatizing the regime that had kept her under house arrest for much of the last two decades. A concern is that her membership in parliament will legitimatize the regime as representative and free, which would thereby make opposition to it more difficult. Nevertheless, Suu Kyi will now have a voice, even as the leader of the loyal opposition, to cry out publicly for liberty in the very hall of Burmese power.

Fighting in Sudan Intensifies 

     The fighting in Sudan in the Blue Nile States and South Kordofan between rebels and the Sudanese government has intensified recently. There is some international concern that the fighting will spread to South Sudan, which won independence from Sudan last year after a long, bloody war, followed by a mediated peace settlement and plebiscite. Sudan and South Sudan have territorial disputes and the Islamist government of Sudan accuses South Sudan of supporting the rebels in the north. However, South Sudan is not likely involved with conflict, which long predates the South’s independence.

     The international community must protect South Sudan’s independence and territorial integrity, while calling for human rights in Sudan and a peaceful settlement of the rebellion in the Blue Nile States and South Kordofan, as well as in Darfur.

Miami Marlins Suspend their Manager for Pro-Castro Remarks

     I commend the Miami Marlins major league baseball club for suspending its manager for remarks that appeared positive toward the Communist dictator, Fidel Castro – the first time a major league employee was punished for other than racial remarks. The manager apologized and disavowed his statements. Miami is the home to the largest concentration of Cuban-Americans. The club did not think it appropriate to minimize the suffering caused by the five decades of brutal repression of the Castro regime.

     Cuba libre!