Report on Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett’s Campaign Appearance in Berks County

           I attended a campaign appearance by Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett in Berks County last week.

            The warm-up speakers praised Corbett for his fiscal discipline, citing unemployment compensation reform as one example that has saved millions of dollars, and for his aid to cities like Reading, while pointing out the lies from his liberal opponents that he cut education spending.

            Corbett boasted that he had kept his promise to balance the budget through fiscal discipline without raising taxes, and, in fact, had cut taxes.  He also explained that there were no education cuts and that state funding of education is at its highest level ever.  I have posted several times attesting that, as a School Director in Pennsylvania at the time, the extra Obama stimulus funds the previous Governor channeled to education were expected only to be temporary.  Therefore, the return to prior funding levels after the end of the stimulus was not a spending “cut.”  Despite Corbett’s liberal opponents’ claims, contributions to the teachers’ pension fund have counted since the 1970s towards education spending. 

Corbett also noted that there have been hundreds of millions of additional dollars in state tax revenue raised because of the natural gas industry, which has contributed to the drastic reduction in the state’s unemployment rate and the creation of well-paying jobs, directly and indirectly, among the more than 180,000 that have been created in less than four years since he took office.  The revenue comes from both state corporate income taxes and the principled impact fee he signed into law.    

            His liberal Democratic opponent in the gubernatorial election has promised that he would raise taxes on the middle class through a proposed constitutional amendment to levy a progressive income tax, Corbett noted.  The Governor observed that his opponent would go back to the tax and spend policies of his liberal Democratic predecessor.  The liberal Democrat would also impose an extraction tax on top of the state corporate taxes the natural gas companies pay, which are the highest in the Union, which could be a disincentive to the industry to continue to operate in the Keystone State, which has become the leader in natural gas production. 

           I have posted previously about Corbett’s numerous other accomplishments, such as welfare reform, tort reform, the Castle Doctrine, the elimination of small family-owned businesses from estate taxes, etc.

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett Champions Federalism

           From Medicaid expansion to Common Core, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett, a Republican, has been resisting coercion from the Obama Administration and defending the constitutional principal of federalism, as envisioned by the Framers. 

            Corbett had participated in the successful lawsuit that declared part of the federalization of health insurance (“Obamacare”) unconstitutional because it coerced states into expanding Medicaid.  The decision allowed States to opt out of the expansion of the program.  Medicaid is a costly welfare program that provides free healthcare for the poor that is riddled with problems, which cause many doctors to decline to participate in it.  Although Obamacare lured States with upfront federal money to expand the program, the federal government would not have covered all of the costs of Medicaid expansion in later years, which would cost States billions of dollars, while expanding welfare and increasing dependency. 

            Corbett proposed an alternative, state-created market-based plan for Pennsylvania, which would allow participants to purchase subsidized private insurance.  The benefits will be means-tested, as co-payments increase with income levels, while there will be voluntary incentives to work and choose healthy lifestyles.  The Corbett plan would save the Commonwealth billions of dollars over a period of a few years.  The federal government recently approved Corbett’s plan.

Common Core is the name of educational standards developed by the liberal Gates Foundation, promoted by the National Governors Association.  As I have been posting, many concerns about the quality of the standards and the content of the curriculum and materials based upon it have been raised.  Common Core’s proponents claim the standards would make American students competitive with those of foreign industrialized countries, but the standards are inadequate and even would represent a regression in certain respects.  The standards are promoted as designed to prepare students for college, but they reflect the big business interests of its developers by preparing students only for community college, not competitive four-year colleges, as the standards de-emphasize literature, calculus, critical thinking and liberal arts in favor of bland analysis of informational texts and unproven teaching methods for mathematics, for example.  There are also concerns about liberal bias in the educational materials that are based upon Common Core standards.  Despite the claims of its proponents that Common Core is a set of standards, not a curriculum, all high-stakes tests, including college entrance tests, textbooks and curricula would be based upon them, even for non-public school students. 

The Obama Administration attempted to impose Common Core federally as an educational standard across the Union by bribing the States into accepting Common Core standards – before they were written – as a precondition for receiving economic stimulus money in 2009.  Remember, federal tax dollars are levied on the citizens of the States, so any federal funding given to the States is simply an indirect return of the people’s own money.  A few States declined to accept the coercion, and, as the standards have been developed, more and more States have changed their minds and opted out of Common Core, recognizing it as a federally-imposed curriculum that violates federalism and local control of education, in addition to the concerns about the quality of the standards and other related issues.

            As with Medicaid expansion, Corbett approved a Pennsylvania version of Common Core that addressed some of the public’s and legislature’s concerns about high-stakes testing, mandated reading lists, and violations of student privacy for business interests, but as the federal coercion of a federal curriculum has become more clear, he has recently asked the state Board of Education to repeal Common Core altogether and replace it with state-based adequate standards that would truly make Pennsylvania’s students more competitive than they currently are. 

           Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett’s leadership is allowing the Commonwealth to adopt policies that best suit the needs of its citizens, while affirming state sovereignty and serving as a model for other States.

Thoughts on Vladimir Putin’s Communist Russian Authoritarianism and Soviet Imperialism

Russian Federation dictator Vladimir Putin is not a nationalist, or a national socialist (fascist).  He is a Soviet imperialist who, like other Communists, uses nationalism as a tool to advance his goal of spreading Marxist-Leninism by whatever means necessary.  Putin even appears to the Russian people like the Czars as the defender of the Russian Orthodox Church or of morals for the same reason.  The former Soviet intelligence officer will not be satisfied with uniting the Russian-speaking areas of the former Soviet Empire with the Russian Federation.  As Nazi German dictator Adolph Hitler was not satisfied with uniting German-speaking lands, despite his obsession with racial purity, because he believed his race should rule those whom he regarded as inferior peoples, Putin seeks to conquer, regardless of nationality, under a restored Marxist Soviet Empire, at least.  It is noteworthy that the Russian Federation is the rump of the Soviet Empire, but even the Russian Federation is the remnant of a polyglot empire intent on continuing to rule both Russians and non-Russians.  Unlike national socialists (fascists and Nazis), who emphasize race and racial superiority as the foundation of totalitarian rule, international socialists (Communists) emphasize economic class.  Regardless of the distinctions, both ideologies provide opportunities for bullies and megalomaniacs to conquer.

A pattern has emerged with Putin.  Any legitimate question of Chechen aspirations for independence was suppressed by the authoritarian leader’s dismissal of pro-independence Chechens as criminals and terrorists and his subsequent harsh quashing of their movement, which, I note, caused Islamist terrorists to co-op it.  Georgia’s objections to Russian Federation machinations in its breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia were dismissed by Putin, and the former Soviet Republic’s resistance to Russia was even labeled by him an unprovoked provocation and used as a justification for Russia to invade its neighbor with the excuse to protect minorities.  Currently, the Russian Communist dictatorship minimizes the popular uprising by the Ukrainian people against a corrupt, authoritarian pro-Russian government by labeling it a Western-backed coup d’etat and discredits the Ukrainian nationalist government and its supporters as fascists.  Meanwhile, even within Russia, dissidents or media critics are routinely branded as criminals and charged with violating laws or worse. In short, Putin would have everyone believe that there never is any legitimacy to the slightest criticism of him because all of his many critics are totally evil, while all his actions are justifiable, as he is totally good.  Russians and their sympathizers are thus conditioned by this Soviet-style propaganda pattern to believe the worst about any perceived opponent or threat to Russia’s Soviet imperialism or authoritative rule, while excusing the worst behaviors of Putin’s dictatorship. 

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is not a threat to the Russian Federation.  It is a defensive organization.  That the Communist Russian dictatorship supposedly perceives NATO or its expansion as a threat only reveals Russia’s offensive intent, specifically to reconstitute the Soviet Empire.  

During Putin’s dictatorship, the Russian Federation should not in the first place have been admitted to the Group of Seven industrial powers or treated like an ally, partner or even a state that respects the liberty of its own people, as it had never sufficiently proven itself worthy.  Although there can be cooperation in certain areas, such as against terrorism, Russia did not deserve the full respect it was given.  After it lost Western respect when it invaded Georgia, Putin’s dictatorship should not have been legitimized by being restored to full diplomatic dignity, as if the modest chastisements it endured were unwarranted, and as if to reward it for its aggression.    

Declaring War vs. Making War on the Islamic State

A declaration of war on the “Islamic State” would be counterproductive to the goal of defeating it.  It would be better legally and diplomatically to make war on the “Islamic State” without declaring war on it.

A declaration of war is an official statement that a state of war exists between one state and another.   The “Islamic State” is not a de jure government or a state, but a jihadist (violent holy war) organization that has de facto control over parts of two states, Syria and Iraq.  Therefore, a state cannot legally declare war on it.  If a state did nevertheless declare war on the Islamist organization, such a declaration of war against the “Islamic State” would legitimatize it as a state, which is what it desires, and entitle it to all the privileges of sovereignty.  Furthermore, a declaration of war would obligate the state that declares war on the Islamist terrorist organization to negotiate a peace treaty with it, which would necessarily require negotiation with terrorists. 

Instead, war should be made on the “Islamic State” without any declaration and the jihadists should be treated like any other terrorists, that is to say, not as soldiers, but as war criminals who forfeit any legal protections.

In the particular case of the United States, the President has the constitutional authority as the Commander in Chief to make war.  Note: the office was created around General George Washington.  As mentioned above, Congress’ power to “declare” war means the power to make a declaration.  In other words, the power is that of making an official statement that has certain legal and diplomatic significance, but is a relatively minor power compared to the power to make war, a distinction specifically made by the Framers of the Constitution, who were particularly interested in providing the Commander in Chief the power to respond to an imminent threat.  Indeed, just as war can be made without a declaration, a declaration of war can be made without any making of war – a situation that occurred, for example, during the Roman Republic.  Therefore, there is no such thing constitutionally as congressional “authorization” of war.  Congress’ war powers are limited mostly to its power to authorize expenditures.  Only in this limited sense, does Congress indirectly or tacitly “authorize” war, and only if additional expenditures are necessary beyond what it has already budgeted.  

Congress may indicate its approval of war, as it often has, such as it did shortly after the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks, in which it gave its assent to President George W. Bush’s announced plan to make war on global terrorist networks that threatened the U.S., of which the “Islamic State,” an offshoot of al-Qaeda, the terrorist organization which had committed the September 11 Attacks, certainly qualifies.  The reason the U.S. did not declare war on Afghanistan’s de facto government led by the Taliban that was providing safe haven to al-Qaeda, is because the U.S. recognized the Northern Alliance, which controlled northeastern Afghanistan, as the de jure government of that state.  Thus, a declaration of war against Afghanistan would necessarily have been a declaration on the Northern Alliance, the American ally.  The President’s constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, coupled with congressional assent for the War on Terrorism, provide more than sufficient legal authority to make war on the “Islamic State.”

Syria Has Circumvented Its Deal to Give up Its Chemical Weapons

Syria’s Assad dictatorship circumvented its deal to turn over for destruction its acknowledged stockpile of chemical weapons and their chemical precursors, as well as its promise not to use chemical weapons.  Syrian Baathist regime forces reportedly dropped chlorine on rebel-held towns earlier this year, according to a global chemical weapons watchdog. 

The report validates allegations by a human rights organization I had posted about in May in my post, Syrian Civil War Update: The Assad Regime Used Chemical Weapons Again:   http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2014/05/syrian-civil-war-update-assad-regime.html.  Chlorine, a deadly poison gas, is not classed under international standards as a weapon of mass destruction.  The lethal weapon was first used by the Germans in the First World War.

Syria made a deal to turn over its chemical weapons and chemical precursor stockpiles in order to avoid American-led airstrikes, in a deal brokered by its ally, Russia.  The Assad regime thus avoided punishment for having used its chemical weapons against civilian targets.  It is not surprising that Syria made the deal, now that it is apparent the dictatorial regime could circumvent the deal by using chlorine, in addition to its continued indiscriminate shelling with conventional weapons of civilian areas.    

I shall take this opportunity to note the significance of the removal not only of Syria’s acknowledged chemical weapons arsenal, but also their chemical precursors.  Not only were weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq after its liberation from the Baathist regime in 2003, in the form of hundreds of artillery shells filled with lethal chemicals in their warheads, but also their chemical precursors in the form of mustard gas, sarin and VX, which are nerve gasses and blister agents.  The point is that even absent chemical weapons, both Iraq and Syria’s stockpile of chemical precursors were dangerous, as they could have relatively easily been weaponized by filling warheads with them.  In addition to chemical weapons of mass destruction and precursors, the Iraqi Baathist regime under Saddam Hussein also possessed missiles of a longer range than permitted under United Nations resolutions.  Regardless, Syria’s use of chlorine underscores that there are many dangers beyond WMDs from terrorist-sponsoring states that commit crimes against humanity.  

Update on the Victimization of Cinfici by Obamacare

           The Commonwealth Foundation, a link to which appears at right, published a story about my victimization by the federalization of health insurance (“Obamacare”) that I posted about in May (http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-victimization-of-cinfici-by.html) on its website.

The Commonwealth Foundation’s article quoted me as saying “They are taking my freedom away – punishing me for being responsible and saving for care,” and “I’ll have to postpone some things, probably deferring maintenance around my house.  It’s less I’ll be spending in the local economy.  You can call it a negative stimulus.”  The article has been published as an op-ed across Pennsylvania at Pennlive (the Harrisburg Patriot’s website), at Watchdog Wire, a website that publishes citizen journalism in many American States, and in print and online in the Phoenixville Phoenix. 

Meanwhile, I called my health insurance company to cancel my policy by the end of August, when the plan was no longer compliant with the federalization of health insurance (“Obamacare”), even though those of us who liked our plans had been promised by United States President Barack Obama that we could keep them.  Alas, the company cancelled me a month prematurely without notifying me, leaving me among the ranks of the uninsured, even though the purpose proponents of Obamacare claimed was to provide insurance for the uninsured.  Under the federalization of health insurance law, I could not be reinstated by my insurer.  By the middle of the month, I was relieved to obtain coverage from my new health insurance company.

RUSSIA IS INVADING UKRAINE

           Columns of Russian tanks and other military vehicles have invaded the southeastern Black Sea coast of Ukraine, according to reports citing Ukrainian and Western sources, in an apparent attempt to establish a land corridor with Crimea, which Russia had previously invaded.  Russian forces beforehand had bombarded the Ukrainian coastal territory with artillery.

           There have been previous incursions of Russian forces into Ukraine beyond Crimea, as well as firing of artillery from Russia. Despite earlier Russian Federation denials, Russian troops made up a significant part of the pro-Russian rebel forces and had supplied arms and materiel to the separatists, as I have posted previously. The advancing Russian mechanized column disproves Russian claims that any of its personnel in eastern Ukraine were volunteers.

           The Russian Federation, which is led by an authoritarian Communist, has decided to invade Ukraine out of frustration with the Ukrainian government’s advances against the Russophile rebels.  The invasion, like that of Russia's invasion of Crimea, is in violation of a post-Cold War agreement in which it recognized Ukraine's independence and sovereignty and accepted Ukraine’s borders.  The Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine also exposes the deception of the slogan “Crimea is Russia,” as if the Russian bear would have been satisfied eating only Crimea.  Indeed, Russia intends to restore the former Soviet Empire, in spite of any treaties or international law.

            In the meantime, the Russian regime is punishing Ukraine for expanding trade with the West.  As was demonstrated by its invasion of Georgia, Russia cannot tolerate freedom or representative government in former Soviet Republics, let alone any friendliness on their part with the West.  Even if Russia’s invasion would not be decisive in conquering eastern Ukraine and absorbing it into the Russian Federation, the indefinite insurgency would destabilize Ukraine by damaging its economy and serve as another warning to former Soviet Republics not to break free from Russian domination. The West and other freedom-loving states around the world must continue to uphold the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of these former Soviet Republics.

The Obama Administration Should Make More Effective Use of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom

           On Independence Day, I recommended several links for liberty, including one to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, http://www.uscirf.gov.  The Commission’s purpose is to identify and speak out against religious persecution, as well as to recommend policies to the Executive Branch to advance religious liberty internationally, as American moral suasion and corresponding diplomatic pressure can be effective.  Alas, U.S. President Barack Obama is not making adequate use of the Commission.    

            Later last month, Obama signed the reauthorization into law of the fifteen-year-old bipartisan commission, whose members are appointed by both the President and Congress, but he has failed to appoint an ambassador for religious freedom, as he may do under the reauthorizing legislation.  Naming such an officer would signal a prioritization of religious liberty in U.S. foreign relations.  He has also declined to designate several states as “Countries of Particular Concern” that repress the practice of religion or that fail to safeguard religious liberties adequately, such as Communist Vietnam and several predominately Muslim states.

           Conservatives and all those who recognize the fundamentality of religious liberty should call upon Obama to make full use his power of the to raise the standard of the freedom of religion throughout the world by naming an ambassador for religious freedom and following the recommendations of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, especially by singling out all states its recommends as “Countries of Particular Concern.”

United States President Barack Obama’s Weak Response to the Islamist Threat in Syria and Iraq

           Islamist militants in Syria and Iraq have seized large swathes of territory, declared a caliphate it intends to extend to the entire Islamic world, committed atrocities in attempts to force conversions, created a large refugee crisis, and have expressly threatened the United States directly, yet U.S. President Barack Obama has been slow to respond adequately to the threat.  Indeed, his weakness has invited it and has already signaled to the enemy they can outlast the Americans.

           

            Obama failed to aid the non-Islamist rebels in Syria adequately in quickly enough to prevent al-Qaeda and other Islamist militants from taking over the opposition to the pro-Iranian terrorist-sponsoring regime of Bashar Assad.  After failing to secure a satisfactory status of forces agreement, he pulled American military forces out of Iraq by the end of 2011, leaving the Iraqis to fend off the jihadist threat by themselves.  The Obama Administration began to sell some significant weapons to Iraq a few months ago, but provided inadequate additional support and authorized no military mission, despite the obvious threat from the Islamists who were rapidly gaining territory in Syria and especially Iraq since last year.  Only recently were American advisors sent to the war zone. 

            Obama finally justified limited American airstrikes on Islamists in Iraq by aircraft and drones, at the request of the Iraqi government, because of the stated concern for U.S. diplomatic and other personnel in Iraq and the moral obligation to prevent genocide and other atrocities, instead of because of the more significant Islamists’ threats to American security.  The enemy was thus given sufficient time to change its tactic from attacking like a conventional army to guerilla tactics, thus making it a more difficult target.  Although the Commander in Chief put no time limit on the mission, he ruled out combat troops.  The Administration is only now beginning to send weapons to the autonomous Kurdish government through the Iraqi government. 

           The Obama Administration’s delay in providing adequate aid to non-Islamist Syrian rebels and the Iraqi government or the Iraqi Kurds, the focus on limited interests, the pinprick nature of the U.S. military response that exposes American servicemen to minimal risk, and the ruling out of combat forces after the premature departure of American combat forces from Iraq, combine to send a signal to the enemy that Americans have no stomach for war and if it murders enough American soldiers, the public will demand a withdrawal – a strategy Islamists already have used successfully a few times.

A Cambodian Tribunal Convicts Communist Khmer Rouge Leaders of Crimes Against Humanity

A United Nations-backed Cambodian tribunal convicted the two surviving Communist Khmer Rouge leaders, including a former President and Prime Minister and another senior official, for crimes against humanity.  The octogenarians were sentenced to life in prison. 

The Khmer Rouge (Red Cambodian) seized power after the Fall of Saigon, South Vietnam in 1975, making Cambodia, like Laos, one of the “dominoes” that fell to the Communists after South Vietnam fell into their hands, after the liberal Democratic United States Congress cut off aid to the South Vietnamese.  The Maoists, backed by China, brutally ruled Cambodia from 1975-1979, imprisoning and torturing multitudes of fellow Cambodians, murdering and overworking or starving to death nearly two million people, which represented a quarter of the population of Cambodia.  They emptied Cambodia’s capital of Phnom Penh to create an agrarian socialist utopia.  Many of its citizens were targeted for destruction for their bourgeois lifestyle, marched into the countryside and buried alive in mass graves they had been forced to dig in what became known as the “Killing Fields.”  Most of the Khmer Rouge’s victims were innocent civilians, including Buddhist monks, religious and ethnic minorities, anyone found to possess private property, and those suspected of being sympathetic to the West or educated to any degree, such as anyone wearing eyeglasses.  

Khmer Rouge General Secretary and Cambodian Prime Minister Pol Pot had been captured in 1997 by rebellious members of his party after he had ordered the murder of the Prime Minister.  After a show trial, he was sentenced to lifelong house arrest in 1998, but died under mysterious circumstances shortly afterward, before any tribunal could try him for crimes against humanity. 

Although the conviction and sentencing of the two surviving Khmer Rouge leaders is regarded by the Cambodian people as “too little, too late,” there is finally a degree of justice and the establishment of a legal and historical record of their crimes against humanity and genocide.  

Conservative Commentary on the Recent United States Supreme Court Term, Part II

On one of my posts on Independence Day, I analyzed several cases on interests to conservatives that advanced liberty or good government in Part I of this two-part series.  This post is devoted to the last such decision announced by the Court, in which it ruled that the federal government cannot force closely-held corporations to violate their religious beliefs to provide insurance coverage that includes abortifacients.

            The plaintiffs, two Protestant Christian corporations, objected to an Obama Administration regulatory mandate imposed under the federalization of health insurance (“Obamacare”) that required them to provide insurance benefits that included certain contraceptives that also are abortifacients.  Their owners do not object to contraception, but to certain contraceptives that also may cause abortions by preventing the implantation of the fertilized embryo, which is not “contraception” because it occurs after conception, which is the beginning of an individual human life.  The Court ruled that religious owners of closely-held corporations, even if for-profit, religious people, under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, are not compelled to violate their beliefs because they follow their vocation to engage in commerce and incorporate to protect themselves from liability.

            Abortion, as an evil, is a moral issue, not strictly a religious one.  Religion and morality are distinct and, as secularists and atheists argue, even non-believers can accept at least certain morals, but religion was at issue in this case because it informs our understanding of morality and compels believers to act morally.

The contraception/abortifacient/sterilization mandate imposes a substantial burden on business owners, insofar as they would have to pay expensive fines for non-compliance in order to follow their religious conscience.  A substantial burden was necessary for conscience protection under the statute.  Another element of the law is the requirement that government use the least restrictive means to achieve its purpose, which the federal government failed to use in imposing the mandate.  The Obama Administration was unable to prove a compelling interest in requiring insurance coverage for relatively inexpensive drugs (e.g. the four abortifacients to which the plaintiffs objected), as the Administration undermined its argument for a compelling interest by the many exemptions to Obamacare it has granted, or how imposing such a mandate would be the least restrictive means, considering it had granted many exemptions to the mandate in question.  In fact, the Administration’s “accommodation,’ given to the non-profit corporations – as inadequate as it is – proved it was not using the least restrictive means in regard to for-profit corporations. 

The case was not about equality, as the mandate does not cover contraception for males.  Regardless, the ruling upholds the fundamentality of religious liberty.  Business owners who incorporate and retain full ownership of their companies cannot be forced to abandon their practice of religion in the free market.  In other words, incorporation under the laws of a state does not equate to the forfeiture of religious liberty in commerce.  

            The ruling was narrow, as was the dissent.  The Court made clear the ruling only applies to corporations that are so closely-held by their owners as to be indistinct from them, not to publicly-traded companies, and only in instances where government cannot show it had no other recourse to accomplish its purpose. 

The liberal dissenting Justices made much of the fact that the plaintiffs were for-profit corporations, as if their only motivation is profit, as if such corporations do not do good, and as if being non-profit necessarily, ipso facto, makes an entity good.  In both this case and a recent related one in which the Court granted an injunction to a college from the same mandate, the liberal minority would have the government judge religious beliefs, deciding how sincerely held the beliefs are and whether they are reasonable and even making theological arguments about them, instead of empathetically protecting their religious practices, which was the intent of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  The minority liberal Justices were skeptical of the plaintiff’s religious beliefs and moral concern about the beginning of life at conception, not implantation of the embryo, as most liberals cannot recognize the humanity in those human beings that look different, whom they dehumanize as only “potential” humans, contrary to scientific understanding that a human life begins at conception, even though the law was meant to protect even those religious beliefs with which they disagree.  

Nevertheless, the dissenting Justices’ emphasis on the plaintiffs as for-profit, as opposed to non-profit corporations, suggests that non-profit corporation plaintiffs, religious or not, are likely to win their cases that have been appealed to the Supreme Court in which they object by various degrees to the Obama Administration’s contraception/abortifacient/sterilization insurance mandate because the accommodation granted to religious organizations by the Administration is inadequate.  

The Validation of Ukrainian Allegations of Russian Complicity in the Eastern Ukrainian Rebellion

One week ago, I posted that United States intelligence had confirmed Ukrainian government allegations that the Russian Federation was arming pro-Russian separatists in Eastern Ukraine.  The shootdown of an unarmed Malaysian Airlines civilian passenger jet Thursday in Ukrainian airspace by the Russophile rebels with a Russian-made surface-to-air missile proves Ukrainian and American allegations that not only did Russia supply the separatists with anti-aircraft artillery, as well as the training and personnel necessary to operate the equipment, but other weapons, including tanks and armored personnel carriers, despite the Russian Federation’s denials of complicity in the rebellion in Eastern Ukraine. 

The incident also suggests that much of the rebellion has been fomented by agents and propaganda from the Russian Federation’s authoritarian regime that is led by former Soviet Communist K.G.B. officer Vladimir Putin.  The Russian government later admitted that it had lied when it had denied similar involvement in fomenting the rebellion in Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula, which Russia subsequently annexed.  Putin has been intent openly on regaining the Soviet Empire, including former Soviet Republics like Ukraine and Georgia, both of which Russia has invaded.

The U.S. and the European Union had expanded sanctions and restrictions to a number of individual Russians and Russian businesses, as well as Eastern Ukrainian Russian separatists.  Significant additional punishments must be imposed if Russia is unwilling to establish a cease-fire in Ukraine, the laying down of arms by the separatists and a dialogue between them and the Ukrainian government.  The Ukrainian government has already promised to guarantee minority rights, including in regard to the Russian language, concern for which was the Russian Federation’s discredited excuse for trying to grab power after the popular rebellion against a corrupt, authoritarian pro-Russian government in Ukraine and its replacement with one that has established trade relations with the European Union and seeks integration into Europe and good relations with the West, without any hostile intent toward Russia.  Meanwhile, the U.S. and E.U. should continue to boost their support of the Ukrainian government.

Governor Tom Corbett Signs Pennsylvania’s Budget, Vetoes Legislative Spending and Demands the Legislature Resolve the State’s Pension Crisis

           Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett, a Republican, recently signed the Commonwealth’s 2014-2015 budget and associated fiscal enabling legislation, but vetoed certain line items.   

The $27 billion budget was approved by the General Assembly shortly before the June 30 constitutional deadline.  Despite a projected revenue shortfall, it met the constitutional requirement of being balanced.  It reduced overall expenditures while boosting spending on education beyond its current record level, did not raise taxes and even revived the phase-out of the capital stock and franchise tax, which is a tax on property that businesses must pay in addition to the corporate income tax.  However, the budget failed to address Corbett’s priority: pension reform.    

The Commonwealth’s rainy day fund had been drained under Governor Ed Rendell, a Democrat.  In this year’s budget, various other reserve funds were tapped, with the exception of the legislature’s own fund balance.  Governor Corbett, disappointed at the General Assembly’s failure to address Pennsylvania’s pension crisis, vetoed $65 million of the legislative fund balance, as well as over $7 million in legislative earmarks.  He is urging lawmakers to address the crisis that threatens not only state finances, but, because teachers are included in the pension fund, the finances of all 500 School Districts in Pennsylvania.  The pension crisis is threatening the Commonwealth’s long-term fiscal health and its current credit rating.  Additionally, it is forcing up school real estate taxes.  There is a pension-reform bill in the General Assembly which Corbett supports that would shift new state employees onto defined contribution plans from defined benefit plans.  Another bill would at least shift the legislators themselves, as well as judges and statewide elected members of the executive branch, onto such plans.  The Commonwealth must also make up for previous state pension funding shortfalls.

Another gubernatorial priority left unaddressed by the General Assembly is liquor privatization.  As I have posted previously, the House of Representatives passed a plan to eliminate the Commonwealth’s wholesale and retail monopoly.  See my post from March of 2013, the Pennsylvania House Passes Liquor Privatization, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-pennsylvania-house-passes-liquor.html.  There remains support in the House for liquor privatization, but the Senate prefers limited reforms that, at most, would curtail the state retail monopoly on wine and liquor, but retain its wholesale monopoly while keeping its system of retail stores.  Liquor privatization would generate not only one-time revenue through the selling of retail licenses, but ongoing revenue through the continued collection of state taxes on alcohol and fees from the renewal of licenses.  Regardless, resolving the pension crisis is a more significant and urgent priority. 

The Pennsylvania General Assembly must come back from its summer recess and enact meaningful pension reform as soon as possible that heals the Commonwealth’s fiscal ills and lifts the heavy burden on its School Districts.  

More Evidence of Russian Federation Provocations in Georgia and Ukraine

Russian Federation sympathizers, and their liberal and isolationist allies in the West, vilify every state into which Russia comes into conflict and blame everything on them, while denying or justifying every transgression, no matter how severe, committed by the Russian Federation’s authoritarian regime.  However, evidence always emerges, both at the time and afterward, of Russian culpability.  Recent reports from both Georgia and Ukraine have added to the growing body of evidence of provocations by the Russian regime.

Georgia

            The European Court of Human Rights found the authoritarian Russian government abused the human rights of Georgians with a coordinated campaign of arrests and expulsions that particularly targeted Georgian Nationals residing in Russia, beginning in 2006 and the subsequently held them in poor conditions.  The Russian Federation invaded Georgia in 2008. 

Ukraine

            American intelligence suggests the Russian government, despite its denials, is aiding the pro-Russian separatist rebels, which corroborates Ukrainian charges against the Russian Federation.  As I have posted previously, Russian military forces had also secretly infiltrated Ukraine prior to the pro-Russian takeover of Crimea, which they later admitted after having repeatedly denying involvement.  The Russian aggression resulted in the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. 

           Meanwhile, as the Ukrainian military liberates more parts of Eastern Ukraine from the Russophiles, reports are emerging of human rights abuses committed by the pro-Russian separatists against ethnic Ukrainians and others.

Another Admission by the Obama Administration of Deception about the Benghazi Attack

           In its indictment against a suspect it recently captured, the Obama Administration admits the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi, Libya in 2012 was a conspiracy by al-Qaeda, not a spontaneous response to a video, as it had falsely claimed for a long time after the attack, during the presidential election campaign.  President Barack Obama, who was eager to focus in domestic issues, had claimed during the campaign that al-Qaeda was diminished, as if to minimize the seriousness of the continued threat from this determined foe.  As I have posted previously, the Administration knew from the beginning that the sophisticated attack on the September 11 anniversary was coordinated by Islamists, meaning that its subsequent statements claiming otherwise were not accidentally misleading, but intentionally deceptive.  The indictment represents the Administration’s fullest admission that the video had nothing to do with the attack.  

Iraq Was Not the True Cause of the Veterans Administration Scandal

           In order to excuse the Obama Administration and blame the Administration of President George W. Bush, liberal Democrats particularly blame the recent Veterans Administration scandal of delays in the scheduling appointments for veterans who critically needed care on the increased caseload of veterans on the returning from the Liberation of Iraq of many American soldiers, in addition to the other campaign in the global War on Terrorism, the Afghan War.  However, no American soldiers have been returning from the war in Iraq since the end of 2011, when the United States withdrew. 

            The liberals also contradict themselves repeatedly in this regard, as they do in many aspects of the Liberation of Iraq.  They first criticized President Bush for not having enough soldiers for the war, then criticized him for his troop surge in his second term, and then claimed the surge strategy was not responsible for the subsequent success in Iraq they did not expect, which means necessarily that the success had to have come from the prior strategy for which they claimed there were not enough troops.  The General whose expertise they relied upon was Eric Shinseki, who argued that far more troops were needed to occupy Iraq – the same man who resigned as Secretary of the Veterans Administration because of the scandal.  Surely, the liberals would have criticized the Bush Administration for having too many troops in Iraq and thereby having too large a footprint and being too overbearing of an occupying force had Bush heeded Shinseki’s advice because their only consistency in regard to Iraq has been to disagree with every decision Bush made, no matter how contradictory and regardless of all the facts. 

            There are two reasons for the increase in caseload at veterans’ hospitals, despite the rapid loss of veterans from the Second World War: 1) the advancing age of veterans of the Cold War (remember that many veterans during this time, which was the period of the draft, did not necessarily see combat, but sustained peacetime injuries or simply retired from service and thus earned post-retirement healthcare benefits), including the Korean and Vietnamese Wars, with many veterans of the latter campaign now becoming senior citizens, and 2) a shortage of healthcare workers, which is partly because of a lack of tort reform for medical liability and partly is exacerbated by the federalization of health insurance (“Obamacare”), which is causing some doctors to leave their practice, at a time of an increase in the number of patients because of free health insurance. 

           Whatever the reasons for the increase in the caseload, the cheating by bureaucrats at the Veterans Administration was selfish and inexcusable and the senior management was ineffective in discovering the problem and correcting quickly.  In fact, its strategy to diminish the caseload – however well-intentioned – by providing financial incentives, likely provided the temptation for the bureaucrats to cheat.

Widespread Duplicate Voter Registrations Demonstrate the Need for Voter Identification Laws

           Tens of thousands of individuals across several of the States of the American Union are registered to vote in more than one State, according to a series of news reports over the last few months both about individual States and a large group of States collectively. 

            In addition to concerns about ballot integrity, these duplicate registrations distort the voter turnout percentages that liberals often falsely claim are low in order to justify making registrations so easy as to make fraud even easier.  Also, they are costly to States that must mail unnecessary absentee ballots or make other contacts with these voters.

            Only a little over half of the States belong to an interstate consortium to cross-check voter registrations.  See my post, Pennsylvania Joins the Interstate Voter Registration Cross-Check Consortium, from August of 2013, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2013/08/pennsylvania-joins-interstate-voter.html.  North Carolina was the latest to join, which revealed over 35,000 duplicate voter registrations in that State alone!  Several hundred voters registered in North Carolina are suspected of having voted both in that State and other States in recent elections.

California, the most populous State, is the only one that does not even have a statewide voter database to compare registrations from county to county, let alone with other States, according to a recent report from Watchdog.org.   In addition to California, the three next largest States also do not belong to the cross-check consortium: Texas, New York and Florida.  The problem of duplicate registrations is particularly acute in regard to residents of northeastern States that have winter residences in Florida.  Many of them illegally vote in both their home State and the Sunshine State in the same year.  In fact, the double voting by these snowbirds in the 2000 election for presidential Electors contributed to the closeness of that contest, as most of the individuals who voted twice were Democrats.  Also, when combined with the fact that in some States, absentee ballots, which tend to favor Republicans, are not counted if they would not change the outcome of the election, despite the liberal Democratic slogan that year of “Count every vote!” the claim that the Gore-Lieberman slate of electors won a plurality of the vote across the United States is questionable.  This double-counting is only one type of election fraud that added to the Democrats’ totals.  I have posted previously on voter impersonation that took place that year while I was on the ballot for Pennsylvania state representative, for example, in my posts advocating for a voter identification requirement in Commonwealth. 

            These duplicate voter registrations not only allow voters to vote twice, but allow an innocent elector who has moved from one State to another but whose name is not stricken from his original State’s voter registration roll to be impersonated by vote fraudsters.  This vulnerability to voter fraud by impersonation because of duplicate registrations from State to State is another justification for voter ID requirements.  I renew the call for a voter ID requirement, now that a state appellate court has struck down Pennsylvania’s law.  The voter ID laws of other states have withstood United States Supreme Court scrutiny as constitutional.  I call upon the General Assembly of Pennsylvania to pass a law that uses one of those other states’ laws as a model. 

           Meanwhile, conservatives and all those concerned about ballot integrity from other States should urge their state legislatures to join or form voter registration cross-check consortia and, if their State has no voter ID requirement, to pass one.    

Recommended Links for Liberty

           To celebrate Independence Day, I would like to recommended a few informative websites of outstanding organizations dedicated to promoting freedom by cataloging the violations of it or recording human suffering where liberty has been absent:

          Freedom House, a respected organization which ranks states around the world according to their levels of human rights, including economic liberty, http://www.freedomhouse.org/;

           The United States Commission on Religious Freedom, an independent, bipartisan federal commission dedicated particularly to defending freedom of religion abroad, http://www.uscirf.gov/;

          Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, an American non-profit foundation established by an Act of the United States Congress, http://victimsofcommunism.org/.

Conservative Commentary on the Recent United States Supreme Court Term, Part I

           There were five remarkable cases of interest to conservatives decided by the United States Supreme Court in its latest term, four of which protected liberty and one defended good government.  This Independence Day post is an analysis of each of the first four in the order in which they were announced since May.  I shall analyze the last case in Part II of this series of posts, the case about a religious exemption for closely-held corporations from the insurance mandate that includes abortifacients. 

            I had already posted in April about a case from earlier in the term, The Supreme Court Ruling Expands Freedom of Expression by Striking Down the Overall Cap on Political Contributions, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-united-states-supreme-court-ruling.html, which was another victory for liberty.  

The Court rules prayer at public meetings of government bodies is constitutional

            A municipality in New York was within its constitutional right to invite local clergy lead prayers at public municipal meetings, even if the prayers were expressly Christian and not non-sectarian, the Court ruled.  It ruled that a government body is not required to recruit non-Christians, such as, in the case in question, from beyond the county, even if many fellow citizens attended a synagogue over the county line. 

            The Court upheld a 1983 ruling that public prayer is part of the historical fabric of America.  It noted private individuals conduct the prayer.  The targets of the prayer are the public officials, not the general public, the Court observed.  The Court determined that public prayer that invokes God help or thanks Him is understood not as an attempt to evangelize anyone, let alone to establish or “endorse” any particular religion, as it does not diminish anyone’s liberty.  Public prayer reminds the officials of the American Creed, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, that freedom comes from God, not government.  Even atheists’ freedom of conscience depends upon this belief. 

The Court strikes down President Barack Obama recess appointments as unconstitutional violations of the separation of powers doctrine

            The Court ruled that Obama violated the Constitution by usurping Congress’s role in confirming presidential nominations.  Obama had made “recess” appointments, which Presidents may do when the Congress is in recess, when the Senate was conducting pro forma sessions every three days, arguing they were essentially in recess.  The Court ruled the Senate is the judge of when it is in recess under the Constitution, not the President.  Because the Senate was not in recess, the President had no constitutional authority to make the appointments.

            The question was not particularly liberal or conservative, but of overstepping the bounds of office by the Chief Executive.  There has been encroachment on executive power since the Vietnamese War by the Legislative Branch, particularly in matters of defense, where the President is the Commander in Chief.  The appointments made by Obama, however, were unusually partisan because they were to boards that are required to be filled by appointees of both major political parties.  His appointees tended to be biased to the left to such a degree as to upset the bipartisan balance on those boards, which is why congressional confirmation was necessary for the presidential nominees and why Obama avoided obtaining it.  Obama’s abuse of his recent appointment authority is part of a pattern of overreach, such as declining to enforce certain laws, despite a constitutional requirement that the President take care to execute the laws faithfully, and to issue numerous executive orders that usurp the legislative authority, in violation of the constitutional doctrine of the separation of powers.

            As the appointments were invalid, the decisions made by the boards with the votes of the invalid appointees should now also be deemed invalid, as they lacked a quorum.

           

The Court strikes down abortion clinic protest buffer zones as unconstitutional restrictions on free speech

            Buffer zones outside of abortion clinics unconstitutionally violated the freedom of speech of pro-life protestors, the Court ruled.  The protest buffer zones were targeted against only those individuals who hold a particular opinion – the pro-life opinion, at a time when pro-lifers have their most effective opportunity to express peacefully their political opinions and to counsel women against abortions.  The zones were thus prejudicial against pro-life protestors, who are as free as any other citizen to engage in the freedom of speech on the sidewalk. 

The Court rules home healthcare providers cannot be forced to pay dues to government worker labor unions

            The Court ruled individuals who receive state funds to provide healthcare to family members in their own homes are not employees of the state and thus are not subject to being forced to pay dues for a public sector collective bargaining unit. 

           The plaintiff was a woman in Illinois who received state Medicaid funds for caring for her son at home, which by state law made her an employee of the state.  She was an agent of the state or an independent contractor who did not receive the usual state employee benefits such as tax-free health insurance or a pension, not a state employee, and thus not subject to all the laws regarding employees.  Therefore, there are no issues over which to bargain collectively such as to necessitate the forced payment of union dues.  The Court’s decision was a victory of the freedom of association.  

Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova Sign Trade Deals with the European Union

Ukraine has signed a major trade deal with the European Union, the rejection of which by the prior authoritarian pro-Russian government, led to its overthrow.  The E.U. also signed deals with Georgia and Moldova, which, like Ukraine, have been menaced by Russian imperialism.  With this deal, these three former Soviet Republics demonstrate their interest in integration with Europe and the West, instead of Russia.  The economic benefits to Ukraine in particular will help its economy and, in turn, its government’s fiscal problems, which will help it to emerge more fully from dependence on Russia.

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett Is Cleared of the Child Abuse Conspiracy Theory

           Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane, a Democrat, has issued a report clearing her predecessor, current Governor Tom Corbett, a Republican, of absurd accusations he delayed his investigation as Attorney General of child abuse by former Pennsylvania State University Assistant Football Coach Jerry Sandusky for political reasons.

            The Commonwealth’s first elected Democratic chief prosecutor promised during her campaign for Attorney General in 2012 to investigate the investigation by her predecessor and his subordinate prosecutors.  The long-awaited report into possible delays by Corbett and its subordinates itself took almost a year and a half.  It found no evidence that anyone had willfully delayed the investigation.

            The conspiracy theory was that the investigation was delayed for political reasons, specifically that the prosecution of the case was delayed to avoid negative political reactions, either from Penn State football fans or donors to the alleged perpetrator’s charity.  As far as conspiracy theories go, this one was even more cynical, devoid of evidence and reliant on a series of assumptions than usual.

            As a prosecutor, Corbett was scrupulously non-partisan.  He had investigated, prosecuted and won convictions of both Democratic and Republican state legislators, including former Speakers of the House from each party.  Even as Governor, Corbett is not political, as his style of governance and public relations reflect his career as a prosecutor.  Indeed, his current low showing in public opinion polls demonstrate how apolitical he is.  Furthermore, the prosecutors working under him in the Attorney General’s office were career prosecutors, not political appointees.

            As a political candidate in 2010, Corbett might just as much have had a political motivation to prosecute a celebrity like Sandusky to draw more attention to his campaign, as prosecutors are often accused in such cases, as not to prosecute.  Furthermore, it is well known that cover-ups do not work and would have exposed Corbett and his subordinates to serious consequences.  Also, there is apparently more benefit in terms of public opinion to go overboard in the opposite direction in order to appear to be extremely concerned with the alleged victims, such as by assuming the credibility of every accusation of child abuse, treating the accused as necessarily guilty, convicting everyone around the alleged perpetrator through guilt by association and sympathizing unquestionably with the alleged victims, such as the Pennsylvania State University Board of Trustees apparently have done, like others when faced with such a public relations crisis, as no one wants to appear in the slightest not to be against child abuse, regardless of the veracity of all of the allegations and no matter how unfair it is to the accused or anyone associated with him.  The concern for erring to the safe side in regard to serious accusation is understandable, but the double standard is that it is not a concern for public opinion that leads to wrongs to which these critics object, only certain actions or omissions based upon such a concern. 

           

            The conspiracy theorists assume the apolitical Corbett would have been micromanaging his statewide gubernatorial campaign, while continuing his full-time job as Attorney General, to such a degree to know who was donating what and would also have had to have known that the donors were also members of the suspect’s charitable organization, something which would have required access to the charity’s membership list in order to cross-check it with a donor list, as donors are not required to provide a list of organizations to which they belong.  The conspiracy theorists also cynically assume that these philanthropists who were donating to help children would necessarily have been upset with the prosecutors instead of with the alleged perpetrator of the child abuse, if they believed the charges were credible. 

            This last element of the theory is a tacit acknowledgement on the part of the conspiracy theorists that one witness would not have been credible, which is why a stronger case was built with more credible witnesses, which was successful in winning convictions on the overwhelming majority of the more than 40 charges. Corbett and his subordinate prosecutors judged their case would have been weak with only one witness, in whom they did not have sufficient confidence, especially against a celebrity.  In my experience of having worked with victims and witnesses, victims of various kinds of abuse usually change their minds and opt not to testify.  Prosecutors try only to bring cases to prosecution that they believe have a reasonable chance of success.  No one today defends the perpetrator because of the strength of the prosecution. 

            Regardless of why the case took as long as it did to investigate, it is important to note no one was allegedly abused by the perpetrator during the investigation, meaning that the long time the investigation took to achieve a successful prosecution did not result in any further child abuse.  

           The report demonstrates how cynical, partisan and foolish the conspiracy theorists are and how partisan and ideologically biased many of Governor Tom Corbett’s critics are.

The American Military Mission to the Philippines Ends Successfully

           The United States military mission to the Philippines began shortly after the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks to fight an al-Qaeda affiliate that had kidnapped several Americans, beheading one of them, in addition to numerous kidnappings and terrorist attacks committed against Filipinos. 

The soldiers trained and advised the Filipino military, only engaging in combat one time in self-defense, although one American soldier was murdered in a bomb blast by the Islamist rebels and others perished in an accident.  The American mission to the Philippines was a major success in the U.S-led War on Terrorism, as the Filipino military has gained ground against the jihadists, who have seen their numbers diminish dramatically. 

Most American soldiers will soon depart the combat zone, but a large percentage will be based indefinitely outside the zone elsewhere in the Philippines, where they will be on standby.  The U.S. and the Philippines also recently concluded a separate agreement allowing American soldiers to be based in the Philippines to defend it against Chinese aggression in the disputed Spratly Islands, the first time U.S. troops will be on Filipino soil in decades since they departed from the former American colony after the Cold War.  As I posted previously, the Filipino government had negotiated a peace deal with the main group of non-Islamist Muslim rebels who had fought a long guerilla campaign for independence, while Filipino troops have been routing Communist rebels.

The withdrawal of U.S. military forces from the Philippines is in sharp contrast to the Obama Administration’s withdrawal from Iraq in 2011, where no American troops remained afterward, and the announced plan to withdraw from Afghanistan at the end of this year, where a residual force will remain only temporarily – before either state was fully ready to defeat Islamist rebels without significant American help.  

Another Reason to Oppose Common Core: Liberal Curriculum on the Constitution

           A classroom resource written by several of Common Core’s lead writers contains lessons on the United States Constitution that claim the Framers only regarded white males with property as persons, according to CNS.

            The liberal belief that the Founding Fathers did not extend the guarantees of liberty to blacks and women is based upon ignorance and bias.  Free blacks and women were both persons and citizens under the Constitution.  Liberty is the birthright of all persons, while certain privileges are conveyed by citizenship. 

            Slaves could be of any race, as could slave-owners.  Regardless, even slaves were referred to as “Persons,” such as in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, which phased out the slave trade.  Three Fifths Rule of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, which also refers to slaves simply as “Persons,” was another anti-slavery provision.  As I have posted previously, it reduced the apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives, which is based upon population, to States where slavery was legal because the slaves could not be counted fully toward the total population.  Otherwise, the slave-owning states would have had a larger share of seats in the House and been able to protect and expand slavery beyond the possibility of abolition.  In no way did the Three Fifths Rule necessarily make slaves less than full persons under the federal Constitution.  

            States, not the Constitution or the federal government it created, determined the qualifications for the franchise.  It is important to note, however, that voting is a privilege, not a right.  Non-citizens are persons, but may not vote and even some citizens, such as minors, convicted felons and the mentally incapacitated may not exercise the franchise.  The privilege to vote, as well as other privileges permitted by the States, was guaranteed by the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution.   

           I have posted about the numerous dangers of Common Core in my post from September of 2013, Stop Common Core Now!, http://williamcinfici.blogspot.com/2013/09/stop-common-core-now.html, but the liberal bias of the curriculum based upon it is yet another reason to oppose it.  It has been encouraging that several more States have opted out of Common Core.  Let us keep up the pressure to stop this dangerous scheme from the damage it would cause to education and to civil society and replace it with truly rigorous educational standards that teach students not only the basics of a good education, but how to think critically and prepare them for good citizenship.   

Fouad Ajami, In Memoriam

           Arab Muslim scholar, opponent of Islamism and promoter of liberty Fouad Ajami died Sunday at the age of 68. 

           

            Born in Lebanon in 1945, Ajami was a Shi’ite Muslim.  He emigrated to the United States in 1963, where he studied, becoming a recognized expert on the Middle East. 

            Ajami made the cogent case for the world to uphold the principal of sovereignty by opposing Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.  He supported the War on Terrorism against Islamists like al-Qaeda and other global terrorist networks.  Ajami supported removing the terrorist-sponsoring Baathist regime of Iraq from power and liberating the Iraqi people from oppression and did not waiver from his position.  Although liberal critics dismiss his prediction that Iraqis would greet the American and allied soldiers with jubilation, it was nonetheless true that some Iraqis were able to summon the courage after having lived in the Republic of Fear to greet their liberators warmly.  He supported President George W. Bush’s goal of spreading freedom, which he was manifest in the Arab Spring and was a critic of President Barak Obama’s weak foreign policy, up to his Administration’s current failures in Syria and Iraq.

            Ajami, who was a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, was the author of several books about the Middle East and hundreds of essays and was a frequent guest on television news programs.  He won several prestigious awards for public service, journalism and the humanities.

           Ajami was a strong ally in the cause of liberty.  His writings and broadcast statements will long be a fount of insight about the Arab and Islamic World and the global threat of violent Jihad and will continue to offer sound advice on how to defeat Islamism by promoting freedom as an alternative.

The Current Baathist-Islamist Alliance Refutes the Anti-War Theory that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq Would Never Have Allied with Al-Qaeda

           One of the many arguments used by opponents of the Liberation of Iraq was to minimize or dismiss the terrorist threat to Americans from Iraq’s Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein was that the Baathists, whom the war opponents refer to as “secular,” were unlikely to cooperate with al-Qaeda or other Sunni Islamists because of political or religious ideological differences.  However, the recent reports of cooperation between Sunni jihadists, who had been affiliated with al-Qaeda, and former Baathist regime members disprove this anti-war argument. 

            Before the Liberation of Iraq in 2003 by the United States and its allies, some of the opponents of the war had raised the possibility of terrorist strikes against Americans or its interests in retaliation for attacking Hussein’s Baathist regime, which openly sponsored terrorism, as a reason not to go to war.  During the war, after no such attacks occurred, these anti-war critics reversed their argument and minimized or dismissed Iraq as a terrorist threat.  Some of these critics of the War on Terrorism or other American policies of self-defense justify terrorism, which is the targeting of violence toward innocent civilians, as an emotional or rational response to those foreign policies they, like the terrorists, oppose.  However, terrorism is neither emotional, nor rational and is never justifiable.  It is evil.  Apparently, the opponents of liberating Iraq did not explain why terrorists would oppose the overthrow of Hussein’s regime by the Americans and its allies if they thought it did not matter to their Islamist objectives.  The fact that many militant jihadists, including a significant number affiliated with al-Qaeda, entered Iraq to fight the Americans, their allies and the new Iraqi regime, only proved the Islamists’ strategic interest in preventing Iraq from enjoying representative government that respects the liberty of its people and is an ally of the U.S. in the War on Terrorism. 

Although the opponents of the war had linked Iraq with terrorism and then later minimized or denied any link, the overall relevance of Iraq to al-Qaeda was undeniable.  In fact, al-Qaeda’s largest gripe against the U.S. had been the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia.  Al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden’s hatred of Americans was such that he regarded their presence in that kingdom to be a desecration of Islamic holy sites, even though the U.S. troops were not anywhere near the holy region.  The American troops were present in Saudi Arabia to protect it from an invasion by Iraq and to enforce no-fly zones over Iraq to protect Arab Shi’ites from Hussein’s oppression.  One of bin Laden’s other chief complaints against the U.S. was the trade embargo against Iraq. 

Furthermore, there were al-Qaeda affiliates present in Iraq before the overthrow of Hussein’s Baathist regime, including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who had been responsible for the murder of an American diplomat in Jordan.  Regardless of whether his presence was known or tolerated by the totalitarian Baathist regime, his presence alone refutes the anti-war argument that al-Qaeda was not present in Iraq before its liberation in 2003. 

The anti-war argument rests upon the theory that because Saddam Hussein’s Baathist Iraqi regime was  “secular,” their religious and political differences with al-Qaeda were too great for the two ever to cooperate against American interests.  The theory is based upon a misunderstanding of the word secular within the context of the Islamic world.  There, secular means “non-theocratic,” (not ruled by clerics), not “non-religious.”  In fact, the Baathist regime was coated with an Islamic veneer, despite being non-clerical.  Its language and symbols were Muslim.  For example, Saddam Hussein was officially portrayed in art as dressed in traditional religious garb; he made sure to be seen praying five times daily, and even spoke about his dream in which Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, appeared to him.  Hussein even saw himself as a modern Saladin, the Muslim leader who fought the Christian Crusaders.  Both were from Tikrit, Iraq.  Hussein and al-Qaeda were both anti-American Sunni Islamic militants and terrorists, despite their differences.  Although the record is not certain as to the exact relationship between Hussein’s regime and al-Qaeda, it does suggest there was at least a non-aggression pact between them.  I have noted in other posts the tendency of various rogues to cooperate.  If even atheist North Korea and theocratic Muslim Iran cooperate, it would not have been far-fetched that Hussein and al-Qaeda would have cooperated.  It would have been irresponsible for the U.S. to base its security on the hope that these two enemies would never have made an alliance, especially if their survival was in jeopardy.  The current cooperation between Baathists and Islamists proves the Liberation of Iraq was justified.

            Moreover, the sponsorship of terrorism by Iraq’s Baathist regime under Saddam Hussein should not be dismissed or minimized.  Iraq both harbored and financed terrorists and other militant Muslim suicide bombers who targeted and killed Americans.  Among others, Hussein’s regime had harbored for many years Palestinian terrorist Abu Abbas, who had led the hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship in 1985, during which his terrorists murdered a disabled elderly American by dumping him overboard.  Abbas was also the conduit for Iraqi funds to subsidize Palestinian suicide bombers, including the ones who successfully targeted an American-owned restaurant frequented by Americans in Jerusalem, among a number of other attacks on Israelis that also resulted in American casualties. 

           Whether or not there were links between the Baathist regime of Iraq to al-Qaeda is irrelevant as to whether or not Iraq was a terrorist threat to Americans, as links to al-Qaeda are not the sole standard by which to judge whether or not a terrorist was a threat to Americans.  All terrorism is unacceptable, but that which targets Americans or its interests or allies is of particular concern.  The War on Terrorism is not only the “War on al-Qaeda,” but a campaign against all terrorists who threaten Americans, which included the Baathist regime of Iraq.  In fact, state sponsors of terrorism, whether the states themselves carried out acts of terrorism or not, were of particular concern because of the safe harbor they often provided terrorists, in addition to providing them resources.  Hussein’s regime was a sufficient terrorist threat, apart from al-Qaeda, for its overthrow to be justified, among other reasons.  The recent events in Iraq only remind us of the greater strategic threat posed by that regime in the War on Terrorism.