February 12, 2010 Volume 1, Issue 6The Franciscan Conservative "It does not take a majority to prevail...but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."Samuel Adams This newsletter in no way reflects the opinion of Franciscan University of Steubenville and is not in any way approved or authorized by Franciscan University of Steubenville. The Obama Foreign Policy: Part II By Scipio Aemilianus The “central front in the war on terror”—that’s what Obama called American military efforts in the Afghanistan-Pakistan theatre during his 2008 campaign for the presidency. The phrase certainly caught on with the “intelligentsia”—all those academic and media types who love a good turn of phrase and sometimes mistake book learning and articulate speech for intelligence. They were happy to have a candidate, now a president, who could explain what’s important to our foreign policy, and, what is more, would execute it. After all, George Bush was a total moron, especially when it came to explaining policy, wasn’t he? He was also totally wrong in how he prosecuted the battle against Islamic jihad, right? He “took his eye off the ball,” certainly, when he attacked Iraq in 2003 and allowed that war to drain American resources away from Afghanistan, where Osama bin-Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorists were based and where their Taliban buddies lived full-time. Surely, that’s all true, isn’t it? Well, it is the “conventional wisdom.” Poor ol’ Dubya! He didn’t have the brains God gave to chimpanzees. Continued on page 2 In Remembrance of Ronald Reagan By Steve Woltornist February 6th marked what would have been Ronald Regan’s 99th birthday. As I look back on his life, especially his presidency, I can’t help to think that there are some lessons that our current president should learn. Perhaps the most obvious lessons that should be applied during these times come from Reagan’s economic policies. At the beginning of Reagan’s presidential career, our country was hit with a recession. What did Reagan do? Well, he didn’t propose a $787 billion spending increase. Instead, he cut taxes. Why would he cut taxes in a time when the government needed the money? The answer is an intrinsic part of supply side economics. By cutting taxes, Reagan put money where it helped the country most: with the people. This system had many obvious and nearly instantaneous benefits. After the recession, the United States’ GDP rose on average by 3.85% each year for the rest of his presidency. Also after the recession, unemployment dropped consistently throughout his terms as eighteen million new jobs were created. Also during Reagan’s presidency, we saw a significant decrease in inflation. Reagan also realized the evils of price controls. In his time, some of the biggest price controls were on oil. Continued on page 2 Franciscan Conservative Page 2 of 4 The Meaning of Freedom By Clare Hinshaw There’s a saying in politics that “there’s no such thing as a free lunch.” Basically this means that money has got to come from somewhere. As our parents used to tell us “money does not grow on trees.” Perhaps you are able to postpone the bill or in some other way make it go away for awhile. But it never vanishes completely. In socialist countries it is common to be told that everything is free – free school, free college, free medicine, etc. Oh, but, by the way, the taxes are sky high. Because there is no such thing as free school, free college, free medicine, or a free lunch. But everyone loves the sound of “free” so it is advantageous to those in power to tell the people that everything in life is going to be free. Then the money that would have been paid to the doctor or school directly will just be added onto your taxes. You’ll never know the difference! Then it is up to the government to decide how much of this money to give back to the teachers and the doctors while keeping their fair share to waste on unnecessary and ineffectual stimulus projects. Oh, and on top of that, the fact that the people are paying the government for everything then gives the government the right to control everything. I know this argument has been used a lot lately but, really, you’ve seen the way government runs, do you really want them controlling your life? Pope John Paul II said that freedom is “having the right to do what we ought.” In America we have been gifted, as many others have not, with this freedom. Freedom is not the ability to choose to be a slave. Where many around the world have killed and died for the freedom we enjoy we have now voted in representatives who have sworn to take that freedom away from us. With this decision we have greatly abused our God-given freedom. In Remembrance of Ronald Reagan – cont’d In fact, they helped contribute to the energy crises of the 1970s. While in office, Reagan removed these controls. Subsequently, oil prices dropped and the energy crises ceased. Let us now turn our eyes to modern times. As we all know, the recent recession led the president to pass a gigantic stimulus bill. Now, some economists say that we may be in for another recession soon. Since when has spending more money ever gotten someone out of debt? What we need are tax cuts rather than an increase in spending. According to economics, price controls almost always lead to either a surplus of goods with a lowered demand, or an increase in demand with a scarcity of goods. So what exactly do we think is going to happen now that our government has placed a limit on the amount of money that people in the financial sector can make? According to theory (and now probably practice), many people will end up leaving finance and those who do stay will be second-rate. I think the last thing we need right now is second rate people running the financial sector of our country. If this does end up happening, perhaps our current president will see the errors in these ways and look back to a presidency with marked success. With these lessons, he could actually bring about change. The Obama Foreign Policy: Part II- cont’d But, if all that’s true, your humble author, Scipio, is having some trouble understanding Barack’s decision-making process concerning the “central front” over the past year. Oh, it’s not that he didn’t attend to the Afghan issue speedily. Yes, siree! Our genius of a chief executive hit the ground running on setting them al-Qaeda terrorists and their Taliban pals straight. By March of last year, he had sent an additional 21,000 troops to Afghanistan with every intention of ramping up “the good war” that Dubya started, while de-escalating “the bad war” that Dubya started—i.e. Iraq. So far so good! (Not really. JK and LOL. Iraq is one of “the best wars ever,” but that’s a subject for a future column.) Then, Barack got the bad news. Reports from Afghanistan indicated that the government was horribly corrupt. It didn’t command the respect of the people. Taliban numbers were growing and now totaled around 25,000 fighters. The Taliban was even re-gaining ground in the country, occupying places they hadn’t seen since 2002, the year we invaded. So, Obama, he let out this big sigh, furrowed his brow—you know, like all those intellectual guys do—and. . . .he called some meetings, lots of meetings! Continued on page 3 Page 3 of 4 Franciscan Conservative The Obama Foreign Policy: Part II - cont’d He knew we had “to study” the problem, the way they do in a Ph.d. level course or like they do in law school. Because everyone knows, when you totally understand a subject, you’re much less likely to make a mistake. (JK and LOL, again.) Well, I got some interesting news for the Pres: War is not a seminar and it doesn’t yield its secrets up to intense intellectualizing. It responds to the heavy hand of swift decisions and ruthless execution. It responds to the doers, not the thinkers and the critics. Finally, on December 1, our Child-President (thanks for this appropriate title goes to Mr. Rush Limbaugh) announced his decision to an awaiting world: He would send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and continue with the counterinsurgency strategy originally established by the Bush administration and recommended by his appointed commander, General Stanley McChrystal. Wow! That was a productive exercise. Months of deliberations only to arrive back at the original decision, i.e. more troops and more and more fighting. It’s so good to have a Pres with such deep insights! We’ve gained so much by having a “smart guy” in the White House. “So, what’s the problem?” Readers might ask. “Obama is doing what Scipio wants, isn’t he?” Yeah, I got to admit. It sounds good to me. But here’s the difficulty and it’s not a little one— Our fool of a president has just wasted months yammering away with his cabinet and generals while the golden opportunity to strike crushing blows upon a vulnerable enemy disappeared. Our reinforcements should be in Afghanistan right now, pounding the enemy into dust with every element of violence they can summon up. Instead, they will arrive in force only in the early spring and complete deployment will be effected only in midsummer. The smarter strategy would have been to send as many men and materiel as possible as early as possible. Had we done that, our troops would have caught our enemy unaware and unprepared. They don’t expect major attacks in Afghanistan during the winter months, from November to March, inclusive. The weather is bad and the mountainous terrain and poor transportation infrastructure make movement problematic. In war, it’s best to do the unexpected and there’s not much we could do in Afghanistan that would have been more surprising than a major winter offensive. Dubya did it: He assaulted Afghanistan in October, 2001, when the experts said he’d have to wait for the spring. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda reeled from the shock of it all. The newsboys ran to the defense of Baracki-poo by claiming that we couldn’t campaign effectively during those harsh Afghani conditions, anyway. Pantywaisting reporters insulted our troops by claiming that winter life is just too harsh for our guys. Effeminate reporters who dodged the Vietnam War with their “student deferments” insulted our generals by claiming that the lack of good roads and airfields made getting our reinforcements into Afghanistan a six-month affair. You can always count on those media wimps to treat their guys— from Carter, to Clinton to Obama— favorably, with all the lies and distortions their lack of professionalism can muster. Here’s another news flash for the media: We have units whose training, equipment and organization were long ago tailored for all of the challenges Afghanistan can summon up. They’re called marines; the 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions ( They’re air mobile! Do ya get it, Johnny and Susie “Dim-wit” Reporters?); and last, but not least, the 10th Mountain Division. The latter guys actually train for service in “rugged terrain.”—hence the catchy name. As I write the U.S. army is now preparing to assault Marjah, the largest Taliban-held town in southern Afghanistan. Yes, and they are doing it in the middle of that ferocious Afghani winter. I guess our military got tired of the insults and they wanted to show the media what they can do, even without their reinforcements. Where would we be without real men? Where would we be without real Americans? How many of these brave men will die because the enemy will be ready for us in the spring, because Barack play acted at being an intellectual? How many will die because our President doesn’t have the simple courage to make decisions, because he doesn’t understand the nature of war? Stay tuned: Barack’s body-bags will soon be running off the conveyor belts at Dover Air Force Base. He’ll be there to salute them again as he’s done before: The photo-op is just too good to miss. Virginia is for (Freedom) Lovers FUS College Republicans PRESIDENT DANIEL WOLTORNIST VICE PRESIDENT OLIVIA DVORJAK SECRETARY GENNY BURKE TREASURER MARK SUMME EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR STEVEN VALENTINE ADVERTISING STEVE WOLTORNIST ADVERTISING ASSISTANT LYNDSEY JAMES We’re on the Web! See us at: www.FranciscanCon servative.com Got a response? Want to be published? Email us at: Fuscollegerepublicans @gmail.com the most ‘business-friendly’ in the nation.” Virginians The debate over health care know how to create an reform has slowed on Capitol environment in which Hill, but there was an intriguing businesses can thrive and development this past week. all can benefit, as The General Assembly in the evidenced by its number Commonwealth of Virginia one rating in quality of life. passed measures that would President Obama’s make it illegal to require an embrace of more individual to purchase health government spending and insurance. Titled the Virginia tax hikes has quickly turned Health Care Freedom Act, the Virginia against him. bill passed through the The Virginia General Democratic-controlled Senate Assembly’s action is a by a 23-17 margin on February bipartisan rejection of 1st. The House of Delegates government-run health care. approved the bill on February Conservatives have argued 11th by a 72-26 vote. To see that the federal government such a bill pass through by such does not have the right to comfortable margins in a state mandate that American President Barack Obama citizens purchase carried in the 2008 election is an something. Some liberals encouraging development for have argued that a mandate the 58% of Americans who in a sell-out to the health oppose the current health care insurance companies that legislation in Washington. Speaker of the House To give you a little Nancy Pelosi has made a background information on the hobby of demonizing. political climate in Virginia: it has While the bill does only slowly become a purple state cover the mandate aspect over the last decade. of federal legislation, Republican Senator George Virginia’s bill is seen as a Allen was defeated in 2006 by “‘message’ bill meant to Democrat Jim Webb, and nowpersuade federal legislators Senator Mark Warner easily — especially those defeated Republican Jim representing Virginia — to Gilmore in 2008. Obama won back off from the proposed the state by 6 points, becoming overhaul.”2 Attorney the first Democrat in 44 years to General Ken Cuccinelli carry the state. Many political called the bill "a strong analysts saw the makings of a political message"3 and has new Virginia. Not so fast. said that he would consider Governor Bob McDonnell, a filing a lawsuit against the Catholic conservative, easily federal government should defeated Democrat Creigh a mandate pass. Gov. Bob Deeds last November. He McDonnell has signaled that became the first Republican he will sign the Virginia governor in eight years and did Health Care Freedom Act so by running against President into law. Obama’s agenda. While the Losing the support of Virginia constitutionality of such a means losing the support of the bill from a state legislature business-savvy. In 2009 CNBC is still questionable, Virginia and Forbes Magazine named legislators have stood up for Virginia the “Top State for the rights of the American Business” for the fourth-year in people. If the federal a row. CNBC and Forbes noted government can mandate that “Virginia’s legal and that we buy health regulatory framework are one of insurance, what else will By Steven Valentine they start to mandate upon us? Will they begin mandating certain diets or exercise routines as to bring down the costs of government-run health care? Will the nanny-state ban certain activities deemed harmful to one’s health, such as smoking? It is not all that crazy when you think about it. First Lady Michelle Obama recently declared war on the obesity “epidemic”- can you imagine the sweeping new mandates that would follow a health insurance mandate? Some may argue that the government needs to be the mommy-in-chief as to protect healthy Americans from paying for the unhealthiness of others. But that is exactly why the government needs to stay out of health care. Name an entitlement that has worked how the bureaucrats in Washington promised it would. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are boondoggles that must be dealt with. Do we need another on top of those? It is refreshing to see a state reasserting its rights under the Constitution and challenging the rights of the federal government. You can bet that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Patrick Henry, and other native Virginia statesmen would be proud. http://www.yesvirginia.or g/pdf/Forbes.com.pdf 2http://www.washingtonexaminer.co m/local/Va_-House-passes-bill-todefy-health-care-mandate84169552.html 3http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR20 10020103674_2.html? hpid=topnews&sid=ST20100202012 54