News

U.S. troubles with North Korea all due to United Nations
2006 07 31

I’ve always been against the U.S. belonging to the UN.

In 1951, I was sent to Korea for a one-year tour of duty. It lasted from 1952, 1953 and 1954 – we had them on the run and our victory was in sight. Then the UN stuck its Socialist nose into our military activities and declared an armistice. Being a member of the UN, we complied and ceased our military activities.

Today, because of the UN’s stupidity, we are paying the price dictated by North Korea. I’ll go back if it means that some youngster GI doesn’t have to go. Short of that, we should institute a Class A embargo on North Korea and imprison the executives of any U.S. firm violating the embargo.

To view this article online click here.

Ear to the Sidewalk: Issue 6
2006 07 28

John Bolton Up for Confirmation—Again

One year ago, President Bush bypassed the stalled Senate Foreign Relations Committee and used a recess appointment to put John Bolton in place as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Now the Committee is preparing to take another look at Bolton, whose appointment will expire soon if no further action is taken.

Sen. George Voinovich, the sole Republican on the Committee to oppose Bolton last year, has done an abrupt about-face and agreed to back Bolton’s re-nomination. Rumors swirl that Senators Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton aren’t far behind their colleague.

Just to be sure, conservative groups are out in force to lend their support to the embattled Bolton. UN expert and Freedom Alliance president Tom Kilgannon calls Bolton “one of the best and most effective Ambassadors this country has ever had at the United Nations,” and American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene calls Bolton “the perfect man” for the job.

Several at the Heritage Foundation have also lifted up their voices, including Peter Brookes, who calls the re-nomination “an opportunity to right a terrible wrong.”

Center for Security Policy president Frank Gaffney is circulating a letter from 54 foreign policy and defense experts arguing that the “challenges now confronting the United States at the UN make it simply unthinkable that Ambassador Bolton’s service might come… to a premature end.”

Let’s hope the Committee and the full Senate agree.

To view this article online click here. 

United Nations must broker Mideast peace
2006 07 26

The United Nations Security Council encounters a defining moment. The 15-nation panel had its undivided attention on North Korea’s missile tests earlier this month. That has become a slightly lower priority to the relentless fighting between Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon.

As the deaths mount there and in northern Israel, the U.N. Security Council must broker the peace.

Israel’s death toll in the conflict stands at 42, including 24 soldiers and 18 civilians, most killed by hundreds of rockets fired by Hezbollah.

At least 391 people have been killed and 1,596 wounded in Lebanon, according to Lebanese security officials. Among them are 20 Lebanese soldiers and at least 11 Hezbollah guerrillas.
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, or the person he designates, should follow up the mission of U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, who embarked on a trip to the Middle East Monday to initiate a dialogue.

Rice will lead an international panel in Rome today to discuss ways to stop the fighting.
She wants Israel and Hezbollah to accept a simultaneous truce with the deployment of an international and Lebanese peace-keeping force.
We applaud Rice’s effort, but the United Nations Security Council cannot afford to be irrelevant now that diplomacy has been kick-started.
Rice has encountered some opposition to her plan.

Lebanese Parliament speaker Nabih Berri, a prominent Shiite Muslim who has been negotiating on behalf of Hezbollah, rejected it and said a cease-fire should be immediate, leaving the other issues for later. Prime Minister Fuad Saniora took a similar stance and complained to Rice about Israel’s nearly incessant bombing that has inflicted untold damage and sent Lebanese citizens scrambling for refuge.

Can you blame them? Either a civil war or Israel engaged in fighting against Hezbollah on Lebanon’s southern border had plagued the nation between 1982 and 2000.
Now this?

But Israeli officials would respond that Hezbollah reignited the recent conflict by kidnapping two soldiers and barraging northern Israel with katyusha rockets.
Don’t be surprised if Israel insists on the disarming of Hezbollah, which was stipulated in a prior U.N. Security Council resolution, No. 1559.
Because these two sides have little common ground, that gives the U.N. Security Council an opening. It cannot allow the bloodshed to continue.
Israel will allow the transportation of humanitarian aid to Lebanon, but this step is far-removed from a cessation of hostilities and lasting peace.
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton and colleagues from Great Britain, France, China and Russia and non-permanent members Argentina, Congo, Denmark, Ghana, Greece, Japan, Peru, Qatar, Slovakia and Tanzania must seize this opportunity.
The world depends on it - now more than ever.

To view this article online click here. 

Electing the Next United Nations Secretary-General Is an Opportunity to Press for UN Reform
2006 07 26

by Brett D. Schaefer and Janice A. Smith

According to reports, the United Nations is on course to select its next Secretary-General in October.[1] The process gained steam this week with an informal straw poll in the Security Council.[2] The details of the “blind” straw poll reveal very little about how much support each of the current candidates really have. Instead, it was merely a way for candidates to learn which of the 15 Security Council members “encourage” them to go on, “discourage” them, or have “no opinion.” While two candidates received more support than the other two, confidence in the currently announced candidates is low and speculation is high that others will be nominated over the next few months. It is unlikely that this week’s straw poll will determine how the race will shape up. The most significant result may be for a candidate or two to withdraw quietly after being discouraged by the Security Council.

However, the straw poll is an opportunity for Security Council members to send a message about what they would like to see from the next Secretary-General. The United States should use this process to state clearly that candidates for Secretary-General must be committed to fundamental and far-reaching UN reform to make the organization more transparent, accountable, and effective.

The Next Secretary-General?

Politics makes strange bedfellows, and this is perhaps more true for the United Nations than elsewhere. The most overt evidence of political horse-trading involves the regional influence over the selection of the Secretary-General. In tacit acknowledgement of Asia’s claim to the next Secretary-General, all four of the official candidates are Asian. Asia’s claim is based on an informal and loosely followed tradition of rotating the Secretary-General position among different regions.[3] Thus far, candidates from countries outside of the Asian regional group have been excluded from consideration, despite the fact that Eastern Europe is the only regional group that has never had a Secretary-General.

Politics also likely dominated, if less publicly, consideration of the four official candidates by the Security Council this week. All have been jetting around the world on public relations tours to secure high-level official endorsements, and all have personal strengths and weaknesses that will factor into the support they garner. Just as important, however, are international political dynamics and the concerns of the members of the Security Council. All four of the official candidates have widely reported negatives that may undermine support in the Security Council:

India: Shashi Tharoor, UN Undersecretary-General for Communications. While Tharoor has made the promotion of human rights and non-governmental organization (NGOs) participation in the UN the centerpieces of his campaign, he has been endorsed by Belarus—one of the world’s worst human rights abusers and a country that often intimidates its own NGOs.[4] Tharoor argues that his years of experience within the UN will greatly aid him as Secretary-General. Others argue that an insider would be poorly positioned to reform the UN and point to numerous scandals during the tenure of long-time UN bureaucrat and current Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Tharoor has not won the endorsement of any of the major world leaders lobbied by his government at the recent G-8 ministerial.
South Korea: Ban Ki-Moon, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Ban Ki-Moon has the support of at least two consistent human rights abusers—Uzbekistan and Egypt—which raises questions about his commitment to making the UN more effective in advancing basic human rights.[5] While his familiarity with North Korea may be an asset, that the South Korean government has been reluctant to confront North Korea on human rights or its belligerence and nuclear ambitions should concern the U.S. because the situation on the peninsula will likely occupy the UN for the foreseeable future. Ban has said little about UN reform, and there are questions about his commitment to it. The current government in South Korea campaigned in 2004 with strong anti-United States rhetoric. Thus support from the U.S. is in question even though President Bush said the U.S. is now “looking in the Far East” for the next Secretary-General.[6]
Sri Lanka: Jayantha Dhanapala. Jayantha Dhanapala failed to win India’s support, which is considered important for a South Asian candidate. He has been strongly criticized by Russia and was reportedly a thorn in America’s side as chair of a global review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. As UN Undersecretary-General for Disarmament from 1998 to 2003, Dhanapala reestablished and led the UN’s disarmament program. Under his watch, India and Pakistan declared themselves to be nuclear states, and Iran and North Korea violated their nuclear arms agreements.
Thailand: Deputy Prime Minister Surakiart Sathirathai. Surakiart Sathirathai was the early frontrunner, based on his endorsement by the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). He reportedly also has Chinese support. However, his prospects seem to be in steady decline as his government battles political troubles in Thailand. He has reacted to detractors by filing lawsuits, and many human rights groups oppose him.[7]
News reports indicate that, while Ban Ki-Moon and Shashi Tharoor led the UN Security Council’s first straw poll to become the next Secretary-General, there is a “a general sense that none of the candidates were likely to succeed.”[8]

If the official candidates founder, other potential candidates include Afghanistan’s former finance minister Ashraf Ghani; Prince Zeid Ra’ad Zeid Al-Hussein of Jordan; President Vaira Vike-Freiberga of Latvia; former deputy prime minister and finance minister of Malaysia Anwar Ibrahim; current high commissioner of Pakistan to the United Kingdom and a former ambassador to the United States Maleeha Lodhi; former President of Poland Aleksander Kwasniewski; Singapore’s former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong; and Administrator of the UN Development Programme Kemal Dervis of Turkey.

U.S. Priorities for the Next Secretary-General

How the U.S. will vote on the official candidates is unclear. Although President Bush’s statements on July 10 indicate that the U.S. has acknowledged demands that the next Secretary-General be from Asia, it also seems clear that the U.S. will oppose candidates whom it considers unsuitable.[9] Thus far, the U.S. appears unenthused about any of the four declared candidates, which may in part reflect its uncertainty about the commitment of the individual candidates to fundamental UN reform. Based on comments by U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton, UN reform is a priority for the U.S. and will be a key factor in its decision whether to support or oppose a particular candidate.[10]

The organization has major responsibilities. The UN employs over 9,000 people of all nationalities and spends $7 billion per year in the its regular and peacekeeping budgets—more than the 2004 gross domestic product of 72 UN member states.[11] It runs 18 peacekeeping missions involving some 90,000 personnel.[12] Some of these missions, including the UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) established in Jerusalem in 1948 and the UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) established in 1949, date back decades and are older than two-thirds of UN member states.

Unfortunately, the UN has often failed in these responsibilities, and recent, well-publicized scandals illustrate the many problems that continue to plague the world body. For instance, investigations found some 200 instances of alleged procurement mismanagement and fraud in peacekeeping operations. Additionally, bribes and kickbacks to the tune of $2 billion under the Iraqi Oil-for-Food program involved over 2,000 companies in nearly 70 countries.[13]

The United Nations often makes decisions based more on political concerns than on the overall effectiveness of the organization.[14] Seemingly benign changes in personnel and mandates are perceived as turf wars, slights, or assaults on obscure fiefdoms. These concerns led the G-77 to delay and block Secretary-General Annan’s reform effort by requesting a series of reports from the Secretary-General on his proposals.[15] Compounding the problem, the G-77 led an effort to approve a UN budget beyond the $950 million cap despite making little progress on UN reform this past June, thus removing a major incentive for reform. While the U.S. did not vote against the resolution, it disassociated itself from the consensus position.[16]

The United States should make UN reform a paramount consideration for the next Secretary-General. President Bush missed an important opportunity recently when he left the drive for reform out of the list of qualities he seeks in the next Secretary-General. The next Secretary-General should, as the President pointed out, be someone who “wants to spread liberty and enhance the peace, do difficult things like confront tyranny, worry about the human condition, [and] blow the whistle on human rights violations,”[17] but it is also critical that he or she is committed to battling fraud, improving UN oversight, and removing the bureaucratic detritus and defects that limit the UN’s effectiveness.

The official candidates have presented their views on reform to the Security Council. Yet UN reform for these candidates may be inconsistent with what the U.S. envisions. To varying degrees, they have engaged in political maneuvering designed to attract support from a broad swath of the General Assembly and avoid controversial aspects of reform.

The failure of these candidates to lay out explicitly a reform agenda designed to improve UN effectiveness, oversight, and accountability and to forthrightly announce their intention to implement those reforms if they become Secretary-General should concern the U.S. Whoever takes over from Kofi Annan must be more than the chief cheerleader for the UN, an opportunistic diplomat, or a skillful orator. As John Bolton has noted,

The UN Charter describes the secretary-general as the UN’s “chief administrative officer.” He is not the president of the world. He is not a diplomat for all seasons.… He is the chief administrative officer. Nothing less than that, to be sure, but, with even greater certainty, nothing more.[18]

As much as individuals, groups, and governments are eager to see the next Secretary-General champion various causes, the first priority and qualification for the next Secretary-General—and the only responsibility specifically assigned to the office in the UN Charter—is to be an effective chief administrative officer.[19] Given the evident flaws of the organization, the first priority of a chief administrative officer must be to fight for fundamental reform of the organization.

Without reform to improve effectiveness and accountability, every UN activity—regardless of its merits or the capabilities of the next Secretary-General—will suffer. Unfortunately, the straw poll process will say little about how much emphasis the Council places on a candidate’s ability to carry out substantive UN reform. It won’t indicate what substantive expertise the Security Council members seek in the person who will inherit from Kofi Annan a massive and very troubled organization. The U.S. should request that the candidates publicly identify a reform agenda that they will pursue and should announce that a lack of commitment to reform will draw U.S. opposition. In addition, Washington should make it clear that failure to follow through on promises made by the eventual winner will influence the U.S. decision to support or oppose reelection five years hence.

To view this article online click here.

UN, defying US, urges quick Middle East cease-fire
2006 07 20

By Caroline Drees

UNITED NATIONS, July 19 (Reuters) - Israel and Hizbollah must stop fighting before a broader settlement of the conflict can be reached, a top U.N. official said on Wednesday, clashing with the United States which said a cease-fire made little sense.

The U.N. call came hours after Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said his country’s military campaign against Hizbollah guerrillas would continue “as long as necessary” to free two captured soldiers and ensure the group was no longer a threat.

“What there needs to be now is a cessation of hostilities,” U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown told reporters, a day after France suggested the Security Council adopt a resolution calling for a cease-fire underpinned by political and security steps.

“The Middle East is littered with the results of people believing there are military solutions to political problems in the region,” Malloch Brown said.

Council members said they were waiting for a briefing by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Thursday before deciding on next steps. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was having a private dinner with Annan on Thursday, U.N. officials said.

Washington frowns on the idea of a cease-fire now. U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said a cease-fire between a state and a “terrorist group” like Hizbollah made little sense. He said the council should instead focus on disarming Hizbollah and extending Lebanese government control over all its territory.

‘WE’RE NOT COLLUDING,’ SAYS WHITE HOUSE

In Washington, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the United States was not engaged in military strategy sessions with the Israelis, “sitting around at the war map saying, ‘Do this, this and this.’”

“We’re not colluding, we’re not cooperating, we’re not conspiring, we’re not doing any of that,” he told reporters. “The Israelis are doing what they think is necessary to protect their borders.”

Malloch Brown said international action should come in phases, starting with ending the killing of civilians.

Afterward would come negotiation of a longer-term settlement and a possible enhancement of UNIFIL, the U.N. peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon since 1978 that has been largely ineffective in stopping cross-border attacks.

The United Nations and some nations have proposed an international force as part of a cease-fire agreement that would be larger and have a more robust mandate than UNIFIL.

Asked about France’s proposal, Bolton told reporters, “It is very hard to understand from the people calling for a cease-fire how you have a cease-fire with a terrorist organization like Hizbollah.”

“I am not sure that conventional thinking about a cease-fire makes any sense when you are dealing with a terrorist group that fires rockets at civilian populations and kidnaps innocent Israelis,” he added.

Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora has repeatedly appealed for an immediate cease-fire, stating on Wednesday that more than 300 people had been killed and more than half a million displaced in his country since Israel launched its offensive last week after Hizbollah militants captured two soldiers and later rained rockets on northern Israel. (Additional reporting by Irwin Arieff and Evelyn Leopold)

To view this article online click here.

An Illegal Alien Is Not an Immigrant
2006 07 18

by Paul Oreffice
Posted Jul 18, 2006

Immigrant’s Success in Life Came From Hard Work, Strong Family

As Congress continues to debate two ludicrous “immigration” bills, illegal aliens continue to deluge American borders.

If Congress is going to make any progress, it is imperative to begin by using the proper terminology, namely, an illegal alien is not an immigrant. The U.S. does not have an “immigration” problem. An immigrant is a person who obtains an immigration visa from a U.S. Consulate, expresses a wish to become a U.S. citizen, and abides by the law.

The problem Americans are facing is one of ILLEGAL ALIENS, not immigrants—brought about by total neglect of the U.S. government throughout several decades. Democratic and Republican administrations alike have allowed the Immigration and Naturalization Service to become a bureaucracy that makes it difficult for legitimate people to come to this country but does precious little to stop the illegal aliens.

As a direct result of misusing the word “immigrants,” Congress is creating a negative connotation of immigrants. This results in a prejudicial mindset, causing Americans turn against immigrants in general, not just illegals. This is a terrible disservice to a country that has prospered for more than two centuries by allowing hardworking immigrants to assimilate and aid in the overall prosperity of American society.

In theory, the House bill will send 12 million illegal aliens back to their native countries. Just how does the government expect to find them? In addition, the Senate bill lacks the wherewithal to effectively enforce its agenda. The bill will reward the worst transgressors, those who have cheated for the longest period of time and send back illegal aliens who have been here less than two years. Again, how are we going to find them? Do the esteemed senators expect those here for a short time to say, “I have been here only one year, please send me back?”

To effectively control the illegal alien problem threatening our country, I propose a three pronged approach:

Strengthen America’s borders

Revamp the utterly inefficient INS, by allocating a tough businessman to strip it down and begin anew

Create a guest-worker program.

I listen as my fellow conservatives (including those at HUMAN EVENTS) scream that creating such a program to “cleanse” the illegals would be tantamount to amnesty. But amnesty would be giving illegal aliens an immediate pardon. In contrast, a guest-worker program is akin to placing illegal aliens on probation, giving them a chance to clean their record over a period spanning many years.

Why should the U.S. government grant a probationary period, allowing illegal aliens to prove themselves? The answer is simple. America needs them! Without the 12 million illegal aliens our economy would suffer a mighty blow. Who would we find to take the jobs in construction, hotels, restaurants, and gardening, which these men and women are doing effectively?

The charge is often heard that American businesses are willfully hiring illegals. In most cases this is just not true; instead, employers may be hiring illegals unwittingly because of the ease with which documents can be forged. The burden of determining the validity of green cards, Social Security cards, and driver’s licenses should not fall on employers who lack the means to determine the truth.

The solution is not rocket science. Simply create an ID card that is difficult to forge with a chip embedded in it that all immigrants must carry and present when applying for a job. After this is accomplished, the government should hold employers accountable for hiring illegals, and in turn, punish them if they hire immigrants without proper ID.

The solution exists to solve the problem of illegal aliens now and in the future. To do it, we need a national resolve to force our Congress to be realistic about what the problem truly is, and what needs to be done to effectively solve this epidemic.

Read our Q&A with Paul Oreffice, who talks about his success in life.

Mr. Oreffice is the former CEO of Dow Chemical. He was born in Italy, immigrated to Ecuador and then traveled to America—legally—in search of the American Dream. His new book, “Only in America: From Immigrant to CEO,” details his amazing journey.

To read this article online click here.

Immigrant’s Success in Life Came From Hard Work, Strong Family
2006 07 14

by Laura Evans
Posted Jul 14, 2006

Paul Oreffice has lived the American dream. Rising from immigrant to CEO of Dow Chemical, he worked his way to the top with hard work and strong family values. Now retired, Oreffice has written a book, “Only in America: From Immigrant to CEO,” about his life.

The book, published by Stroud & Hall, has won widespread praise from notable politicians and businessmen such as Vice President Cheney, former President Gerald Ford, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, retired General Electic CEO Jack Welch and former Major League Baseball Commissioner Peter Ueberroth.

This week I asked Oreffice about his experience as an immigrant coming to America, how he turned his life into a success story and what he thinks about the current debate about immigration in the United States.

You attribute much of your success to your father? Was it your family’s strong bond that helped you succeed in life?

No question that a strong family bond helped us overcome adversity and helped me greatly succeed in life.

How did your family manage to escape from fascist Italy?

We were able to obtain an exit visa and passage on the last ship to leave Italy, one week before it entered World War II.

Once your family arrived in Ecuador, how were you able to start a new life? Did your family have money saved or a job lined up?

My father was a true entrepreneur and he found a way to spot needs and create small new enterprises to fill those needs. The first one was to make pharmaceutical grade castor oil that could no longer be imported because of the war. Money was very scarce and my father had to borrow all the required capital.

You said your father had deep respect for America, even before he had visited the country. Why do you think this was the case?

My father loved freedom and free enterprise. The U.S. was the beacon he always looked up to. He was in awe of America’s ability to get things done and the work ethic of Americans.

What steps did you take in order to transform Dow Chemical from a tiny organization to the second largest chemical company in Brazil?

During my stay in Brazil inflation was very high and the local currency called Cruzeiro was losing value at a 30% to 40% a year average. It was obvious to me that borrowing capital in local currency was essential but the banks had none to lend. By asking a lot of questions I essentially created a new form of borrowing that came to be known as “Swap Loans.” In these, Dow loaned the Brazilian Government’s Bank certain amounts in U.S. dollars while they loaned us local currency for the same period of time. At the end, they repaid us U.S. dollars while we repaid the Cruzeiros. We thus avoiding devaluation. Suddenly Dow had cash available to finance its business while competitors did not.

You said you only knew 50 English words when you enrolled at Purdue University. How were you able to become a successful student despite the initial language barrier?

The biggest challenge of my life was to study Chemical Engineering starting with 50 words of English. It took enormous dedication the first two months, staying up till 3 a.m. or 4 a.m. with a dictionary and the textbooks trying to figure out what had been said in the classroom in the daytime.

What were some of your original feelings about coming to America from Ecuador?

Coming to America was a dream fulfilled. At the same time it was a period of high anxiety, the future was unknown.

You are clearly an exception, but it is pretty safe to say that many Americans feel that most of the illegal aliens who gain entry into the U.S., especially from the Southern border, do so with no intent of striving for the success you had, learning English, or even assimilating into the American culture and simply just take advantage of the welfare system. You said you were concerned that the recent debate over illegal aliens had given rise to an anti-immigrant sentiment. Can you understand, in a way, where this sentiment stems from?

Every immigrant should make learning English their first priority, otherwise they close the door to a lot of opportunities. Those that come illegally are not immigrants, they are illegal aliens. Unfortunately we have blurred the line between the two in such a way that the general public is confused.

Are you in favor of amnesty for all people wishing to live in the United States?

I am definitely against amnesty but we need to find a way to allow some of these people to “cleanse” their record and work legally in this country. We could put them on probation by giving them a work permit for up to five years and make it a condition of their stay that they be model citizens, pay their fair share of taxes, etc.

What do you think about some business in the U.S. posting signs, having menus, directions, etc., that contain both English and Spanish? Would you like to see this everywhere?

I am in favor of people learning English and right now we are making it too easy for those who speak Spanish to live without English.

How do you feel about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other welfare programs?

Some welfare programs are needed but what we have now are programs whose costs are running away and will bankrupt the country unless they are brought in check. As people live longer, we need, as a first step, to raise the age at which people are eligible for Social Security, Medicare, etc. It could be done gradually, grandfathering current generations but, we need to get started

Were your efforts to succeed in college or in business ever met with hostility because you were not an American?

I never met any hostility because I was not born in the U.S., to the contrary everyone went out of their way to make me feel welcome.

What steps do you feel should be required of an immigrant before he/she becomes an American citizen?

The steps required to become a U.S. citizen are clearly spelled out and include five years of residence, learning about our form of government and the constitution, and passing a test in English. Nothing should be done to change any of this.

Have you ever considered getting involved in politics to promote your value of hard work and determination instead of dependence on the government?

I definitely considered going into government for the right job at the end of my Dow career but changed my mind when I saw that in Washington everything was a compromise. As a businessman I am used to making decisions, a very difficult thing indeed in our nation’s capital.

Why do you thank Mussolini for your success in life and say that “[your] life would not have been so wonderful had [he] not created the crisis from which [you] came through?”

If it had not been for Mussolini and his nefarious ways I probably would not have left Italy. Would I have done as well there as here? I don’t really think so.

To view this article online click here