Saturday, October 24, 2009

Reuters Reports...

Barack Obama campaigned on restoring America's standing with its allies, accusing the outgoing Bush administration of insulting and alienating our closest friends with his alleged unilateralism. How has Obama done as President? He has repeatedly insulted the British, insisting that there is no "special relationship" and demonstrating it by denying Gordon Brown the usual joint press conference on his visit to the US. Reuters reports that another close ally has taken the measure of Obama and started looking elsewhere for cooperation...

To be fair, Reuters is a right-wing, racist rag.

Hat tip: Instapundit.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Foreign Policy, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:16 PM

Thursday, October 15, 2009

The Nobel Committee's Not-So Unanimous Selection of Obama

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

The Agence France Presse today reports that three of the Nobel Committee's five committee members had problems with awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama.

Nobel Committee Secretary Geir Lundestad, however, insists that the selection was unanimous.

This is doubtful, given that one of the members represents the free-market-oriented, unabashedly pro-Israel Progress Party. The party's leader, Siv Jensen, not only criticized the Nobel Committee's choice of Obama but called on its chairman, Thorbjoern Jaglund, to step down just one day after the committee's announcement. Although Jensen called for his resignation for a supposedly unrelated reason, the timing of her demand is interesting.

Lundestad wasn't being honest when he claimed "unanimous" vote as he neglected to mention that the Nobel Committee's selections are always "unanimous" -- even if such unanimity doesn't exist.

The Nobel Committee makes its decisions by "consensus" and the functionally-illiterate often use this interchangeably with "unanimous." Now you know why so many Norwegian parents are asking, "why can't Jens read?"

Just to make sure that no committee member challenges its "unanimous" claim, Nobel Committee rules prohibit them from speaking publicly about its proceedings.

Unanimous decision? It really depends on what your definition of "unamious" is.

Bill Clinton may not have received the Nobel Peace Prize, but it turns out the Nobel Committee has found another way to honor him.

Editor's note: We covered President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize previously here, here and here.

Written by David A. Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. Write the author at info@nationalcenter.org. As we occasionally reprint letters on the blog, please note if you prefer that your correspondence be kept private, or only published anonymously.

Labels: Constitutional Law, Foreign Policy, Media, White House

Posted by David A. Ridenour at 4:48 PM

Friday, October 02, 2009

What's Happening Now

Senator Kerry blocks Senate fact-finding trip to Honduras.

Woman who "essentially starved" her toddler to death served a mere six months and is now accused of grotesquely abusing her son. Six months?

State of Michigan threatens woman for babysitting.

A population map.

In the none-of-its-business department: Major U.S. corporation spends $290,000 telling Irish voters to vote to join EU.

John Goodman asks: Why is AARP selling out seniors?

E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Congress, Courts, Crime, Europe, Foreign Policy, Government Health Care, Health Care, Liberals, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:11 AM

Thursday, October 01, 2009

What's Happening Now

Tim Cavanaugh: Another fiscal year older, another $1.65 trillion in debt.

Michael van der Galien: Everybody loves clowns, right?

GE gets its payoff.

Jules Crittenden: Intelligence without experience is like knowing how roller skates work without ever having skated. (One guess who he's talking about.)

PhRMA spends $9.4 million more promoting left-wing health care "reform"; forgets left-wing health care means drugs gets rationed.

Patterico tries to get a Washington Post correction. Good luck with that.

British Christian hotel owners charged with criminal offense after discussing religion with Muslim guest.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Defense, Europe, Foreign Policy, Government Health Care, Government Spending, Health Care, Media, Religion, Retirement, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:34 AM

Friday, September 25, 2009

It's a Sad State of Affairs...

...when the leader of the free world isn't the President of the United States, but the Israeli Prime Minister.

Labels: Foreign Policy, White House

Posted by David A. Ridenour at 5:04 PM

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Netanyahu Asks World: "Is This a Lie?"

Netanyahu delivered a terrific speech before the U.N.

He asked the nations that didn't boycott the Iranian dictator's speech, or who didn't walk out during it when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched into an anti-semitic tirade, "...but to those who gave this holocaust denier a hearing... Have you no shame? Have you no decency?"

The U.S., fortunately, was one of a little over a dozen that did the right thing. Canada was the best. It didn't wait to hear what was said and boycotted from the outset.

Labels: Foreign Policy, History, United Nations

Posted by David A. Ridenour at 6:27 PM

A State of War Exists in the Americas

Brazil should be expelled from the Organization of American States. It is currently housing deposed would-be dictator Manuel Zelaya in its embassy in Tegucigalpa, which seems to be a fairly clear violation of Article 19 of the OAS Charter, which states: "No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. The foregoing principle prohibits not only armed force but also any other form of interference or attempted threat against the personality of the State or against its political, economic, and cultural elements."

Brazil also risks triggering the collective defense provisions of the charter as any act of aggression, including but not limited to military action against a member state -- including by another member state -- is considered an act of aggression against all member states.

Article 29 states: "If the inviolability or the integrity of the territory or the sovereignty or political independence of any American State should be affected by an armed attack or by an act of aggression that is not an armed attack, or by an extracontinental conflict, or by a conflict between two or more American States, or by any other fact or situation that might endanger the peace of America, the American States, in furtherance of the principles of continental solidarity or collective selfdefense, shall apply the measures and procedures established in the special treaties on the subject."

By harboring Zelaya, Brazil is endangering the peace in Honduras. Whether declared or not, a state of war exists between the OAS and Brazil.

Labels: Defense, Foreign Policy

Posted by David A. Ridenour at 7:03 AM

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Daily Kos Wants Tea Party Participants to Forgo All Government Services, But Still Pay All Taxes

At times, activists of the superficial left write such stupid things, it is embarrassing to read them.

Such is the case with a Laura Clawson Daily Kos post Friday in which lefties are encouraged to send a faux "Socialist Free Purity Pledge" around the Internet. The gist of Clawson's message is that anyone who attended a Tea Party rally is a hypocrite if they from this point forward ever use a single thing funded by the federal government.

The post had at the time I read it 265 comments, most of which were favorable to the idea, which many of them actually thought was clever.

I ask myself, can the activist left be so uniformed as to believe that when it comes to government spending, there are only two positions possible, that of wanting the feds to spend more and grow larger, and that of wanting the feds to spend not one penny? That anyone who does not support President Obama's government-expansion plans is, ipso facto, the strictest of libertarians?

Seeing how badly the left governs when in office, I conclude "yes." Yes, they really can be this ignorant.

Which explains why the leftists in Congress and the White House think socialized medicine works and that the best way to deal with the Kremlin is from a position of slobbering, supplicating subservience.

The leftists think anyone who attended a Tea Party rally should sign a document pledging they will never use a government service again...

...but what the lefties don't put in their "Socialist Free Purity Pledge" is a pledge of their own to pass legislation offering to refund the tax dollars coercively paid by every person who might choose to sign their Purity Pledge and who sticks to it.

So selfish, these lefties. In their bitter little world, even the people who don't use any government will be forced to pay for it.

Labels: Conservatives, Defense, Foreign Policy, Government Health Care, Government Spending, Liberals, Protests, Socialism, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:58 AM

Friday, September 18, 2009

What's Happening Now

No independent thought tolerated: A sample of the abuse black conservatives routinely receive.

Polish newspaper: "Betrayal! The U.S. sold us to Russia and stabbed us in the back."

Czech newspaper: "An ally we rely on has betrayed us, and exchanged us for its own, better relations with Russia, of which we are rightly afraid."

Lauri Regan/American Thinker: "Missile defense Obama will ditch, but General Electric he'll enrich?"

Timothy Carney/Washington Examiner: Obama helps strengthen General Electric-Putin ties.

ACORN to file criminal complaint. (H/T The Other McCain)

Speaking of ACORN, defend Glenn Beck.

The Max Baucus money trail. (Is it that expensive to run in Montana?)

John McCain IDs "certainly the worst President of the 20th Century."

Labels: Defense, Europe, Foreign Policy, FreeEnterpriseProject, Government Health Care, Health Care, Media, Project 21, Race, Scandals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:41 PM

Friday, September 11, 2009

What's Happening Now

Final words from 9-11. Don't forget.

Iran, Libya and Obama's inexperience.

An American experiences the NHS.

Government Electric?

Death panels strike again.

ATR: Top five tax fibs in Obama speech.

Osteoporosis drug controversy in the UK.

Britain may not have enough hospital beds to handle swine flu.

Labels: Business, Defense, Europe, Foreign Policy, FreeEnterpriseProject, Government Health Care, Government Power, Health Care, Taxes, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:40 AM

Tuesday, September 08, 2009

What's Happening Now

"Beyond Petroleum" finds some. What to do?

39 fallacies about health care.

Cash for Clunkers spent $3 billion to save $375 million. More here.

I agree with Elliot Spitzer. Yikes.

GQ runs story connecting Vladimir Putin to terrorism within Russia, then bans story's publication in Russia. Conflicted?

NY Times news story shows jobs being killed when wages are mandated to be higher. Does the Times editorial page read the news section?

Just for fun: A huge snake. (Click on pic to see detail.)

Labels: Foreign Policy, Media, Minimum Wage, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:34 PM

Sunday, August 30, 2009

What's Happening Now

What would John Jay do?

Obama and Kennedy "weren't that close." We could tell from Obama's eulogy.

Laws covering certain major campaign supporters will not be enforced, Obama Labor Department says. Equal justice under law is "the animating ideal of our democracy," says Obama. We aren't feeling animated today.

Ed Morrissey, optimist: "We've spent enough on the UAW, thank you very much." Realist: We'll never stop paying for the UAW.

Moe Lane/RedState: "Sometimes, I miss Tony Blair." Me, too, but I suspect it's because we live here.

Ed Driscoll: "It can't happen here." Or it can.

Nice enough to make you want to be a cave dweller.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Corruption, Europe, Foreign Policy, History, Labor Unions, Terrorism, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:02 AM

Thursday, August 27, 2009

What's Happening Now

Here are one million British National Health Service patients who don't use the Twitter hashtag #welovethenhs.

Fire extinguishers are dangerous -- people might use them.

Public health care is SO reliable. </sarcasm>

Making Dan Rather look good: Swedish newspaper admits it had no evidence when it claimed Jews steal organs from Palestinian children, then defends article making the claim.

Cap-and-trade a ball-and-chain.

Unions get a handout in the health care bill. Cheer up: Only $10 billion. (H/T @BridgettWagner)

Betsy McCaughey on Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, friend of 15-to 40-year-olds everywhere.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Climate, Foreign Policy, Government Health Care, Health Care, Media, Regulation, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:02 AM

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

What's Happening Now

Media: Obama's a neologist; Bush was just dumb.

Jokes to play on the President.

Where does YOUR state rank? (H/T Coyote Blog.)

Examiner: If Americans were getting an average of 20 miles to the gallon before Cash for Clunkers, they are getting 20.0046 mpg after it. In a best-case scenario.

All hail Octavia: A novel new national debt relief program.

"Jackass" was the correct term.

Americans want the legal opportunity to opt out of Social Security, 49% - 37%.

Dr. Roy Cordato: And they say private insurance companies are the bad guys.

Evil doesn't die easily.

Think scientists are objective? Read this.

The power to force people to buy stuff is not in the Constitution.

Superman job: Fact-checking the White House.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Foreign Policy, Government Spending, Health Care, Media, Retirement, Social Security, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:33 AM

Thursday, August 20, 2009

What's Happening Now

The British government health care waiting list problem has been solved.

"Racial overtones," says MSNBC, capping its entry into the Stupidest News Clip of the Decade Contest.

British tax dollars at work: National Health Service gives Viagra to man with 30-year history of child sex crimes.

Sweden's largest newspaper claims Israel is kidnapping Palestinians and harvesting their organs. On MSNBC next?

White House deal with PhRMA undermines democracy.

Another polar expedition trapped in ice. Bonus picture of Al Gore's houseboat. Or go here.

Obama has lowest Gallup approval rating at this stage since Truman, except for one President. Find out which.

Ukraine's Got Talent.

Thomas Sowell on death guidance.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Culture, Europe, Foreign Policy, Government Health Care, Health Care, Media, Project 21, Race, Retirement, Scandals, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:46 AM

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Thin Skins Across the Pond

There's been a bit of a fuss in Britain the last few days. It's keyed to Americans taking a look at the performance of their government-run health care system, the National Health Service, or NHS, and finding it wanting.

It seems that more than a few Britons are taking this personally, as if our horror at seeing, for example, Britons routinely denied potentially-lifesaving cancer drugs because of their cost is a hostile, anti-Britain sentiment.

Quite the contrary: If we did not like you, we wouldn't be so horrified.

This debate is more than of passing interest to me because this week the National Center for Public Policy Research will release its newest book, "Shattered Lives: 100 Stories of Government Health Care."

The chapter on Britain is the longest.

Beginning soon, we'll be running a story a day from the book in this blog. As we do, I expect I'll also be editorializing a good bit more about what our friends in Britain have said in defense of their own health system, and their attacks on our own.

In the meantime, I recommend this excellent post on the Classically Liberal blog, which contains several stories from Britain.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Foreign Policy, Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement, ShatteredLives

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:11 AM

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Oscar Arias Diagnosed With Swine Flu...

...he had been working with Manuel Zelaya to negotiate Zelaya's return to Honduras.

I guess you can get that flu from swine after all.

This post was written by National Center for Public Policy Research Vice President David Ridenour. E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Foreign Policy

Posted by David A. Ridenour at 12:17 AM

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

What's Happening Now

Triumph of hope over experience: Pro-Georgian blogger asks Russian government to defend his free speech rights.

Got the flu in Britain? Need medical help? No problem! The government health service will put a 16-year-old on the phone with you.

President Obama claims U.S. private-care doctors remove tonsils too often. That's a problem the family of this 16-year-old in Britain wishes their government health service had.

A picture editorial: ObamaCare is "shovel ready."

A blogger's letter to flag@whitehouse.gov.

The BBC wonders: Why do Hollywood movies about autistic people focus on the very few who have savant abilities? I wonder: Why is BBC surprised to find Hollywood being unrealistic?

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Autism, Foreign Policy, Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:22 AM

Monday, July 27, 2009

What's Happening Now

House leadership tells Republican Congressman he's not allowed to use the phrase "government-run health care."

Patriotic Americans know when to die.

Racism makes Harvey sad.

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) says there is no point in Members of Congress reading the health care bill: It's incomprehensible.

Fundamental facts about Honduras.

1932 Hupmobile drivers be advised: Discretion is the better part of valor.

Federal spending by the numbers.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed. Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Energy, Foreign Policy, Government Health Care, Health Care, Race, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:12 PM

Friday, July 24, 2009

What's Happening Now

Animals can sue? Can we sue back?

FactCheck.org gave President Obama's press conference statements poor marks for accuracy.

The Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby observes Obama opposing integration.

Barbara Boxer says she's glad she was rude to an army general and the head of the Black Chamber of Commerce: "That only revs up my people. I use that to send them letters and say, 'Help me.' So I get millions of dollars..."

Robert Gates says President Obama "was not calling the officer stupid." No, he was calling him "stupidly."

Remember, it's all about him.

A case of it being better to have an enemy in the tent pissing out? Nah!

Attention Mr. President: Here's a way to lower health costs. Doesn't expand government, though.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed. Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Defense, Foreign Policy, Government Health Care, Health Care, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:26 AM

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Another Russian Rights Activist Killed

Another Russian human rights activist has been murdered.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Crime, Foreign Policy, Human Rights

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:36 PM

Monday, July 13, 2009

Honduras Situation Not a Coup

Miguel A. Estrada, a native of Honduras and a man far more qualified for the U.S. Supreme Court than the lady whose confirmation for it starts today, explains why what happened in Honduras is not a coup.

Hat tip: Jonathan Adler on The Volokh Conspiracy.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Constitutional Law, Foreign Policy

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:09 AM

Tuesday, July 07, 2009

Russia and America's Energy Future

In light of President Obama's trip to Russia, National Center for Public Policy Research Senior Fellow Bonner Cohen and Dow Jones Newswire Journalist Alexander Kolyandr discussed Russia's energy resources and U.S. energy policy on the Fox Business Channel this morning.

Among other things, Bonner addressed the conundrum that Russia has extensive oil resources that are difficult to get to, while U.S. oil companies have the technology to get to it. Yet Russia's legal structure is, as Bonner put it, a "kleptocracy," which makes it difficult for any U.S. company to do business there.

Bonner also discussed the limitations of the Obama Administration's reliance on renewable fuels.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Defense, Economics, Energy, Foreign Policy

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:24 AM

Sunday, July 05, 2009

Honduras

If you're looking for a quick summary of what the issues are regarding the ousted Honduran president, this recap by Hans Bader will suite your purposes well.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Foreign Policy

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:56 PM

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Puzzled

I don't know why everyone's so amazed by Gov. Mark Sanford's announcement. He was just getting himself a little experience in foreign affairs.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Foreign Policy, Scandals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:07 PM

Iran Quick Hits

Husband David says Obama's message to the Iranian government boils down to: What you're doing is unacceptable and it's none of our business.

Michael Barone of the Washington Examiner sees in the President's Iran stance a bit of an adolescent still growing up: "There is a tendency for newly installed presidents, like adolescents suddenly liberated from adult supervision, to do the exact opposite of what their predecessors did. Presidents of both parties indulge in this behavior, though Democrats who campaign as candidates of hope and change are more likely to do so."

I assume that last sentence is a bit tongue-in-cheek.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Foreign Policy, Media, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:59 AM

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Infidels Are Cool Reprints Joe Roche Letter

Infidels Are Cool has reprinted Joe Roche's letter, with main points highlighted.

Joe's letter also appears to be getting some nice diggs over at Digg.com.

Thanks to those of you who have reprinted it, dugg it, or passed it along to friends.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Defense, Foreign Policy, Joe Roche, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:10 PM

Monday, April 27, 2009

Outrage of the Day: The Leaders of Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Honduras, Nicaragua and Venezuela

The (in some cases, self-proclaimed) heads of state and/or government of Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Honduras, Nicaragua and Venezuela claim: "...we are going to need two planets Earth by the year 2030."

They also claim "Capitalism is leading humanity and the planet to extinction."

I guess we're doomed, then, because only capitalism has the power to motivate people to create a second planet Earth by 2030.

I don't know a lot about a couple of these leaders, but the ones I do know about are evil. I guess it should be comforting to know that in some ways, they also are idiots.

Hat tip: Drudge.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Economics, Foreign Policy, Outrage

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:22 AM

Thursday, April 23, 2009

GE-Owned Networks' Media Bias, Conflicts-of-Interest Remain Focus Day After Stockholder Meeting

As readers here know, at yesterday's annual GE shareholder meeting, CEO Jeffrey Immelt was challenged on the subject of media bias at GE-owned NBC, CNBC and MSNBC.

The story is far from over. I encourage those interested in it to watch the O'Reilly Factor tonight for additional in-depth reporting, including the airing at least part of an audio recording of the Q&A session inside the stockholders' meeting made by Tom Borelli. (As of this writing, Fox has also made a tiny portion of the tape, the part featuring Fox reporter Jesse Watters asking about about Keith Olbermann's handling of the recent infamous Janeane Garofalo interview, and the shareholders booing when GE cut off Jesse Watters' mike, available on its website now here, and it has been linked to by Drudge.)

Borelli is co-director (with Steve Milloy) of the Free Enterprise Project of the National Center for Public Policy Research, and, independently, a long-time shareholder activist with the Free Enterprise Action Fund pro-free enterprise mutual fund.

Leading the questioning about media bias at the shareholder meeting (the unidentified woman whose microphone was cut off by GE in Noel Sheppard's report) was Deneen Borelli, Tom's wife and full-time fellow at the conservative African-American group Project 21.

Here's how Tom described events on the Free Enterprise Project's Free Enterpriser blog:

The Hollywood Reporter described the events at yesterday's GE shareholder meeting in its story Drama at GE Shareholder Meeting

In addition, here is our first hand account from yesterday's meeting. Deneen is my wife.

Censorship and limited government was a theme at the General Electric (GE) shareholder meeting in Orlando, FL.

Deneen had the opportunity to ask the first question, directed at GE CEO Jeff Immelt. She inquired whether he tried to silence anti-Obama criticism on CNBC as it was reported in the media. The New York Post reported that GE executives were concerned that CNBC was perceived as too critical of President Obama. Immelt responded that he does not interfere with the opinions of his networks even though he doesn't necessarily agree with them.

Deneen's concern is Immelt will do anything to preserve a favorable relationship with Obama in order to sell GE's green technologies. At some point in Deneen's dialogue with Immelt, Deneen's microphone was shut off.

I told Immelt he was not only a threat to shareholders but also to liberty and limited government. I reminded Immelt that the company's stock was underperforming the stock market before the economic crisis.

I advised Immelt that we have an online petition that encourages GE never to trade with enemies, to stop pursuing cap-and-trade legislation that would raise energy prices, and that he uses his media empire to advance his agenda.

I also told Immelt that "We surround you" and that it was time for a "GE Tea Party" to reign in this out of control corporation.

In cutting off Deneen's microphone when she asked about media bias at CNBC (GE restored the mike when Deneen kept talking anyway), and then that of Fox producer Jesse Watters, when he asked about Keith Olbermann's handling of the Janeane Garofalo interview, GE showed itself to be defensive. (It also showed itself to be ineffective, as the next person up at a microphone was Tom Borelli, who asked Immelt about GE's business with Iran; GE's lobbying for cap-and-trade, and GE's double-hit on senior citizen stockholders [by cutting dividends after saying it wouldn't while lobbying for cap-and-trade regulations that will dramatically raise consumer energy prices].)

It's no wonder GE is defensive, however. As Tom's pointed questions, and Bill O'Reilly's comments tonight on the Glenn Beck TV show ("We're in an area right now that makes Watergate look like a Shirley Temple movie.") illustrate, the best that can be said about General Electric is that it is hip deep in conflict of interest. It's running TV networks that prop up liberalism, the global warming issue and Obama, while privately lobbying hard for cap-and-trade, from which it intends to profit heavily.

It is that last angle we can expect O'Reilly to illuminate tonight.

Meantime, in an apparent counterattack against Tom Borelli for his long-time free-market activism against GE's left-wing activism, media allegations are being made that Tom is employed by or is on the payroll of Fox News. This allegation is incorrect. Tom is not now nor has he ever been employed, paid or funded by Fox News. He is employed by the National Center for Public Policy Research to co-direct its Free Enterprise Project and, separately, he is co-director of the Free Enterprise Action Fund mutual fund. In these capacities Tom attends many shareholder meetings (such as one in March in which Disney CEO Robert Iger swore at him), including each of the last four GE shareholder meetings.

Arguments that the Borellis are agents of Fox News are a diversion intended to take interest away from GE's use of media outlets it owns to promote global warming policies from which it can handsomely profit. We shouldn't let the diversion succeed.

Cross-posted at Newsbusters.

Addendum: Jeff Poor, writing for Newsbusters, has a good write-up of the O'Reilly broadcast on this tonight.

Addendum 2: Moonbattery does, too.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Climate, Foreign Policy, FreeEnterpriseProject, Project 21, Race, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:50 PM

Quote of Note

"We have a president whose foreign policy can only be described as 'anti-American.'"
-Dick Morris, speaking on the O'Reilly Factor, April 22, 2009

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Foreign Policy, Quotes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:30 AM

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

A (Brief) E-Mail Response from GE

An individual whose signature line identified him as a tax analyst for GE based in Ft. Myers, Florida sent along one of the shortest blog comments possible: a link to a page on GE's website, with no accompanying commentary.

The link is:

http://www.ge.com/news/our_viewpoints/iran.html

For the convenience of our readers, the linked page says:

Iran Policy

GE doesn't do business in or with Iran. Due to the developing circumstances there, the concerns of our shareholders, and our view of our corporate responsibilities, GE and its board decided in 2005 to stop doing business in Iran.

There have been two exceptions to this: completing the work for existing contracts as quickly as possible and humanitarian activity, which is authorized by U.S. Government licenses. As of June 2008, we have completed all business in Iran. GE at all times acted in full compliance with U.S. and other laws. We have always required our businesses to follow U.S. sanctions and other applicable laws. In fact, our policies have been more restrictive than U.S. law.

GE does business in more than 100 countries. We carefully consider the locations in which we do business. We want to do what is best for our shareholders, our company, our partners, and the countries in which and with whom we do business. We devote significant resources to ensuring that our business activities are in compliance with all applicable laws, that they are conducted with integrity and that they deliver value for our shareholders worldwide.

Our actions regarding Iran reflect our shareholders' concerns, our board of directors' judgment, and GE's dedication to being a responsible corporate citizen. In light of business and reputation risks that may arise from doing business with countries designated as State Sponsors of Terrorism by the U.S. Department of State (Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria), GE will not accept business in any of these countries, except activity that is authorized by the U.S. Government for humanitarian or public policy purposes.

I don't believe this conflicts with anything we've said about GE, and it is of course silent on several of our concerns (such as GE's lobbying for cap and trade, for the new "green bank," etc.). Nevertheless we are happy to make this brief response from GE conveniently available to our readers.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Defense, Foreign Policy, FreeEnterpriseProject

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:21 PM

Outrage of the Day: United Nations Threatens Bush Administration Officials

From "European Nations May Investigate Bush Officials Over Prisoner Treatment" by Craig Whitlock for the Washington Post:

...Martin Scheinin, the U.N. special investigator for human rights and counterterrorism, said the interrogation techniques approved by the Bush administration clearly violated international law. He said the lawyers who wrote the Justice Department memos, as well as senior figures such as former vice president Richard B. Cheney, will probably face legal trouble overseas if they avoid prosecution in the United States.

'Torture is an international crime irrespective of the place where it is committed. Other countries have an obligation to investigate,' Scheinin said in a telephone interview from Cairo. 'This may be something that will be haunting CIA officials, or Justice Department officials, or the vice president, for the rest of their lives.'"...

Tell me again: Why do we remain in the United Nations? We're paying nearly the quarter of the budget for a corrupt, bloated organization that sits by (or goes to dinner) while corrupt dictators kill and imprison suspected political opponents (and sometimes their children), but let George W. Bush try to keep Americans alive, and it is all over it.

The United Nations is an affront to our sovereignty, our pocketbooks, and to every sane notion of decency.

America must get out of the United Nations.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Foreign Policy, Outrage, United Nations

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:36 AM

Friday, April 17, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Obama Lowers Himself

As we have no particular reason to believe President Obama kept up with foreign affairs before he was elected, perhaps someone should tell him how Hugo Chavez treats Presidents of the United States.

Come to think of it, why doesn't he know?

Obama is starting to make Jimmy Carter look like Rambo.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Foreign Policy, Outrage, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:28 PM

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Putin's Totalitarianism

As detailed in this Kim Zigfeld article for American Thinker, Vladimir Putin's Russia continues to get worse.

Zigfeld writing about a Russian court in Siberia issuing a $1.7 billion judgment against a Norwegian telecom firm reminds me of something I wrote back in 2002:

In the past few years, bureaucrats inside the Russian government have demonstrated a troubling tendency to use Soviet-style tactics when dealing with private companies. A situation exemplifying this growing problem has occurred in the case of world famous Stolichnaya Vodka.

Vodka production is Russia's second biggest industry. After the fall of the Soviet Union, in 1991 the government sold the assets of the Russian vodka industry to private industry. SPI International, now based in the Netherlands, bought the rights to Stoli Vodka and has run the company successfully for over a decade. Over one and a half million cases of Stoli Vodka are imported into the U.S. each year.

But last October, the Russian state trademark industry turned SPI's vodka trademarks over to the Russian Ministry of Agriculture, which subsequently declared the trademarks void. A Russian court intervened on behalf of SPI but, to the chagrin of independent observers, the Russian government is ignoring the court's findings and orders. In fact, the government seized the company's assets and trademarks for its own purposes.

If this worrisome situation had occurred only to one company in one industry, it would be troublesome, but perhaps an aberration. Alas, SPI is not alone. Other private enterprises in Russia are suffering similar, all but catastrophic, fates.

If we imagine the havoc that would occur in the United States if our Securities and Exchange Commission (which regulates Wall Street), was corrupt, and officials of the President's cabinet felt empowered to seize the assets of industries as large as, say, our automotive industry - even if ordered not to do so by U.S. courts - then we have an approximate picture of the chaos into which Russia economy may be sliding.

This bureaucratic rot imperils Russia's democratic reforms. For Russia's sake, as well as our own, Congress and the President should press this point to Mr. Putin, who is the one man currently in a position to effectively reverse these dangerous trends in Russia. If necessary, normal trade relations and WTO membership should be withheld.

An impartial legal system that guards property rights is the irreplaceable cornerstone of democratic capitalism. No less than the future of an economically secure and democratically stable Russia is at stake.

I regret that my worries in 2002 don't appear to have been overblown.

I've discussed Putin's Russia many times (for example, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), and news keeps getting worse.

I am reminded of a Putin quote I posted in this blog in 2005:

First and foremost it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.
-Russian President Vladimir Putin

P.S. I think we can suppose Putin still defends the Hitler-Stalin Pact.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Foreign Policy, Outrage

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:43 PM

Monday, April 13, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Siding With the Pirates

Today's Outrage of the Day is dedicated to those leftists who saw in the rescue of Captain Phillips a story of Western greed and Somali victimization?

Visit the "Captain Phillips is a Hero" post on the American Power blog for more.

Hat tip: Ace of Spades.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Defense, Foreign Policy, Outrage

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:38 PM

Friday, April 10, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Loving Castro

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus met with brutal dictator Fidel Castro and fell in love.

Read these quotes American Thinker collected from Representatives Laura Richardson (D-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) and Bobby Rush (D-IL), if you think I exaggerate.

Some people see ugly old murderers and brainlessly swoon. Other people see the Castros and are so repelled, they immediately force their minds to think of something more pleasant -- such as flies in poop. I still believe most Americans fall into the latter category. I'm not sure about a majority of the Congress.

The Washington Post (of all places, so perhaps we have some hope) had a mostly decent staff editorial on this. It notes that, when it comes to Cuba, Senators Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and Richard Lugar (R-IN) could also use some scrutiny.

Yes, the rot is bipartisan.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Foreign Policy, Human Rights, Liberals, Outrage

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:26 AM

Thursday, April 09, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Fake Excuses for Bow to Saudi King

Ben Smith is reporting on Politico.com that the White House is denying that President Obama bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

According to the unidentified (of course!!!) White House aide, when the President shakes hands with short people, he always gets down really low, as a way of making fun of them for being short.

Well, that's not quite what the White House aide with the top-secret identity said, but it's about as likely to be true.

If they had tried to claim the President's knee suddenly gave out right before he shook the King's hand, or the President stepped on his shoelace, well, MAYBE...

...but watch the video for yourself.

Hat tip: Drudge Report.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Foreign Policy, Outrage, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:18 AM

Wednesday, April 08, 2009

Outrage of the Day: President Obama Denigrating Bush in Europe

No one is under any illusion that Barack Obama and George W. Bush see eye-to-eye on all or even most policy issues, so President Obama's criticisms of President Bush while on foreign soil are unnecessary and, to my way of thinking, tacky.

If Obama won't forgo digs at his predecessor out of a sense of dignity and appreciation for the office of the President of the United States, or appreciation for the old dictum that politics stops at the water's edge, then he might at least remind himself that inevitably, one day (Obama confidently says this won't be until 2017), he himself will be a former President of the United States, and will want to be treated with the same amount of respect President Bush showed to him.

I agree with what Charles Krauthammer said on Fox's "Special Report," by way of NRO with a hat tip to Jake Tapper and Karen Travers:

Where does one begin? Obama says in America there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world.

Maybe that's because when there was a civil war in Europe's doorstep in the Balkans and genocide it didn't lift a finger until America led.

Maybe it's because there was an invasion in Kuwait it didn't lift a finger until America led.

Maybe it's because with America spending over half a trillion a year keeping open the sea lanes and defending the world, Europe is spending pennies on defense.

It's hard to appreciate an entity's leading role in the world when it's been sucking on your tit for 60 years as Europe has with regard to the United States, parasitically...

And then he goes on and calls America arrogant, dismissive, and derisive regarding Europe. "The London Telegraph," a correspondent in Strasbourg, said this was the most critical remarks he had ever seen a president give on foreign soil, and I think he's right.

When Kennedy arrived in Paris, he did not attack Eisenhower and the United States. When Obama's elected president, he is president of all of the United States, including Americans who opposed him, and he owns American history, including a past he may not have wanted to engage in.

I think what he did is, in order to gain the adoration of the crowd, he denigrated his country in a way that I think is disgraceful.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Europe, Foreign Policy, Outrage, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:26 PM

Tuesday, April 07, 2009

Dick Morris on "Ending American Sovereignty"

Dick Morris on the new financial regulatory framework.

He's not at all happy about it.

My brief thoughts on this are here.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Economics, Foreign Policy, Regulation, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:46 PM

Sunday, April 05, 2009

ABC Asks: Is NATO's Article Five Being Upheld?

ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper asks: "Is NATO's Article Five being upheld?"

Of course it isn't.

NATO was set up to keep the Russians out of Europe. Continental Europe* took an interest in that, more or less.

These days, NATO has a larger mission. It's not all about Europe anymore.

So when it is time to sacrifice blood and treasure, you can count Europe out.

*I'm not including Britain.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Defense, Foreign Policy, Media

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:48 AM

Saturday, April 04, 2009

Don't Expect Much

As President Obama evidently does not object to racism, we ought not expect him to object to rape.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Foreign Policy, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:42 PM

Friday, April 03, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Presidents Shouldn't Bow

It's hard to imagine what President Obama was thinking when he decided to bow to a foreign monarch, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

Aside from being offensive generally -- no American should bow to a foreign monarch, least of all, our Head of State -- it really makes one wonder: If our President thought doing this was a good idea, what other things might he be contemplating?

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Foreign Policy, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:14 PM

Thursday, April 02, 2009

Outrage of the Day: The Communique of the G-20

From the Communique of the G-20:

...In particular we agree: to establish a new Financial Stability Board (FSB) with a strengthened mandate, as a successor to the Financial Stability Forum (FSF), including all G20 countries, FSF members, Spain, and the European Commission; that the FSB should collaborate with the IMF to provide early warning of macroeconomic and financial risks and the actions needed to address them; to reshape our regulatory systems so that our authorities are able to identify and take account of macro-prudential risks; to extend regulation and oversight to all systemically important financial institutions, instruments and markets. This will include, for the first time, systemically important hedge funds; to endorse and implement the FSF's tough new principles on pay and compensation and to support sustainable compensation schemes and the corporate social responsibility of all firms; to take action, once recovery is assured, to improve the quality, quantity, and international consistency of capital in the banking system. In future, regulation must prevent excessive leverage and require buffers of resources to be built up in good times; to take action against noncooperative jurisdictions, including tax havens. We stand ready to deploy sanctions to protect our public finances and financial systems...

From the Declaration of Independence:

...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...

Any government we don't vote for has no right to regulate us.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Economics, Europe, Foreign Policy, History, Human Rights, United Nations, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:34 PM

Friday, March 27, 2009

Call Me White, Blue-Eyed and Proud

Gordon Brown should have pushed this guy into the water.

Hat tip: AllahPundit at HotAir.com.

Addendum, 4/3/09: President Obama tells Silva: "This is my man, right here. I love this guy."

Hat tip: Jules Crittenden.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Foreign Policy

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:55 AM

Friday, March 13, 2009

Outrage of the Day: U.N. Secretary General Calls U.S. "Deadbeats"

Apparently dissatisfied with the United States paying a full 22 percent of the expenses of the ridiculously wasteful and notoriously corrupt United Nations, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon referred to the U.S. as a "deadbeat" nation while on a visit to the U.S. Congress Wednesday.

Ban effectively said that it is not only important for the United States to be the world's largest donor to the United Nations by an overwhelming margin, be perennially kicked in the teeth and insulted by U.N. proceedings, and host the United Nations here in America on some of the world's most valuable land donated by an American in a building refurbished by a massive interest free-U.S. loan, but we must also pay our dues on the timetable the U.N. specifies.

The offensiveness of the sentiment combined with the stupidity of the choice of location in which to say it makes this a whopper of a gaffe indeed.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Let us get out of the United Nations and let's kick the whiny you-know-whats out of here.

For additional commentary, see also Don Surber's "Dump Mr. Ban" on his Charleston Daily Mail blog, Jules Crittenden's "Deadbeat Nation" on the Jules Crittenden blog and Rory Cooper's "United Nations says to America: 'You're Deadbeats'" on the Heritage Foundation's The Foundry blog. Surber and Crittenden appear to be as irritated as I am; this is a quote those of us who appreciate the United Nations for what it truly is can't let die.

Let us get this one on some t-shirts.

Rory Cooper's piece should be read for information about Senator John Kerry's nauseating response, which is to give the United Nations ratification of its dangerous Law of the Sea Treaty. Kerry's obviously never going to give up his hate-America-first schtick; he must have some kind of psychological problem.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs called Ban's word choice "unfortunate," and called on the U.N. to respect the rather substantial financial contributions of American taxpayers (a sentiment we hope the Administration begins to extend to domestic budgetary matters). It wasn't quite the statement I, or, I suspect, Don Surber, Jules Crittenden or Rory Cooper would have made, but considering how pro-U.N. Barack Obama is, it was a good B+ effort.

But an "F" to you, Mr. Ban.

___________________

Labels: Congress, Conservatives, Foreign Policy, United Nations, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:19 AM

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Kremlin Again Prosecutes Possible Putin Challenger

The ghost of Stalin smiles on Russia.

From the Wall Street Journal:

"As if his first show trial wasn't sufficiently illuminating about the rule of law in Putin-led Russia, Mikhail Khodorkovsky is back in a Moscow court this week to face fresh criminal charges.

Penned in a glass cage, Mr. Khodorkovsky can be forgiven his gaunt appearance. The former boss of Yukos, at the time Russia's largest private oil company, spent the last four years in a Siberian jail, part of the time in solitary, serving an eight-year sentence for tax evasion. Already eligible for parole, Mr. Khodorkovsky could get an additional 22 years if found guilty. Suspected of still harboring political ambitions, and a grudge, he would then be out of the way long beyond the next presidential election due in four years.

Don't hold your breath for the outcome. Russia's courts take orders directly from the Kremlin, and this trial sets a new Kafkian bar. The same prosecutor who won a state award for the first Khodorkovsky conviction came up with a thousand-plus page indictment. The main charge: That Mr. Khodorkovsky and his business partner stole the entire production of Yukos and laundered the profits. The presiding judge summarily dismissed defense lawyer motions even to consult with their clients.

A Kremlin confident about its hold on power would let this man be. Vladimir Putin has already destroyed the independent-minded oligarch who dared dabble in politics, sending a message to other tycoons about toeing the regime line...

-Editorial, Wall Street Journal, "Justice in Russia: A Confident Kremlin Wouldn't Bother With Khodorkovsky," March 8, 2009

Kudos to the Wall Street Journal for continuing to cover this story.
___________________

Labels: Foreign Policy, Human Rights

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:09 AM

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Project 21 Chairman Meets with Irish Delegation

By David Almasi:

On March 4, Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie met with a delegation of young Irish politicians and civil servants touring the United States.

The group was in the United States as part of a program administered by the Irish Institute of the Boston College Center for Irish Programs. The mission of the Institute is to bring “officials and policymakers from Ireland and Northern Ireland for professional development programs in areas such as government, non-profit, business, and education.” The ultimate goal is “to facilitate rewarding personal, corporate, and professional educational exchanges with the goal of promoting a more lasting peace on the island of Ireland.”

This particular group was made up of people affiliated with the Ulster Unionist and Sinn Fein political parties, the Dublin City Council, the Irish Traveler Movement and the Northern Ireland Electoral Commission, among others.

While in America, the delegation met with state and federal lawmakers, diplomat and professors and opinion leaders affiliated with think tanks and activist groups. Prior to their visit with Mychal at the National Center headquarters on Capitol Hill, the delegation had met with the vice president of the National Organization for Women. They also met with the Family Research Council and Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.

The spirited discussion ranged from topics of personal responsibility to the historical progression toward equality in the United States to the feasibility and wisdom of the policies of the Obama Administration. While the overwhelming majority of the delegation tended to embrace liberal politics, Mychal’s comments were well-received and appeared to have an impact on the delegation.

At the conclusion of the discussion, one member of the visiting Irishmen commented about Mychal: “I’m a liberal, but this guy is alright!”

This post was written by National Center for Public Policy Research Executive Director David Almasi. To send comments to the author, write him at info@nationalcenter.org. Please state if a letter is not for publication or if you prefer that it be published anonymously.

_____

Labels: Foreign Policy, Project 21, Race

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:28 PM

Outrage of the Day: State Department Claims "There's Nothing Special About Britain"

Two slaps with a rotten fish to the unnamed State Department official quoted in this paragraph in the London Telegraph:

"The real views of many in Obama administration were laid bare by a State Department official involved in planning the Brown visit, who reacted with fury when questioned by The Sunday Telegraph about why the event was so low-key.

The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship, saying: 'There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment.'"

-Tim Shipman, "Barack Obama 'too tired' to give proper welcome to Gordon Brown, London Telegraph, March 7, 2009

I call upon the Telegraph to do the United States (and itself) a gigantic favor (yes, I know, after the recent insults we don't really deserve one) and name the State Department official who made this ignorant, offensive and damaging remark. American friends of Britain want him or her fired.

Meantime, add my voice to those of the many other Americans who are profoundly embarassed that the United States treated Britain in this manner.

For additional commentary, see also: Ed Morrissey's "Great News: Obama Fumbled Brown Visit Because He’s In Over His Head on Hot Air and John Hinderaker's "Don't Blame Us: We're Incompetent! on Power Line.

___________________

Labels: Foreign Policy, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:18 AM

Saturday, January 31, 2009

It Has Not Been Easy for Iraqis to Reach This Day

By Joe Roche:

"We in this country are by destiny rather than by choice the watchmen on the walls of world freedom.” John F. Kennedy did not live to speak these words from his speech, prepared to give the day he was assassinated. Yet, today, his unspoken conviction is with us in Iraq.

It has not been easy for Iraqis to reach this day. Decades of tyranny, a culture traumatized by a long legacy of repression and war, but like the Germans and Japanese after 1945 who had similar legacies, the Iraqis chose democracy.

I feel a personal kinship to my Iraqi friends, and not only because of the sacrifice my fellow American soldiers endured for Iraq. I had some personal tragedies over the past few years in my private life. This does not need elaboration except to say that the Iraqi will to survive numerous tragedies and to emerge anew today is something I feel inspired by.

I faced times of despair, as did Iraqis in their struggle, but the human spirit persevered. Iraqis, a God-fearing people, have given us all a lesson to appreciate God's Will in our lives, which is for us to break away from bondage and move on from adversity through our free choice. In the face of threats, assassinations and other extreme dangers from terrorists, most of whom come from outside Iraq, they chose to move on with their lives today in self-determination.

Ronald Reagan said, "No arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.” He knew this through the struggle of people all over the world against communist enslavement. Today I'm seeing this again in Iraq.

Set aside your political views this evening and behold this American moment in the world. From Illinois, the land of Abraham Lincoln, an African-American used Lincoln's Bible to take the oath of office as our leader freely elected in a land that once had slavery. The lesson of America's remarkable story to overcome adversity and throw away bondage is striking throughout the world.

There were advocates of slavery before the Civil War who said that Africans could not be educated, that they had a tribal culture and ethos that only was good for slavery, that their history and other physical and social attributes made them best suited to live in bondage. I've heard many of these same arguments from critics of Operation Iraqi Freedom who have said Arabs are incapable of democracy and self-determination. Yet, now, moving from Barack Obama's inauguration to Iraq's election, Reagan's conviction again proves the correctness of America's exceptional leadership and example.

I'm proud of the soldiers I'm with who have made so many amazing sacrifices to volunteer during this dangerous time and leave loved ones behind. I'm proud of Iraqis who have defied naysayers worldwide and chose to seize this day in freedom. I'm proud of the courage of Americans who stood strong against the pessimists, pushed the surge in 2007 in the face of a conventional wisdom that had declared the war lost, and our leaders who did like Lincoln and Reagan by remaining committed to an unpopular mission to defeat tyranny and reject legacies of despotism.

Yes, America is moving on, and through our national will we are largely looking away from even acknowledging our victory in Iraq. Whatever we are, we are not an arrogant people. We could celebrate this mission, but it is instead our generous sacrifice that stands as "the watchmen on the walls of world freedom.” We refrained from celebrating Reagan's victory over Soviet communism, and now we are doing the same over George W. Bush's victory over Al Qaeda and tyranny in the heart of the Arab world.

We have defeated Al Qaeda and the other enemies of Arab freedom, and joined with Iraqis to set up this birth of self-determination. We did this next to other tyrants in the heart of a region that has never known the dignity of individual liberty. In the face of the most fierce and cruel attacks thrown at Iraq, together we have prevailed.

This is noble, well done, courageous, and now we move on.

SGT Joe Roche
Operation Iraqi Freedom

This post was written by SGT Joe Roche, 100th BN, 442nd IN, Operation Iraqi Freedom. To send comments to the author, write him at info@nationalcenter.org.

_____

Labels: Defense, Foreign Policy, Human Rights, Joe Roche, Race

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 4:05 PM

Thursday, November 27, 2008

From Operation Iraqi Freedom: "We Have Done Something Really Good Here"

From Sgt. Joe Roche, writing from Operation Iraqi Freedom:

This is a special day to be an American soldier in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Ninety years ago, hopes for freedom and self-determination sprung up all over the Arab world. After centuries of despotic foreign rule by the Ottoman Empire, European powers angling for survival in World War One's vast killing fields made all sorts of false promises to manipulate Arabs as proxies. Betrayals became the norm.

Despite dreams of self-determination after that war, our world was instead brutalized by the most horrific tyrants and genocide ever witnessed. Fascism, Nazism, Imperialism and Communism not only killed tens of millions and enslaved much of Asia and Europe, but other regions such as the Arab Middle East were gravely traumatized. Much of the fascism witnessed in the Arab world and in Islamic fundamentalism from Egypt to Iraq are largely a consequence from the manipulations by and ferocious ideologies of Europe and Asia.

American idealism for liberty and self-determination was felt here after World War One. President Woodrow Wilson dispatched the King-Crane Commission, which was followed by several other American envoys over decades trying to find ways to achieve self-determination. But the Great Powers of that time had other ideas. Hitler courted a lot of Arabs, particularly Islamist leaders in Jerusalem, bringing Muslims to the front lines with German forces outside Stalingrad, and facilitated a pro-Nazi coup in Baghdad in 1941. Though Israel's creation was a moment of great inspiration and achievement, the Arab world naturally felt it was just another in a long series of betrayals and conspiracies against them.

Because of the Cold War, the Arab people were left to languish for almost six decades under a series of megalomaniac tyrants, as long as stability was ensured. The Soviet Union's efforts at destabilizing the most vulnerable regions coerced surrender and apathy on the part of those who had once dreamt of self-determination in the Arab Middle East. Iraq became tied to the Soviets and was the recipient of Moscow’s largest foreign military aid during the 1970s. The collapse of the Soviet Union did unleash the virtuous spread of American liberty and self-determination in most parts of the world, but the Arab region remained frozen until Operation Iraqi Freedom.

I was part of the initial push in 2003. I had lived in this region before, and Iraq's suffering under repression and tyranny coerced the entire region to be in a constant state of war, paranoia and extremism.

I knew this would take a long time, but I had hope. As an American sharing our country's experience with democracy to Iraqis, I often reflected on how the United States had to discard our first constitution of 11 years after Shay's Rebellion, and yet the resulting constitution still had the institution of slavery. Women couldn't vote for over a century. We had a huge civil war, the effects of which were still violently playing out in the South in the 1960s.

I got to know many Iraqis. They impressed me greatly. I had known some Iraqis in exile before 2003, and I understood they were a very vibrant and strong people. Surviving the terror of Saddam Hussein's regime in a land tortured by centuries of conflict and turmoil, I knew these people could withstand a lot.

My unit in 2004 trained hundreds of Iraqis who served their military forces. They are some of the bravest people I ever met. Their casualty rates in the face of a horrendous terrorist offensive were 20 times worse than anything we faced, yet they kept showing up.

Over the past several months, I've seen those Iraqis we trained take over command of their country as we pull back. For the first time, self-determination is being expressed. Ninety years of betrayal and false promises are finally being corrected.

This is the achievement of America. Yes, there were scenes of protest in opposition to the treaty, but overall this was the remarkable -- and once unimaginable -- process of Iraqis debating the future of their own country. While most news only reported the protests, there were other large demonstrations in support of the US-Iraqi agreement, such as the 5,000 in Hillah last week.

To behold this is amazing. Some might want to just see the negatives, but I'd point out that our own experience with democracy gives us no basis to expect more from the Iraqis less than six years after being liberated by us. There will be further challenges. Ours is the world’s greatest democracy, but we had a shooting, a clubbing and even a sword used in the US Congress. Even one of our great Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton, was killed in a duel. The birth of democracy is not a smooth process, but it is inspiring to participate in.

This is a proud moment. As an American soldier having been here at the beginning of this mission, and to be here now again at this moment of self-determination coming to fruition, is awesome. Lafayette came to us when we needed help. We’ve come here and finally reversed 90 years of betrayal. This is good, just and honorable. I’m very happy for Iraq and for our military mission. Out of the ashes of the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks, we have done something really good here.

-Joe

For more of Joe's writing from the front and elsewhere, please go here. A profile of his life and army service published by Stars and Stripes in 2004 can be found in this post.
_____

Labels: Defense, Foreign Policy, History, Human Rights, Joe Roche, Terrorism

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:04 AM

Friday, November 21, 2008

Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie on al Qaeda's Racial Slur and the Continuing Threat of Terrorism with Janet Parshall Monday - Listen Live

By David Almasi:

Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie recently spoke out against al Qaeda deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahiri for calling President-elect Barack Obama and Bush Administration Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell "house negroes" in a video posted on Islamist web sites.

Mychal will discuss the topic further and the ongoing threat of terrorism with syndicated talk radio host Janet Parshall on Monday, November at 4:15 pm eastern.

“Janet Parshall's America” can be heard on over 250 stations nationwide (click here to find a local station) and on XM "Family Radio" (channel 170). You can stream the show on the Internet or download a podcast (for a fee) by clicking here.

In the Project 21 press release, Mychal said:
While no fan of Barack Obama, I am a proud American. I find this terrorist's remarks directed at our nation's incoming leader to be highly offensive...

Liberals fail to grasp the reality that Muslim extremists such as al-Zawahiri hate them just as much as they hate the rest of America. At the very least, his crazed diatribe should prove this very point. I hope it jolts the incoming administration into reality. Being President isn't like playing senator or being a community organizer - it is about protecting the American people. That cannot be done without a strong military and the backbone to make decisions that might be unpopular among his friends.
To read the entire press release, click here.

_____

Labels: Conservatives, Foreign Policy, Liberals, Project 21, Race, Terrorism

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:40 PM

Monday, September 08, 2008

Project 21 in Washington Times

Project 21 members and staff have been published in the Washington Times' op-ed page several times recently. Fans of the group may wish to click on one or more of the following:

"Speed-Limit Myths" - Project 21 chairman Mychal Massie takes on Senator John Warner of Virginia's trial balloon favoring a federal mandate to lower speed limits. After explaining who/what really would benefit from such a policy (hint: not the environment, but it involves something green), Massie suggests that "it might be better if Mr. Warner just drove off into the sunset. If only he could go a little faster."

"History is the Final Judge" - Project 21 member Ak'Bar A. Shabazz asks, "if we disregard the calls for freedom and democracy in places such as Tibet, where are we placing ourselves as it relates to world history?," and quotes Martin Luther King, Jr., saying "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."

"Property Rights" - Project 21 research associate Reece Epstein examines the government's use of eminent domain power in a predominately black city to take choice land from small businesses in order to sell it to large ones. He says, "Self-professed champions of the poor don't help when they oppose eminent domain reform. Doing so simply allows government to take from one and give to another - at the expense of communities - just to rake in tax dollars."

"Let Them Eat Cake" - Project 21 member Kevin L. Martin calls on Congress to allow more oil drilling, saying "There may be a day when we all have electric cars, but the one I have right now doesn't have a plug, solar panel or hydrogen converter. It takes gasoline. While I don't object to the possibility of alternative energy sources in the future, I know that most Americans own cars that need gas and live in homes that are powered at least in part by coal. When the elites stifle access to plentiful power, the financial burden is a lot smaller for them. They can afford to pay more for a hybrid car and rave about getting better gas mileage. They can also feel better about their indulgences when they buy imaginary 'carbon credits' that give them the moral authority to use more energy than they want to allow the masses. Like Marie Antoinette, they think the rest of America can 'eat cake' like they can. Sadly, we can't."

"The Civil Rights Shakedown: Myth or Reality?" - Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli takes a look at shakedown allegations against Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and describes her own effort to urge a corporate board not to be part of such a process. Deneen wrote, in part, "Frustrated by what appears to me to be a long history of Mr. Jackson and Mr. Sharpton using semi-subtle campaigns to pressure corporations to donate, I spoke up at the JPMorgan shareholder meeting. After Mr. Jackson spoke, I took his place at the microphone and asked Mr. Dimon and his board: 'Will there ever be a day where you will stand up and say 'No' to Mr. Jackson and to his demands and messages of victimization and divisiveness? This is the United States of America, and this is not the 1960s. People should be hired based on their talents and they should be retained based on their results. There should not be color-coded hiring in the United States.' Shareholders clapped. But, unlike Mr. Jackson's, my question went unanswered."

"Gaining Access with Identification" - Project 21 research associate Reece Epstein turns the Voter ID debate into a civil rights issue -- but maybe not in the way you think: "The bottom line is that someone without proper identification is out of step. And those who want to keep them there are out of line."

"Black America is Still Not Free" - Project 21 research associate Reece Epstein reviews the new book "Sweet Release: The Last Step to Black Freedom" by psychologist Dr. James Davidson, Jr.: "...although he criticizes liberals, Davidson is quick to note he is no conservative. He writes: 'My behaviors and ideas [are] anything but conservative. Trying to improve one's social and economic lot by rejecting traditional societal and black community standards for achievement seemed antithetical to [being] conservative.' The apolitical goal of Sweet Release is to create advancers: 'What you seek is simply not in the 'hood. It never has been, and it never will be... We must now move beyond our own remaining chains, beyond the mental barriers that keep so many of us constrained in our thoughts and deeds.'"

"Governance drives this crisis" - Project 21 associate and Initiative for Public Policy Analysis executive director Thompson Ayodele asks, "Hunger is an everyday problem in Africa. What can be done about it?," and answers, in part: "For one thing, a better governmental infrastructure and incentives can stimulate production if done right. Anything that would dampen competition, and thus lower the incentive to produce, should be avoided. When these programs are instituted, they must be administered with professionalism and transparency."

"Too few Watts: 'Segregated News' is Not the Answer" - Project 21 chairman Mychal Massie isn't too thrilled about former GOP Congressman J.C. Watts' plans to create a black news television channel: "...the question begging an answer is what exactly constitutes 'black news.' There are things that happen to black people in black communities that don't really have an impact on the rest of America, but that doesn't mean they should be provincial to black America. News happening in America is American news, and it should be everyone's concern."

"Jesse Jackson Outrage Strategy: No Dough, No Go?" - Project 21 staff director David Almasi and research associate Justin Danhof wonder why Jesse Jackson never challenged XM Satellite Radio for alleged racial insensitivity for a gold tooth ad similar to one run by Toyota which Jackson did protest. They ask: "Remember when Jesse Jackson challenged XM Satellite Radio for its racist advertising? Probably not, since it never happened. Why he didn't is the question." Could it be because Toyota has more money?
_____

Labels: Climate, Energy, Environment, Foreign Policy, Government Power, Human Rights, Media, Project 21, Property Rights, Race, Regulation, Social Welfare

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:45 PM

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Boumediene v. Bush Ruling Will Cost Lives

Project 21's Kevin Martin and four members of the U.S. Supreme Court fear the Supreme Court's ruling in Boumediene v. Bush (pdf) -- the Guantanamo Bay/enemy combatant decision -- will cost lives:

Supreme Court Gitmo Ruling Called "Chilling"; Will Cost American Lives

For Release: June 12, 2008
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org

Washington, D.C. - Responding to today's U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Boumediene v. Bush that allows suspected terrorists to challenge their incarceration, Project 21 member Kevin Martin is criticizing the Court, saying this decision puts national security at risk and sends a confusing signal to the military.

"As a Navy veteran who supported and defended our Constitution at home and abroad, today's Supreme Court ruling benefiting suspected terrorists is deeply disappointing," said Martin. "To grant suspected terrorists the same rights as those fighting to protect our nation is wrong. I consider this one of the most chilling legal rulings in my lifetime. Giving alleged foreign combatants the same rights as any American provides potential ammunition to those with political agendas running counter to the commander-in-chief. Our nation's enemies will now have the ability to gum up our federal courts with baseless legal challenges and further hinder the pursuit of justice."

In the razor-thin 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court decision allows suspected terrorists such as those currently held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba the right to challenge their incarceration in federal courts. It overturns a law passed in 2006 that limited judicial jurisdiction and affects 270 suspected terrorists currently being held by the U.S. military - including 14 suspects al Qaeda members.

Writing in dissent, and joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the 2006 law struck down today was "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants. The political branches crafted these procedures amidst an ongoing military conflict, after much careful investigation and thorough debate. The Court rejects them today out of hand, without bothering to say what due process rights the detainees possess, without explaining how the statute fails to vindicate those rights, and before a single petitioner has even attempted to avail himself of the law's operation... One cannot help but think... think, after surveying the modest practical results of the majority's ambitious opinion, that this decision is not really about the detainees at all, but about control of federal policy regarding enemy combatants."

In another scathing dissent, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the majority decision "warps the Constitution" and that "[our] nation will live to regret what the Court has done today." Scalia further warned the ruling "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed... that consequence would be tolerable if necessary to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital to our constitutional Republic. But it is this Court's blatant abandonment of such a principle that produces the decision today." Scalia also wrote a practical affect of the decision will likely be harm to enemy combatants, as the decision is likely to result in enemy combatants being turned over to other nations by the United States following capture.

Martin added: "This sends a confounding message to our men and women in uniform, within our intelligence community and to our allies. Their hard-fought efforts to capture terrorist suspects maybe for naught because they could simply be released back on the battlefield on a legal technicality."

For more information, I recommend reading the decision.
_____

Labels: Constitutional Law, Courts, Defense, Foreign Policy, Government Power, Human Rights, Project 21

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:33 PM

Friday, May 02, 2008

Project 21's Nedd Joins Other Religious Leaders at UN Public Health Conference

From David Almasi:

Project 21 member Council Nedd II, a bishop in the Episcopal Missionary Church, is returning from Geneva, Switzerland, where he helped lead a non-governmental organization (NGO) delegation to the World Health Organization's (WHO) Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property. Council was there to defend the intellectual property rights that currently protect patents on prescription medications.

Activists are seeking WHO approval to circumvent these patents, saying the needs of the poor and afflicted outweigh a drug company's intellectual property rights.

Council and three other members of the international clergy -- Bishop Emeritus Albilio Ribas of Sao Tome & Principe (Roman Catholic), The Rev. Fr. Anthony Ojeh of Asaba, Nigeria (Anglican, like Nedd) and Pastor William Daldoum of the Nations Upon the Rock Church in Sudan (Pentacostal) -- have signed a statement of principles regarding faith, health care and the protection of individual property rights (the patent on medicines, in particular). They see patents and the protection of them as vital to ensuring new and better health care advancement in the future.

These men -- who have engaged in health care-related missionary work in African countries that include Uganda, Ghana, Kenya, Sa Tome & Principe, Angola, Sudan and Nigeria -- decry the claim that "patents deny patients access to medication" and instead want to promote "the importance of intellectual property rights to advancements in developing world health care."

To follow is their statement:
Whereas it is being said in certain quarters that patents deny patients access to medication, we the clergy gathered in Geneva, Switzerland, based on our hands on experience in our public health missionary activities, particularly in Uganda, Ghana, Kenya, Sa Tome & Principe, Angola, Sudan and Nigeria hereby declare and affirm that:
The most important issue here is keeping people alive and healthy.

Drug counterfeiting which is prevalent in Africa and particularly in Uganda, Ghana, Sudan and Nigeria denies patients access to life saving medicines because of the abysmally poor and dangerous quality of the counterfeit drugs.

Scientific and technological research and development are very important in guaranteeing the development and production of new quality life saving medications and in effect opens the door for patients to access quality medication.

Counterfeit and inferior drugs worsen and complicate ailments and the condition of patients. In very many cases, counterfeit drugs destroy lives and deplete needed human capital. Patients should be protected from counterfeit drugs.

Patents are a driving force for incentives in drug research and development. If researchers insist on being rewarded through patent protection for their inventions and discoveries, so be it. The important thing is that lives are saved thereby and not destroyed. The laborer after all is deserving of his pay.

Considering that all human beings are individually gifted, and if it be necessary to preserve patents as an incentive, monetary or otherwise to encourage further scientific and technological discoveries in quality life saving drugs, then we should do it. More especially as we cannot at this point rule out the possibility of the emergence of new diseases that could threaten human existence in the future, we need to preserve incentives to encourage an individual to use his/her gifts for the benefit of others especially in matters of human health. After all our civilization does not encourage us to force a man to use his natural gifts for the benefit of his fellowman. Such an individual may refuse his gift, and if he does so, that is a matter between him and his maker.

Our Lord Jesus Christ is a Miracle Healer. He tells us in the book of John 14:12 that "The things I do ye also can do them." The effect of this is that it is in our power to be miracle healers through gifted scientists by preserving the instrument that encourages them to find solution to our health problems. Patent protection seems to effectively do that. The starting point is to discover the solution such as the drug and then ensure that the patient is able to access the solution. First the solution must be available, and then we ensure access.

In light of the above, patents actually do save lives. The issue is to ensure that people are kept alive and healthy.

Counterfeit and fake drugs do not save lives. They destroy lives. Existing medicines must be made available to those in need of them, wherever they may be. We must not allow bad politics to take precedence over the safety of human lives and good health today and tomorrow.
God Bless. Signed this 30th Day of April 2008,
The Most Rev. Albilio Ribas, Bishop Emeritus of Sao Tome & Principe

The Right Rev. Council Nedd II, Bishop of the Chesapeake, EMC

The Rev. Fr. Anthony Ojeh, Asaba, Nigeria

Pastor William Daldoum, Nations Upon the Rock Church
For more on this issue, I recommend a New Visions Commentary, "Underserved and Overlooked," by Council Nedd that Project 21 published in February.

To contact author David Almasi directly, write him at dalmasi@nationalcenter.org. David is executive director of the National Center for Public Policy Research. He provides staffing support to Project 21.

_____

Labels: Foreign Policy, Health Care, Patents, Property Rights, Religion, Social Welfare

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:15 PM

Friday, April 18, 2008

Washington Post Gets Conservative Concerns About the ANC 20 Years Late, and Almost Too Late Altogether

From David Almasi:

An unsigned house editorial in the April 15 Washington Post is very concerned about post-election unrest in Zimbabwe, where, it seems, President Robert Mugabe is willing to do whatever it takes to remain in power despite indications he lost the popular vote. The twist is that the Post is laying the blame for Mugabe's ability to remain relevant at the feet of South African President Thabo Mbeki.

And they aren't that happy with Mbeki's foreign policy elsewhere, to boot. My, my.

Mbeki is the former president of the African National Congress (ANC), the current South African ruling party that was a terrorist organization mere decades ago. It was the political entity that benefited from the American anti-apartheid protests of the 1980s. Mbeki took over the presidency after Nelson Mandela's retirement.

When I was involved in the South Africa protests of that bygone era, we warned that the ANC was not the moral equivalent of our own Founding Fathers. Mandela, for instance, was a co-founder of the ANC's militant Umkhonto we Sizwe wing. Mbeki was a member. We warned about the ANC's ties and kinship with radical groups and governments across the globe, but we were told we were crazy (and worse).

Now, with the ANC firmly entrenched and South Africa serving on the U.N. Security Council and other U.N. bodies, the chickens are really coming home to roost. In its editorial, Post editors lament:
Since that country began serving a term on the U.N. Security Council last year, the government of President Thabo Mbeki has consistently allied itself with the world's rogue states and against the Western democracies. It has defended Iran's nuclear program and resisted sanctions against it; shielded Sudan and Burma from the sort of pressure the United Nations once directed at the apartheid regime; and enthusiastically supported one-sided condemnations of Israel by the U.N. Human Rights Council...

Every Western democratic government has condemned Mr. Mugabe's maneuvering, and even many Africans have appeared to lose patience with the 84-year-old strongman. That he remains in office is due mainly to Mr. Mbeki, who has used South Africa's considerable influence and prestige to bolster Mr. Mugabe.
Mbeki is crisscrossing Africa to continue to prop up Mugabe. I don't think I could have written it better than the Post editors have, except I and other conservatives could have told you this would happen 20 years ago.

The one thing the world has in its favor is that the old breed typified by Mbeki is dying out. Democracy has held together. Other, younger ANC leaders are already distancing themselves from Mbeki, including his successor in the ANC and the presidency. Mbeki, like the apartheid government he once fought, is becoming isolated in the world as well as in his own country.

But it's a shame, for the people of Zimbabwe in particular, that the world had to suffer his leadership even one day.

To contact author David Almasi directly,
write him at dalmasi@nationalcenter.org

_____

Labels: Foreign Policy, History, Human Rights, Media, United Nations

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:13 PM

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

TWA 847 Hijacking Mastermind Pays the Price

Turns out that Imad Mughniyeh isn't getting away with murder after all:

A senior Hezbollah military commander, one of the world's most wanted men for his alleged links to a string of bombings, hijackings and kidnappings during the 1980s and 1990s, has been killed, Hezbollah said Wednesday...

...U.S. officials assert that Mughniyeh was behind the bombings in Beirut in 1983. A car bomb at the U.S. Embassy in April that year killed 63 people, including 17 Americans, while a truck bomb in October at a Marine compound killed 241 American troops.

The United States have also asserted Mughniyeh was behind the torture and murder of William Buckley, the CIA station chief in Beirut, in 1984; the kidnapping and murder of Lieutenant Colonel William Richard Higgins of the Marines, who was on peacekeeping duty in Lebanon in 1988; and, through the Islamic Jihad Organization, the seizure of Western hostages in Beirut during the 1980s.

Mughniyeh is also wanted for the hijacking in June 1985 of a TWA flight. During the hijacking, an American was killed and 39 Americans were held hostage for 17 days. It is the only terrorist action for which he has been indicted in the United States...

Joe Roche, an adjunct fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research, wrote about Mughniyeh for us back in 2001, saying Mughniyeh at that time had been identified to U.S. authorities by Israel "as one of two who were setting up nearly 200 terrorists inside the U.S. for a major attack."

I wrote about the TWA 847 hijackers and murderers of sailor Robert Stethem getting away scot-free in 2005; it appears that they all haven't gotten away scot-free after all.

Ronald Reagan said in 1985 regarding Robert Stethem's murder and the TWA hijacking: "We will not rest until justice is done." It took 22 years to get Imad Mughniyeh, but Reagan called it right. Whomever got him wasn't resting.
____

Labels: Defense, Foreign Policy, Joe Roche

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:18 PM

Saturday, December 08, 2007

Garry Kasparov

...has courage.

May God bless him and his work.
_____

Labels: Foreign Policy, Human Rights

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:04 AM

Monday, December 03, 2007

On Cap and Trade, Senators Advised to Learn from 'Europe's Dirty Secret'

A contribution from Peyton Knight:

As the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee prepares to vote this week on the Lieberman/Warner global warming bill (S. 2191), which would strap the U.S. with mandatory carbon dioxide restrictions and establish a cap-and-trade system whereby industries could buy and sell so-called emissions credits, Senators are advised to examine Europe's failure with a similar system, lest they follow in kind.

Today on Capitol Hill, the Competitive Enterprise Institute hosted a briefing with Neil O'Brien, director of Open Europe, an independent think tank based in London.

According to O'Brien, some U.S. policymakers have not learned the lessons from Europe's failed Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) - despite their claims to the contrary.

O'Brien noted that Europe's market for emissions credits has effectively collapsed. "It's a Soviet-style system," he said, "that is open to all kinds of abuses." He explained that big energy companies, industries and special interests have made windfall profits selling excess emissions credits. Meanwhile, in the first year of the ETS (2005-2006) emissions rose 3.6 percent in the United Kingdom and rose 0.8 percent across the European Union as a whole.

O'Brien also warned that the way the Lieberman/Warner bill distributes emissions credits - namely, giving a good portion of them away - makes it more likely that the bill will resemble a pork-barrel boondoggle along the lines of current U.S. agriculture spending bills, or worse, Europe's ETS. Because of this, O'Brien said he does not get a sense that U.S. lawmakers understand "the disaster they're signing on for."

Although the EU is trying to mend its ETS, claiming to have learned its lessons, O'Brien and Open Europe still see future failure. In order for the ETS to work, he says, there must be a good degree of certainty in the long-term cost of carbon. Without that certainty, companies will not invest in the system. In the initial phase of the ETS, the EU put way too many emissions credits into the system - hence the collapse of the market and the rise of emissions. However, "fixing" this by allowing fewer credits in the future, or adjusting the amount of carbon dioxide that companies are allowed to emit, would only contribute to the underlying problem of uncertainty, O'Brien said.

Click here to download Open Europe's recent report: "Europe's Dirty Secret: Why the EU Emissions Trading Scheme Isn't Working."

To contact author Peyton Knight directly,
write him at pknight@nationalcenter.org

Cap and trade appears to be the granddaddy of all corporate welfare schemes. No wonder some in Big Business (and Big Green) are all for it.
_____

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Environment, Foreign Policy, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:19 PM

Sunday, December 02, 2007

For Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Cap and Trade, Anyone?

Total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions dropped by 1.5 percent in 2006. The total reduction in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions was 1.8 percent.

By comparison, carbon dioxide emissions by participants in the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme (Europe's version of "cap and trade," an emissions-regulation system now under consideration by the U.S. Congress) increased by 0.3 percent in 2006.

The EU's cap and trade program didn't perform as well as its environmentalist proponents hoped it would. The European Union screwed up its cap and trade system's first trading period by handing out too many emissions permits. As a result, emitters had scant financial incentive to make reductions. This was not predictable, as no one familiar with the history of the Twentieth Century could have expected a large intergovernmental bureaucracy to make an economic planning error.

For a succinct report on the 2006 decline in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, read the U.S. Department of Energy's press release here. For a more detailed look at the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions picture, including prior years, go here. For a fuller picture on how well the European Union and its member states are meeting their Kyoto targets, I recommend the European Environment Agency publication "Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends and Projections in Europe 2007," available in English here.
_____

Labels: Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, Foreign Policy

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:19 AM

Where is the Feminist Outrage?

Deneen Borelli wants to know: Where is the feminist outrage over jailing of British woman in Sudan?

Says Deneen:

"I'm amazed by the silence of the so-called women's rights groups like NOW. This is an example of their selective feminist outrage. When it fits their liberal agenda and bias, they are extremely vocal. When it doesn't, their silence is deafening."

My personal theory is the feminist leaders don't identify much with elementary school teachers. Teaching young children is a female-dominated profession, and feminist leaders tend not to think highly of those professions.

They are a little bit sexist that way.
_____

Labels: Culture, Foreign Policy, Liberals, Project 21, Social Issues

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:15 AM

Sunday, November 25, 2007

Australia's John Howard a Global Warming Victim? No.

A post by Joseph Romm published by the Climate Progress Blog (a project of the Center for American Progress) and the environmentalist Grist Blog is claiming Australian Prime Minister John Howard lost his re-election bid because of his stand on global warming:

Australian denier bites the dust — literally

Global warming takes down its first major political victim:

“Conservative Prime Minister John Howard suffered a humiliating defeat Saturday at the hands of the left-leaning opposition, whose leader has promised to immediately sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.”
Why the stunning loss? A key reason was Howard’s “head in the sand dust” response to the country’s brutal once-in-a-thousand year drought. As the UK’s Independent reported in April:
… few scientists dispute the part played by climate change, which is making Australia hotter and drier….. Until a few months ago, Mr Howard and his ministers pooh-poohed the climate-change doomsayers....

Read the rest here or here.

Not for the first time, climate alarmists see things as they wish they were, and not as they are.

Howard lost for many reasons far more "key" than Howard's skepticism about the need for the environmental movement's prescriptions for fighting climate change. These reasons include:

Howard had already been prime minister 11 1/2 years (he was running for his fifth term), and is 68 years old to his opponent's more youthful 50.

Many voters took Australia's strong economy -- possibly Howard's greatest achievement -- for granted, as Australia has enjoyed 17 straight years of economic growth.

The Labor Party candidate, Kevin Rudd, campaigned as a strong fiscal conservative, and endorsed very many of Howard's economic policies, leading voters to believe Rudd as new prime minister would continue Howard's economic policy achievements.

Despite a good economic record overall, Howard's Liberal Party was blamed for a recent unpopular rise in interest rates.

The Labor Party ran a celebrity against Howard in his local parliamentary race in New South Wales, forcing him to campaign there frequently, taking his time away from campaigning in marginal districts.

A 2005 industrial relations reform called "Work Choices" was unpopular in some quarters, particularly among organized labor.

A late-breaking scandal took place, in which Liberal Party activists were caught handing out fake Labor Party brochures supporting Islamic terrorists.

The war in Iraq, in which Howard was a steadfast American ally.

_____

Labels: Climate, Conservatives, Environment, Foreign Policy, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 3:19 AM

Saturday, November 03, 2007

Law of the Sea: A Sinkable Treaty

Perfect timing.

Just as critical sectors -- like the full GOP Senate leadership -- appear to be waking up to the dangers of the Law of the Sea treaty, the Wall Street Journal weighs in with a very well-argued staff editorial, "A Sinkable Treaty."

Excerpt:

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 17-4 Wednesday to approve the Law of the Sea Treaty, meaning it's now up to 34 Senate Republicans to send this giant octopus of a document back where it belongs. To wit, the bottom of the ocean.

The U.S. last disposed of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea -- LOST to its critics -- when Ronald Reagan was President. This May, however, the Bush Administration reversed course and declared that the Gipper's objections had been fixed by a 1994 amendment. We've since had a debate on these pages over that point, with former Secretaries of State George Shultz and James Baker in favor, while Ed Meese and William Clark, Reagan's Attorney General and National Security Adviser, remain opposed.

The best arguments for the treaty come from the U.S. Navy, which likes how it creates a legal framework for navigational rights. The oil and gas industry approves of provisions that create an "exclusive economic zone" for the U.S. out to 200 miles. There's also the potential for development (with clear legal title) of resources in the deep seabed, which would be managed by the International Seabed Authority on which the U.S. would be guaranteed a seat...

Then again, the Navy has been getting along fine by using the "customary law" that has guaranteed freedom of the seas for three centuries. Treaty proponents have taken to arguing that, unless we ratify, Russia will lay claim to oil rights over the Arctic seabed. But Russia's expansive Arctic claims, possibly including the sea floor under the North Pole, are themselves a product of the treaty....

The larger problem is the treaty's sheer size...

Consider the treaty's potential effects on military activities....

The Navy might also ask how its powerful sonars -- which some environmentalists say harm marine life -- could run afoul of Article 196...

Or take concerns that the treaty's requirements on pollution are a back-door mechanism for forcing U.S. compliance with the Kyoto Treaty and other global environmental pacts. Confronted with the argument, an Administration spokesman told the Senate that the treaty did not exercise jurisdiction over land-based pollution. Replied Republican Senator David Vitter: "If it is... not covered by the treaty, why is there a section entitled, 'Pollution from Land-Based Sources'?" A good question, considering that Article 213 notes that countries "shall adopt laws and regulations and take other measures necessary to implement applicable international rules and standards established through competent international organizations" to control such pollution. Note our emphasis.

Critics are also right to be concerned about the powers of direct taxation the treaty confers...

Some 154 countries have joined the Law of the Sea Treaty, with the U.S. one of the few holdouts. Critics are being labeled isolationists, or worse. But the U.S. has been abiding voluntarily with the terms of the treaty since 1983, with no ill effect. Twenty-some years ago a former President objected to handing sovereignty over two-thirds of the Earth's surface to another unaccountable international body. Ronald Reagan sank the treaty then; now it's up to 34 Senators to show similar courage.

For more in-depth information on several of these points, I encourage folks to read husband David Ridenour's National Policy Analysis paper of August 2006, "Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty: A Not-So-Innocent Passage." Raising the issue of land-based pollution that Senator Vitter addressed in the Foreign Relations Committee hearing last week, for example, David wrote then:

In a great ironic twist, the Law of the Sea Treaty - supported by many in the energy sector - may give environmentalists a blunt instrument to use against the energy industry.

Article 212 of the treaty states, in part, "States shall adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from or through the atmosphere... States, acting especially through competent international organizations... shall endeavor to establish global and regional rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures to prevent, reduce and control pollution." This sounds like a directive to impose Kyoto Protocol-style regulations designed to reduce state emissions of greenhouse gases. These gases are emitted through the use of the very products the energy industry sells.

Backdoor implementation of the Kyoto Protocol might be advanced by arguing that U.S.'s anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (one-quarter of such emissions world-wide) are warming the planet causing irreparable harm to coral reefs, home to the world's most biologically-diverse marine ecosystems.

Alternatively, they could argue that sea levels are rising due to U.S.-induced climate change, causing beach erosion in such countries as the Maldives, Comoros or the Seychelles. To bolster their case, they might cite Article 194(2) of the treaty which states: "States shall take all measures necessary to ensure that activities under their jurisdiction or control are so conducted as not to cause damage by pollution to other States and their environment."

There's plenty more. This treaty is dangerous.

I also encourage folks to visit the National Center for Public Policy Research's special website on the Law of the Sea Treaty at http://www.unlawoftheseatreaty.org for easy access to many papers, op-eds, hearing testimonies, blog entries and videos about the Law of the Sea Treaty. I can't promise the website won't scare you, but as more and more Senators are waking up to the dangers of this treaty, all is not LOST.
_____

Labels: Defense, Environment, Foreign Policy

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:44 AM

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

The More People Know About Sea Treaty, The Less They Support It

Husband David's statement today about the vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier today on the Law of the Sea Treaty:

The more people learn about the Law of the Sea Treaty, the less they like it.

That's the message from this morning's vote of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Although the Committee voted to send the treaty to the full Senate for consideration, there was a marked increase in opposition to it from just three years ago. In 2004, it was approved 19-0. This morning there were four nay votes.

The tide is turning against the Law of the Sea Treaty. The full Republican Senate leadership opposes it as well as presidential candidates Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Senator Fred Thompson, Governor Mike Huckabee, Rep. Tom Tancredo, Rep. Ron Paul and Rep. Duncan Hunter.

This explains why its supporters - including Senators Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Richard Lugar (R-IN) - are in a rush to push it through before their colleagues can be alerted to the treaty's fatal flaws. They rejected a very reasonable request this morning by Senator David Vitter to delay the Committee vote for one week to allow additional expert testimony from those with concerns about the treaty. Senator Vitter wished to correct the nearly 6 to one imbalance in favor of treaty proponents during the Committee's hearings.

So desperate was Chairman Joe Biden for an affirmative vote for the treaty that he misrepresented both the treaty and President Ronald Reagan's position on it during the Committee's meeting today. Biden asserted that President Reagan's only objection to the treaty was the deep seabed mining provisions and that these provisions have been corrected.

Not a single word of the Law of the Sea Treaty has been amended since Ronald Reagan was president nor were these provisions his only objections. As President Reagan noted in his diary on June 29, 1982, "Decided in NSC meeting - will not sign 'Law of the Sea Treaty' even without deep seabed mining provisions."

It seems the only person Mr. Biden can quote correctly is Neil Kinnock, from whom he lifted a speech during a previous presidential run in 1987.

The treaty is a bad deal for the U.S. because it would...
* Complicate our efforts to apprehend terrorists or weapons of mass destruction by subjecting our actions to review by an International Tribunal that is unlikely to render decisions favorable to the U.S.

* Make our ships more vulnerable to terrorists or rough states by extending surfacing requirements for unmanned underwater vehicles used to detect mines when our ships exercise their rights of innocent passage through the territorial sea of another nation.

* Threaten the U.S.'s ability to set its own environmental standards. The treaty requires us to "adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources" and shall endeavor to "harmonize" it regulations. As Greenpeace notes, ""The benefits of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea are substantial, including its basic duties for states to protect and preserve the marine environment and to conserve marine living species."

* Give control of a substantial portion of the ocean to a U.N.-style body, the International Seabed Authority (ISA), that will likely be less accountable than the U.N. The ISA was established to be self-financing, deriving revenue not only royalties. The U.S. will have even less leverage in pushing for transparency and accountability than it does with the U.N. as threats to withhold contributions will be less meaningful.

* The treaty permits amendments without requiring nations to re-ratify it - even if the changes are substantial. This not only is a blank check, but a stunning abdication of the Senate's advice and consent responsibilities.
This goes against Ronald Reagan's advice, "trust, but verify."

_____

Labels: Congress, Environment, Foreign Policy

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:17 PM

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Is it Over-the-Top When It's Literally True?

Just wondering.
_____

Labels: Foreign Policy

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:37 PM

Thursday, October 04, 2007

Under Law of the Sea Treaty, Burmese Junta Has Purse String Powers

David Ridenour takes another look at the Law of the Sea Treaty, and still doesn’t like what he sees:

Brutal assaults on pro-democracy demonstrators, the arrest of 700 Buddhist monks, the complete obliteration of at least 18 villages, the dragging of pro-democracy demonstrators from their beds at night and the creation of millions of refugees...

...not exactly a resume that suggests "financial competence," but it apparently does at the International Seabed Authority, a creation of the Law of the Sea Treaty.

You see, Myanmar, the name given Burma by its military junta, currently serves on the Finance Committee of the International Seabed Authority. The Finance Committee is responsible not only for recommending membership dues, but on how the proceeds are re-distributed. Until this year, the Burmese junta served on the International Seabed Authority's 36-member Council, the ISA's governing body, until it was replaced by that paragon of human rights and democracy...

...Vietnam.

More troubling is the fact that the Myanmar representative had to be elected to the five-year term on the Finance Committee. Also on the Committee are China, the Russian Federation, Uganda, and FOH Brazil (that's "friend of Hugo").

This provides a glimpse of how badly the deck is stacked against the U.S. under the Law of the Sea Treaty.

Nevertheless, the Senate appears poised to say "hit me."

To contact author David Ridenour directly,
write him at dridenour@nationalcenter.org

_____

Labels: Congress, Foreign Policy, Human Rights, United Nations

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:17 AM

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

Would Ronald Reagan Support the Law of the Sea Treaty If He Were President Today?

Supporters of U.S. ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty often claim Ronald Reagan would support ratification of LOST (also referred to as UNCLOS, short for "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea"), were he with us today. Many of them have publicly argued that President Reagan's only objection to the Law of the Sea Treaty was the treaty's deep seabed mining section, which was modified in 1994.

A few of many examples of Law of the Sea ratification supporters making this claim:

Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN): "President Ronald Reagan declared U.S. commitment to the principles of UNCLOS with the exception of the mining provisions."

Lawrence Eagleburger and John Norton Moore: "Opponents assert that Ronald Reagan deep-sixed the convention, when instead he set requirements for renegotiation of Part XI, which were successfully achieved..."

Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA): "The provisions on deep seabed mining, the only provisions that President Reagan objected to, were comprehensively revised to remove all of our objections in 1994."

Rear Admiral William L. Schachte, U.S. Navy, Retired: "...the U.S. was also able to obtain necessary changes to the deep seabed mining provisions to address all of the concerns raised by President Reagan."

William H. Taft IV / U.S. Department of State: "President Reagan expressed concerns only about Part XI's deep seabed mining regime."

Former Secretary of State George Shultz: "It surprises me to learn that opponents of the treaty are invoking President Reagan's name, arguing that he would have opposed ratification despite having succeeded on the deep sea-bed issue. During his administration, with full clearance and support from President Reagan, we made it very clear that we would support ratification if our position on the sea-bed issue were accepted."

David B. Sandalow / Brookings Institution: "President Reagan praised the Convention's 'many positive and very significant accomplishments,” but declined to sign because of the deep seabed mining provisions."

Maggie Goodlander / Council on Foreign Relations: "President Reagan refused to endorse the treaty because of its provisions related to seabed mining, most of which were amended in 1994."

Amanda Griscom / Grist: "Ronald Reagan was in office and he declined to sign on because of pressure from ultra-conservatives and specific objections to deep seabed mining provisions."

Senator Richard Lugar: "President Reagan refused to sign it because of technology transfer provisions and other problems in the section on deep-seabed mining."

The Saturday before last, husband David was reading aloud to me from The Reagan Diaries (yes, liberals, that's the kind of thing conservative married couples do on Saturdays -- your suspicions are confirmed), and came upon the entry for Tuesday, June 29, 1982:

Decided in NSC meeting-will not sign "Law of the Sea" treaty even without seabed mining provisions.

Many people may claim to speak for Ronald Reagan, but Ronald Reagan himself is the one person who really knew what Ronald Reagan thought.
_____

Labels: Defense, Foreign Policy, United Nations

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:04 AM

Thursday, May 31, 2007

Blunt Talk

Mychal Massie opines:

...perhaps when Julian Bond, Harry Belafonte, and Danny Glover finish caressing the back and shoulders of maniacal dictators like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro they too will find time to address the cries for mercy from Darfur.

_____

Labels: Foreign Policy, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:22 PM

Important Links

About Amy Ridenour

About the National Center

Featured from our Blogroll

Historic Documents

Archives

Highlighted Project

Fine print

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Reuters Reports...

Thursday, October 15, 2009

The Nobel Committee's Not-So Unanimous Selection of Obama

Friday, October 02, 2009

What's Happening Now

Thursday, October 01, 2009

What's Happening Now

Friday, September 25, 2009

It's a Sad State of Affairs...

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Netanyahu Asks World: "Is This a Lie?"

A State of War Exists in the Americas

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Daily Kos Wants Tea Party Participants to Forgo All Government Services, But Still Pay All Taxes

Friday, September 18, 2009

What's Happening Now

Friday, September 11, 2009

What's Happening Now

Tuesday, September 08, 2009

What's Happening Now

Sunday, August 30, 2009

What's Happening Now

Thursday, August 27, 2009

What's Happening Now

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

What's Happening Now

Thursday, August 20, 2009

What's Happening Now

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Thin Skins Across the Pond

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Oscar Arias Diagnosed With Swine Flu...

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

What's Happening Now

Monday, July 27, 2009

What's Happening Now

Friday, July 24, 2009

What's Happening Now

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Another Russian Rights Activist Killed

Monday, July 13, 2009

Honduras Situation Not a Coup

Tuesday, July 07, 2009

Russia and America's Energy Future

Sunday, July 05, 2009

Honduras

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Puzzled

Iran Quick Hits

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Infidels Are Cool Reprints Joe Roche Letter

Monday, April 27, 2009

Outrage of the Day: The Leaders of Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Honduras, Nicaragua and Venezuela

Thursday, April 23, 2009

GE-Owned Networks' Media Bias, Conflicts-of-Interest Remain Focus Day After Stockholder Meeting

Quote of Note

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

A (Brief) E-Mail Response from GE

Outrage of the Day: United Nations Threatens Bush Administration Officials

Friday, April 17, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Obama Lowers Himself

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Putin's Totalitarianism

Monday, April 13, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Siding With the Pirates

Friday, April 10, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Loving Castro

Thursday, April 09, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Fake Excuses for Bow to Saudi King

Wednesday, April 08, 2009

Outrage of the Day: President Obama Denigrating Bush in Europe