Coming Soon: Not-So-NICE Health Care?
By SALLY C. PIPES | Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:30 PM PT
A British court just ruled that the U.K. government unfairly denied anti-dementia drugs to Alzheimer's patients. The government's reason for refusing to cover the drugs? Money. Government scrooges didn't want to foot the bill.
This kind of penny-pinching happens all too often in Britain, thanks to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Effectiveness, or NICE, the agency that determines which treatments get covered by the British health care system.
If some congressional lawmakers get their way, the United States soon will have a similar agency. And it too will deny vital treatment options.
The U.S. Senate is considering legislation to create a Comparative Effectiveness Research Institute under Medicare.
Like NICE, the new agency would conduct studies on the relative effectiveness of various medical treatments, analyzing how different options stack up against one another.
In theory, this research could provide doctors with more complete information when deciding which treatment to recommend. But in practice, the agency's findings would likely be used by Congress to lower the government's health care spending.
By generating studies that show that older, cheaper drugs are just as effective as newer cures, cost-conscious lawmakers could rationalize not covering expensive cutting-edge medicines under Medicare, Medicaid and other publicly funded programs.
Sound far-fetched? This is precisely what happens time and again in the U.K.
Earlier this year, for example, NICE failed to approve the arthritis drug abatacept. Even though it is one of the only drugs clinically proven to improve severe rheumatoid arthritis, NICE decided that "abatacept would not be a cost-effective use of NHS (National Health Service) resources."
Just one month before that ruling, NICE made a similar decision about the lung cancer drug Tarceva.
Despite numerous studies showing that the drug significantly prolongs the life of cancer patients — and the unanimous endorsement of lung cancer specialists throughout the U.K. — NICE determined that the drug was too expensive to cover. England is currently one of only three countries in Western Europe to deny their citizens access to Tarceva.
Comparative effectiveness research is so easily misused because it looks only at the "average" patient. By focusing on which drugs, on average, are cheapest and most effective, comparative effectiveness research can overlook important factors like age, race, gender and lifestyle.
So even though a patient's doctor might decide that a drug like Tarceva is the best treatment given the particular needs of his patient, the government could refuse to cover the drug simply because it isn't cost-effective for the "average" patient.
It's exactly these kinds of tactics that Britain's Court of Appeal recently judged to be "procedurally unfair" when it overturned NICE's decision to deny Alzheimer's patients access to several anti-dementia drugs.
The legislation now under consideration in Congress could go a long way toward helping American doctors and patients make informed health care decisions.
Toward that end, it's crucial that any American agency conducting comparative effectiveness research consider what's best for individual patients instead of looking for cheap, one-size-fits-all cures.
The agency should also be free from political influence. Just as importantly, its recommendations should be non-binding. In other words, the research should be used to empower doctors and patients — not politicians, bureaucrats and budget analysts.
Otherwise, the poor, the elderly and others receiving government medical care would be subjected to the same kind of treatment we've seen in the U.K.
Pipes is president and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute and author of "Miracle Cure: How to Solve America's Health Care Crisis and Why Canada Isn't the Answer."
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
FAILED HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS
And the Democrats/liberals/socialists want to reform OUR health care system to be model on the Brits and the Canadians. Whoa Nellie, there is definitely something wrong here. Nothing that Liberals/Socialists have proposed over the past 200 HUNDRED YEARS has yet to succeed and yet each new generation -- including BHO -- tries to reinvent the square wheel. When I was stationed at Air Force Global Weather Central, Offutt AFB Omaha NE, we had a very senior civilian by the name of Art Gulliver. Mr. G's primary focus was to keep young captains and even younger lieutenants from reinventing the wheel. Too bad the Liberals/Socialists do not have a Mr. G. Come to think of it though, if they did maybe they would not be be the bad boys and girls that they are. NOT!
Canadian Health Care We So Envy Lies In Ruins, Its Architect Admits
By DAVID GRATZER | Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:30 PM PT
As this presidential campaign continues, the candidates' comments about health care will continue to include stories of their own experiences and anecdotes of people across the country: the uninsured woman in Ohio, the diabetic in Detroit, the overworked doctor in Orlando, to name a few.
But no one will mention Claude Castonguay — perhaps not surprising because this statesman isn't an American and hasn't held office in over three decades.
Castonguay's evolving view of Canadian health care, however, should weigh heavily on how the candidates think about the issue in this country.
Back in the 1960s, Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec — then the largest and most affluent in the country — adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies.
The government followed his advice, leading to his modern-day moniker: "the father of Quebec medicare." Even this title seems modest; Castonguay's work triggered a domino effect across the country, until eventually his ideas were implemented from coast to coast.
Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in "crisis."
"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."
Castonguay advocates contracting out services to the private sector, going so far as suggesting that public hospitals rent space during off-hours to entrepreneurial doctors. He supports co-pays for patients who want to see physicians. Castonguay, the man who championed public health insurance in Canada, now urges for the legalization of private health insurance.
In America, these ideas may not sound shocking. But in Canada, where the private sector has been shunned for decades, these are extraordinary views, especially coming from Castonguay. It's as if John Maynard Keynes, resting on his British death bed in 1946, had declared that his faith in government interventionism was misplaced.
What would drive a man like Castonguay to reconsider his long-held beliefs? Try a health care system so overburdened that hundreds of thousands in need of medical attention wait for care, any care; a system where people in towns like Norwalk, Ontario, participate in lotteries to win appointments with the local family doctor.
Years ago, Canadians touted their health care system as the best in the world; today, Canadian health care stands in ruinous shape.
Sick with ovarian cancer, Sylvia de Vires, an Ontario woman afflicted with a 13-inch, fluid-filled tumor weighing 40 pounds, was unable to get timely care in Canada. She crossed the American border to Pontiac, Mich., where a surgeon removed the tumor, estimating she could not have lived longer than a few weeks more.
The Canadian government pays for U.S. medical care in some circumstances, but it declined to do so in de Vires' case for a bureaucratically perfect, but inhumane, reason: She hadn't properly filled out a form. At death's door, de Vires should have done her paperwork better.
De Vires is far from unusual in seeking medical treatment in the U.S. Even Canadian government officials send patients across the border, increasingly looking to American medicine to deal with their overload of patients and chronic shortage of care.
Since the spring of 2006, Ontario's government has sent at least 164 patients to New York and Michigan for neurosurgery emergencies — defined by the Globe and Mail newspaper as "broken necks, burst aneurysms and other types of bleeding in or around the brain." Other provinces have followed Ontario's example.
Canada isn't the only country facing a government health care crisis. Britain's system, once the postwar inspiration for many Western countries, is similarly plagued. Both countries trail the U.S. in five-year cancer survival rates, transplantation outcomes and other measures.
The problem is that government bureaucrats simply can't centrally plan their way to better health care.
A typical example: The Ministry of Health declared that British patients should get ER care within four hours. The result? At some hospitals, seriously ill patients are kept in ambulances for hours so as not to run afoul of the regulation; at other hospitals, patients are admitted to inappropriate wards.
Declarations can't solve staffing shortages and the other rationing of care that occurs in government-run systems.
Polls show Americans are desperately unhappy with their system and a government solution grows in popularity. Neither Sen. Obama nor Sen. McCain is explicitly pushing for single-payer health care, as the Canadian system is known in America.
"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program," Obama said back in the 1990s. Last year, Obama told the New Yorker that "if you're starting from scratch, then a single-payer system probably makes sense."
As for the Republicans, simply criticizing Democratic health care proposals will not suffice — it's not 1994 anymore. And, while McCain's health care proposals hold promise of putting families in charge of their health care and perhaps even taming costs, McCain, at least so far, doesn't seem terribly interested in discussing health care on the campaign trail.
However the candidates choose to proceed, Americans should know that one of the founding fathers of Canada's government-run health care system has turned against his own creation. If Claude Castonguay is abandoning ship, why should Americans bother climbing on board?
Gratzer is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a physician licensed in both the U.S. and Canada, where he received his medical training. His newest book, "The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care," is now available in paperback.
Canadian Health Care We So Envy Lies In Ruins, Its Architect Admits
By DAVID GRATZER | Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:30 PM PT
As this presidential campaign continues, the candidates' comments about health care will continue to include stories of their own experiences and anecdotes of people across the country: the uninsured woman in Ohio, the diabetic in Detroit, the overworked doctor in Orlando, to name a few.
But no one will mention Claude Castonguay — perhaps not surprising because this statesman isn't an American and hasn't held office in over three decades.
Castonguay's evolving view of Canadian health care, however, should weigh heavily on how the candidates think about the issue in this country.
Back in the 1960s, Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec — then the largest and most affluent in the country — adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies.
The government followed his advice, leading to his modern-day moniker: "the father of Quebec medicare." Even this title seems modest; Castonguay's work triggered a domino effect across the country, until eventually his ideas were implemented from coast to coast.
Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in "crisis."
"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."
Castonguay advocates contracting out services to the private sector, going so far as suggesting that public hospitals rent space during off-hours to entrepreneurial doctors. He supports co-pays for patients who want to see physicians. Castonguay, the man who championed public health insurance in Canada, now urges for the legalization of private health insurance.
In America, these ideas may not sound shocking. But in Canada, where the private sector has been shunned for decades, these are extraordinary views, especially coming from Castonguay. It's as if John Maynard Keynes, resting on his British death bed in 1946, had declared that his faith in government interventionism was misplaced.
What would drive a man like Castonguay to reconsider his long-held beliefs? Try a health care system so overburdened that hundreds of thousands in need of medical attention wait for care, any care; a system where people in towns like Norwalk, Ontario, participate in lotteries to win appointments with the local family doctor.
Years ago, Canadians touted their health care system as the best in the world; today, Canadian health care stands in ruinous shape.
Sick with ovarian cancer, Sylvia de Vires, an Ontario woman afflicted with a 13-inch, fluid-filled tumor weighing 40 pounds, was unable to get timely care in Canada. She crossed the American border to Pontiac, Mich., where a surgeon removed the tumor, estimating she could not have lived longer than a few weeks more.
The Canadian government pays for U.S. medical care in some circumstances, but it declined to do so in de Vires' case for a bureaucratically perfect, but inhumane, reason: She hadn't properly filled out a form. At death's door, de Vires should have done her paperwork better.
De Vires is far from unusual in seeking medical treatment in the U.S. Even Canadian government officials send patients across the border, increasingly looking to American medicine to deal with their overload of patients and chronic shortage of care.
Since the spring of 2006, Ontario's government has sent at least 164 patients to New York and Michigan for neurosurgery emergencies — defined by the Globe and Mail newspaper as "broken necks, burst aneurysms and other types of bleeding in or around the brain." Other provinces have followed Ontario's example.
Canada isn't the only country facing a government health care crisis. Britain's system, once the postwar inspiration for many Western countries, is similarly plagued. Both countries trail the U.S. in five-year cancer survival rates, transplantation outcomes and other measures.
The problem is that government bureaucrats simply can't centrally plan their way to better health care.
A typical example: The Ministry of Health declared that British patients should get ER care within four hours. The result? At some hospitals, seriously ill patients are kept in ambulances for hours so as not to run afoul of the regulation; at other hospitals, patients are admitted to inappropriate wards.
Declarations can't solve staffing shortages and the other rationing of care that occurs in government-run systems.
Polls show Americans are desperately unhappy with their system and a government solution grows in popularity. Neither Sen. Obama nor Sen. McCain is explicitly pushing for single-payer health care, as the Canadian system is known in America.
"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program," Obama said back in the 1990s. Last year, Obama told the New Yorker that "if you're starting from scratch, then a single-payer system probably makes sense."
As for the Republicans, simply criticizing Democratic health care proposals will not suffice — it's not 1994 anymore. And, while McCain's health care proposals hold promise of putting families in charge of their health care and perhaps even taming costs, McCain, at least so far, doesn't seem terribly interested in discussing health care on the campaign trail.
However the candidates choose to proceed, Americans should know that one of the founding fathers of Canada's government-run health care system has turned against his own creation. If Claude Castonguay is abandoning ship, why should Americans bother climbing on board?
Gratzer is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a physician licensed in both the U.S. and Canada, where he received his medical training. His newest book, "The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care," is now available in paperback.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
OBAMA THE SOCIALIST STRIKES AGAIN
<a href="http://ads.townhall.com/accipiter/adclick/CID=0001650a6d4b0d8d00000000/site=TOWNHALL/area=Townhall.Web/POSITION=TOWN_RECT/AAMGEOIP=216.16.3.190"> <img src="http://media.salemwebnetwork.com/creative/may-mmad1.swf" alt="" width="300" height="250" border="0"> </a>
Obama's Vision for Government-Run Childhood
Terence Jeffrey
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
One of the most dramatic changes in American life in the years since World War II involves the way we raise our children.
We used to do it ourselves. Now, convinced we have better things to do, many of us leave the job to others.
Encouraging this flight from parenthood, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has proposed what he calls his "Zero to Five" plan. It is a collection of programs aimed at getting the government involved in the raising of your children from the moment they are born.
"The first part of my plan focuses on providing quality affordable early childhood education to every child in America," Obama said in a November speech. "As president, I will launch a Children's First Agenda that provides care, learning and support to families with children ages zero to five."
"We'll create Early Learning Grants to help states create a system of high-quality early care and education for all young children and their families," he said. "And we'll help more working parents find a safe, affordable place to leave their children during the day by improving the educational quality of our childcare programs and increasing the childcare tax credit."
This week, Obama upped his ante by vowing to "double funding for after-school programs that help children learn and give parents relief."
Obama, of course, will also continue to defend your "right" to hire a physician to kill your child in utero so you won't have to raise the child at all.
The hard evidence that most American parents now leave at least some of the nurturing of even their youngest children to others has been gathered by the U.S. Department of Labor.
An excellent summary of government data on this issue can be found in "Trends in Labor Force Participation of Married Mothers and Infants," a study by Bureau of Labor Statistics economists Sharon R. Cohany and Emy Sok that was published last year.
"In 1948, only about 17 percent of married mothers were in the labor force," wrote Cohany and Sok. "By 1995, their labor force participation rate had reached 70 percent."
Note that these are "married mothers" -- not single moms, who because of illegitimacy, divorce or a husband's death are forced to work outside the home.
In fact, as of 2005 (the latest year cited by Cohany and Sok), more than 53 percent of married American women with infants (babies less than 1 year old) worked outside the home.
Some of the data points to the conclusion that this phenomenon is driven as much by changes in our values as in changes in our economy.
For example, relative poverty was clearly not the most powerful factor driving married mothers of infants to work outside the home. In fact, those whose husbands earned an income ranking in the lowest 20 percent were the least likely to go to work, Cohany and Sok discovered, while those whose husbands earned an income that ranked in the highest 20 percent were the second least likely to work.
Less than half of these relatively poor and relatively rich mothers with infants worked.
Yet, of the married mothers with infants whose husbands earned an income in the middle 20 percent, 64.4 percent worked outside the home.
Similarly, Cohany and Sok discovered: "The more children a woman has, the less likely she is to be in the labor force." Almost 60 percent of married mothers with infants who had only one child worked. Only 36.6 percent of those who had five or more children worked.
In America today, the rarer child makes a scarcer mom.
It is also telling that while 58.5 percent of native-born mothers with infants worked outside the home, only 35 percent of immigrant mothers with infants did.
Some force in our culture that was not as strong in 1948 as it is today is devaluing traditional family life and the stay-at-home mom.
But this force could be waning. "After a lengthy and dramatic advance," concluded Cohany and Sok, "labor force participation rates for married mothers of infants peaked in 1997 and have been relatively stable since 2000."
Through his plans to increase government funding and control of the rearing of children ages "zero to five," Barack Obama would increase, rather than decrease, the force that drives mothers of infants to leave them in someone else's care. He would also cause a wholly unjust transfer of wealth.
Old-fashioned moms and dads who insist on caring for their own pre-school children will pay for -- but gain no benefit from -- programs that put the government in the business of caring for children whose moms and dads would both rather work outside the home than work raising a child.
Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Obama's Vision for Government-Run Childhood
Terence Jeffrey
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
One of the most dramatic changes in American life in the years since World War II involves the way we raise our children.
We used to do it ourselves. Now, convinced we have better things to do, many of us leave the job to others.
Encouraging this flight from parenthood, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has proposed what he calls his "Zero to Five" plan. It is a collection of programs aimed at getting the government involved in the raising of your children from the moment they are born.
"The first part of my plan focuses on providing quality affordable early childhood education to every child in America," Obama said in a November speech. "As president, I will launch a Children's First Agenda that provides care, learning and support to families with children ages zero to five."
"We'll create Early Learning Grants to help states create a system of high-quality early care and education for all young children and their families," he said. "And we'll help more working parents find a safe, affordable place to leave their children during the day by improving the educational quality of our childcare programs and increasing the childcare tax credit."
This week, Obama upped his ante by vowing to "double funding for after-school programs that help children learn and give parents relief."
Obama, of course, will also continue to defend your "right" to hire a physician to kill your child in utero so you won't have to raise the child at all.
The hard evidence that most American parents now leave at least some of the nurturing of even their youngest children to others has been gathered by the U.S. Department of Labor.
An excellent summary of government data on this issue can be found in "Trends in Labor Force Participation of Married Mothers and Infants," a study by Bureau of Labor Statistics economists Sharon R. Cohany and Emy Sok that was published last year.
"In 1948, only about 17 percent of married mothers were in the labor force," wrote Cohany and Sok. "By 1995, their labor force participation rate had reached 70 percent."
Note that these are "married mothers" -- not single moms, who because of illegitimacy, divorce or a husband's death are forced to work outside the home.
In fact, as of 2005 (the latest year cited by Cohany and Sok), more than 53 percent of married American women with infants (babies less than 1 year old) worked outside the home.
Some of the data points to the conclusion that this phenomenon is driven as much by changes in our values as in changes in our economy.
For example, relative poverty was clearly not the most powerful factor driving married mothers of infants to work outside the home. In fact, those whose husbands earned an income ranking in the lowest 20 percent were the least likely to go to work, Cohany and Sok discovered, while those whose husbands earned an income that ranked in the highest 20 percent were the second least likely to work.
Less than half of these relatively poor and relatively rich mothers with infants worked.
Yet, of the married mothers with infants whose husbands earned an income in the middle 20 percent, 64.4 percent worked outside the home.
Similarly, Cohany and Sok discovered: "The more children a woman has, the less likely she is to be in the labor force." Almost 60 percent of married mothers with infants who had only one child worked. Only 36.6 percent of those who had five or more children worked.
In America today, the rarer child makes a scarcer mom.
It is also telling that while 58.5 percent of native-born mothers with infants worked outside the home, only 35 percent of immigrant mothers with infants did.
Some force in our culture that was not as strong in 1948 as it is today is devaluing traditional family life and the stay-at-home mom.
But this force could be waning. "After a lengthy and dramatic advance," concluded Cohany and Sok, "labor force participation rates for married mothers of infants peaked in 1997 and have been relatively stable since 2000."
Through his plans to increase government funding and control of the rearing of children ages "zero to five," Barack Obama would increase, rather than decrease, the force that drives mothers of infants to leave them in someone else's care. He would also cause a wholly unjust transfer of wealth.
Old-fashioned moms and dads who insist on caring for their own pre-school children will pay for -- but gain no benefit from -- programs that put the government in the business of caring for children whose moms and dads would both rather work outside the home than work raising a child.
Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
MY oh MY, SHAME ON HER
COLUMBIA TO AX PLAGIARIST NOOSE PROF
By CATHY BURKE
COPIER, OVER AND OUT:Professor Madonna Constantine, who said a noose was left on her office door, is vowing to fight her termination for plagiarism.
COPIER, OVER AND OUT:Professor Madonna Constantine, who said a noose was left on her office door, is vowing to fight her termination for plagiarism.
June 24, 2008 --
The controversial Columbia Teachers College professor whose alleged discovery of a hangman's noose on her office doorknob triggered national outrage is being fired for plagiarism, school officials said yesterday.
Madonna Constantine, a professor of psychology and education with a focus on racial issues, was informed June 12, and the news was relayed to faculty in a letter yesterday.
Her firing is subject to a hearing before a faculty committee, and in the meantime, she has been suspended "effective immediately," according to the letter.
A lawyer for the tenured prof blasted the decision as "retaliatory and hostile," and said he would fight the move in court.
He also threatened to sue for defamation.
"It's not the end," vowed a friend of Constantine outside her Morningside Heights apartment last night.
The bombshell dismissal caps a tumultuous series of events that began last October - near the end of an investigation of Constantine's alleged plagiarism of former Professor Christine Yeh and two graduate students, Tracy Juliao and Karen Cort.
Just four months from the conclusion of the plagiarism probe, Constantine, who is black, said she discovered the symbol of racial hatred.
Cops began an investigation into the noose allegation - as did a grand jury. No results have yet been released.
In February, a Manhattan law firm hired to investigate the plagiarism charges determined that Constantine was guilty in two dozen incidents. She immediately appealed.
"As one of only two tenured black women full professors at Teachers College, it pains me to conclude that I have been specifically and systematically targeted," she said at the time.
But on June 4, the Faculty Advisory Committee upheld the charges.
College officials, in their letter to the faculty, hinted at escalating ill will. The letter blasted Constantine for going public with her accusations of plagiarism "against those whose works she had plagiarized."
Cort said she was gratified about the firing.
"I feel like justice has been served," she told The Post.
"The entire experience was very traumatic.
"It saddens me that she's using racism. I think racism is a real thing, but I don't feel this investigation was against her because she's a black woman. It was because she abused her power."
Constantine's lawyer, Paul Giacomo Jr., said her firing would be effective Dec. 31 unless she asks for a faculty committee hearing sooner.
Additional reporting by Christina Carrega
By CATHY BURKE
COPIER, OVER AND OUT:Professor Madonna Constantine, who said a noose was left on her office door, is vowing to fight her termination for plagiarism.
COPIER, OVER AND OUT:Professor Madonna Constantine, who said a noose was left on her office door, is vowing to fight her termination for plagiarism.
June 24, 2008 --
The controversial Columbia Teachers College professor whose alleged discovery of a hangman's noose on her office doorknob triggered national outrage is being fired for plagiarism, school officials said yesterday.
Madonna Constantine, a professor of psychology and education with a focus on racial issues, was informed June 12, and the news was relayed to faculty in a letter yesterday.
Her firing is subject to a hearing before a faculty committee, and in the meantime, she has been suspended "effective immediately," according to the letter.
A lawyer for the tenured prof blasted the decision as "retaliatory and hostile," and said he would fight the move in court.
He also threatened to sue for defamation.
"It's not the end," vowed a friend of Constantine outside her Morningside Heights apartment last night.
The bombshell dismissal caps a tumultuous series of events that began last October - near the end of an investigation of Constantine's alleged plagiarism of former Professor Christine Yeh and two graduate students, Tracy Juliao and Karen Cort.
Just four months from the conclusion of the plagiarism probe, Constantine, who is black, said she discovered the symbol of racial hatred.
Cops began an investigation into the noose allegation - as did a grand jury. No results have yet been released.
In February, a Manhattan law firm hired to investigate the plagiarism charges determined that Constantine was guilty in two dozen incidents. She immediately appealed.
"As one of only two tenured black women full professors at Teachers College, it pains me to conclude that I have been specifically and systematically targeted," she said at the time.
But on June 4, the Faculty Advisory Committee upheld the charges.
College officials, in their letter to the faculty, hinted at escalating ill will. The letter blasted Constantine for going public with her accusations of plagiarism "against those whose works she had plagiarized."
Cort said she was gratified about the firing.
"I feel like justice has been served," she told The Post.
"The entire experience was very traumatic.
"It saddens me that she's using racism. I think racism is a real thing, but I don't feel this investigation was against her because she's a black woman. It was because she abused her power."
Constantine's lawyer, Paul Giacomo Jr., said her firing would be effective Dec. 31 unless she asks for a faculty committee hearing sooner.
Additional reporting by Christina Carrega
Monday, June 23, 2008
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND....
the right of citizens to petition the government: NOT!
Goldwater Institute Condemns Tactics Interfering with Signature Gathering for Racial Preferences Initiative
June 23, 2008
Contact: Starlee Rhoades
(602) 462-5000 x 226
Phoenix--Out-of-state activists from a group calling itself "By Any Means Necessary" (BAMN) are interfering with the right of Arizona voters to place an initiative on the November ballot prohibiting racial preferences in government education, employment, and contracting.
The group has posted numerous videos documenting its harassment of petition gatherers and voters signing petitions on YouTube.com. At least two videos indicate that the group has obtained signed petitions that were intended to be filed with the Secretary of State to qualify the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative (ACRI) for the ballot.
"These activists have a right to try to persuade people not to sign petitions, and even to lie about the initiative, which they do," declared Clint Bolick, director of the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation. "But the moment they hijack a petition from its intended destination, they've crossed the line by denying citizens their constitutional right to petition the government."
Like most initiatives, the backers of ACRI employ paid circulators who collect signatures for multiple ballot measures. The YouTube videos show BAMN activists telling prospective signers that the initiative is backed and funded by the Ku Klux Klan, disrupting signature gathering, trying to convince a signature gatherer to turn over petitions, and waving copies of petitions they have obtained.
Today, BAMN reportedly blocked access to a public building where petition gathers were attempting to deliver signatures to initiative sponsors. "These people are not interested in reasoned debate," Bolick added. "Their name says it all."
Similar initiatives previously have appeared on the ballot in three states--California, Washington, and Michigan--and have passed by large and increasing margins in all three. BAMN actively opposed the initiative in Michigan. The leading opposition group in Arizona is called "Protect Arizona's Freedom," headed by state Representative Kyrsten Sinema, a coalition that includes such organizations as the American Civil Liberties Union. "We call upon those who oppose the initiative to join us in condemning these outrageous tactics that violate the civil rights of Arizonans," Bolick declared.
The Goldwater Institute has documented dozens of racial preference policies in Arizona and will host a debate on the initiative in early September.
Contact:
Starlee Rhoades
Vice President of Communications
srhoades@goldwaterinstitute.org
(602) 462-5000 x 226 Contact:
Clint Bolick
Director, Center for Constitutional Litigation
(602) 462-5000
Goldwater Institute Condemns Tactics Interfering with Signature Gathering for Racial Preferences Initiative
June 23, 2008
Contact: Starlee Rhoades
(602) 462-5000 x 226
Phoenix--Out-of-state activists from a group calling itself "By Any Means Necessary" (BAMN) are interfering with the right of Arizona voters to place an initiative on the November ballot prohibiting racial preferences in government education, employment, and contracting.
The group has posted numerous videos documenting its harassment of petition gatherers and voters signing petitions on YouTube.com. At least two videos indicate that the group has obtained signed petitions that were intended to be filed with the Secretary of State to qualify the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative (ACRI) for the ballot.
"These activists have a right to try to persuade people not to sign petitions, and even to lie about the initiative, which they do," declared Clint Bolick, director of the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation. "But the moment they hijack a petition from its intended destination, they've crossed the line by denying citizens their constitutional right to petition the government."
Like most initiatives, the backers of ACRI employ paid circulators who collect signatures for multiple ballot measures. The YouTube videos show BAMN activists telling prospective signers that the initiative is backed and funded by the Ku Klux Klan, disrupting signature gathering, trying to convince a signature gatherer to turn over petitions, and waving copies of petitions they have obtained.
Today, BAMN reportedly blocked access to a public building where petition gathers were attempting to deliver signatures to initiative sponsors. "These people are not interested in reasoned debate," Bolick added. "Their name says it all."
Similar initiatives previously have appeared on the ballot in three states--California, Washington, and Michigan--and have passed by large and increasing margins in all three. BAMN actively opposed the initiative in Michigan. The leading opposition group in Arizona is called "Protect Arizona's Freedom," headed by state Representative Kyrsten Sinema, a coalition that includes such organizations as the American Civil Liberties Union. "We call upon those who oppose the initiative to join us in condemning these outrageous tactics that violate the civil rights of Arizonans," Bolick declared.
The Goldwater Institute has documented dozens of racial preference policies in Arizona and will host a debate on the initiative in early September.
Contact:
Starlee Rhoades
Vice President of Communications
srhoades@goldwaterinstitute.org
(602) 462-5000 x 226 Contact:
Clint Bolick
Director, Center for Constitutional Litigation
(602) 462-5000
PUBLIC ENEMY #1--THE ACLU
June 21, 2008
‘Joint Venturers’ in Terror Support Trial Seek to Edit History
Steve Emerson
The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) want a Dallas federal judge to remove their names from a list of "unindicted co-conspirators and/or joint venturers" in the terror support trial of a charity accused of supporting Hamas.
The petition filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of NAIT and ISNA states that the designation violates Fifth Amendment protections by casting a smear on the organizations without proof, and without the opportunity for a defense. This, they claim, has deeply tarnished the groups' reputations with government agencies and other religious organizations.
But in making their case, the two groups ignore documented evidence that links them to the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) and to their support for Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook. They insist they are law-abiding organizations and say law enforcement officials have assured them they are not the target of any investigation.
HLF and five of its former officials face a retrial in September on charge they conspired to provide material support to Hamas. A mistrial was declared in October after jurors could not reach unanimous decisions on most counts. An investigation by the Investigative Project on Terrorism found several jurors felt bullied when they argued for convictions.
ISNA and NAIT are related to each other. ISNA lists NAIT as a "constituent organization," while NAIT identifies its founders in the Muslim Students Association (MSA) as "the predecessor of the Islamic Society of North America." ISNA's president is an ex-officio NAIT board member and Muzammil Siddiqi, NAIT's chairman, serves on ISNA's governing board.
In a declaration submitted to the court, ISNA is described by President Ingrid Mattson as "an independent, non-profit membership organization by Muslims in North America" that seeks to support American Muslims and reach out to other religious and civic groups. While Siddiqi said his organization is an endowment holding titles to more than 300 mosques and related property in the U.S. providing them with advice and support.
Nowhere in the petition and accompanying declarations do the words "Muslim Brotherhood" appear. And that's the crux of their relevance to the HLF case. The prosecution's theory is that HLF was part of a Brotherhood-created Palestine Committee designed to support Hamas in the United States.
ISNA and NAIT are listed first and eighth among "A list of our organizations and the organizations of our friends" in a 1991 memorandum (see the last page) entitled "On the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America."
This document has become infamous for its ominous description of the Brotherhood's long-range ambitions in the United States (see page 21 of the link):
The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack.
ISNA is especially active in interfaith outreach programs, inviting Union of Reform Judaism President Eric Yoffie to speak at its 2007 convention and Mattson making a reciprocal appearance at the UJA conference a few months later. Mattson, in a declaration to the court, describes how ISNA's inclusion on the unindicted co-conspirator list triggered criticism toward Yoffie.
That criticism, however, precedes last year's release of the unindicted co-conspirator list and is predicated upon ISNA's roots and historic support for terrorists. It has never condemned terrorist groups like Hamas or Hizballah by name. It stood by Marzook after U.S. officials arrested him as part of an extradition effort to face terrorism charges in Israel. In 1997, Marzook issued a public thank you to ISNA and other U.S.-based Islamist groups for that support.
ISNA's magazine, Islamic Horizons, wrote about Marzook's case in its November/December 1995 in an article entitled "Muslim Leader Hostage to Israeli Interests." The article described Marzook as "[a] member of the political wing of Hamas, disliked by the Zionist entity for its Islamic orientation, continues to be held hostage in the U.S. at the whims of his Zionist accusers." It concludes with a solicitation for donations to Marzook's legal defense fund.
President Clinton signed an executive order designating Hamas a terrorist organization 10 months earlier.
Other Islamic Horizons issues devoted articles to Muslim Brotherhood luminaries and even a cover story to Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna. The cover caption of the March/April 1999 issue reads "Hassan al-Banna-A Martyr of Our Times." Islamic Horizons also publishes articles by key Brotherhood figures such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Hassan al-Turabi. In an interview published in the March/April 2001 edition of Islamic Horizons, Turabi stated, "I do not think that it is only a dream, but there is a possibility not only for America to be Islamized, but also in fact to develop as the role model of Islam."
Turabi was the de facto ruler of Sudan during the 1990s. The U.S. State Department designated Sudan as a state sponsor of international terrorism in 1993.
Taking NAIT at its word, its MSA founders were Muslim Brotherhood members who came to the United States to go to college with a goal of "spreading Islam as students in North America."
And in 1992, the year after the Muslim Brotherhood memo called for sabotaging America from within, Siddiqi sat with blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, translating the sheik's remarks in a lecture at Siddiqi's mosque. Rahman later would be considered the spiritual guide to the conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He is serving a life sentence for his role in a separate conspiracy to blow up New York landmarks and tunnels.
According to an account in the January 15, 2007 issue of the New Yorker, Rahman, "dismissed nonviolent definitions of jihad as weak" and said fighting the enemies of Islam was obligatory. "If you are not going to the jihad, then you are neglecting the rules of Allah," he said.
A red toolbox was passed around for donations, and tapes of the lecture later were sold at the mosque bookstore, the New Yorker reported.
Meanwhile, evidence from the first HLF trial shows that NAIT - an ISNA subsidiary, paid Marzook a $10,000 expense voucher in addition to a separate $10,000 check made out to Marzook. A third $10,000 payment went to Marzook's wife, Nadia Elashi. Another check for $30,000 was made out to the Islamic University of Gaza (and has Shukri Abu Baker/OLF written on the memo line), a school long known to be controlled by Hamas, and where deposed Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh is a former dean.
Beyond the evidence in the HLF trial, ISNA counts among its former leadership such luminaries as convicted Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) operative Sami Al-Arian. According to his own bio:
Dr. Al-Arian has also been an active community leader. He helped establish the largest grass roots organization in the U.S., the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) in 1981, and its many affiliates such as the Muslim Arab Youth Association (1977), the Islamic Association for Palestine (1981), Islamic Committee for Palestine (I.C.P), Islamic Community of Tampa (1987) and Islamic Academy of Florida (1992). (emphasis added)
Al-Arian was a frequent speaker at ISNA events. And ISNA board members attended conferences Al-Arian organized for his Islamic Committee for Palestine (ICP), which included leaders of the PIJ and other radicals such as Turabi. At the 1989 ICP conference, where then-ISNA President Ahmad Zakki Hammad is listed as a speaker, Al-Arian introduced the conference this way:
We came here also to talk about jihad in the path of Allah. Those who did not go to jihad or never talked about jihad and die are considered as non Muslims.
It would be one thing if, in appealing to clear its name, ISNA and NAIT argued that they had broken with their past - that a new generation of leadership is willing to do what its founders refused. It could build on that claim by denouncing terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah by name.
But you can't break from the past if you aren't willing to admit it exists.
Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Steven Emerson is an internationally recognized expert on terrorism and national security and heads the Investigative Project on Terrorism.
You can find this online at: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.428/pub_detail.asp
COPYRIGHT 2008 FAMILY SECURITY MATTERS INC.
‘Joint Venturers’ in Terror Support Trial Seek to Edit History
Steve Emerson
The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) want a Dallas federal judge to remove their names from a list of "unindicted co-conspirators and/or joint venturers" in the terror support trial of a charity accused of supporting Hamas.
The petition filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of NAIT and ISNA states that the designation violates Fifth Amendment protections by casting a smear on the organizations without proof, and without the opportunity for a defense. This, they claim, has deeply tarnished the groups' reputations with government agencies and other religious organizations.
But in making their case, the two groups ignore documented evidence that links them to the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) and to their support for Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook. They insist they are law-abiding organizations and say law enforcement officials have assured them they are not the target of any investigation.
HLF and five of its former officials face a retrial in September on charge they conspired to provide material support to Hamas. A mistrial was declared in October after jurors could not reach unanimous decisions on most counts. An investigation by the Investigative Project on Terrorism found several jurors felt bullied when they argued for convictions.
ISNA and NAIT are related to each other. ISNA lists NAIT as a "constituent organization," while NAIT identifies its founders in the Muslim Students Association (MSA) as "the predecessor of the Islamic Society of North America." ISNA's president is an ex-officio NAIT board member and Muzammil Siddiqi, NAIT's chairman, serves on ISNA's governing board.
In a declaration submitted to the court, ISNA is described by President Ingrid Mattson as "an independent, non-profit membership organization by Muslims in North America" that seeks to support American Muslims and reach out to other religious and civic groups. While Siddiqi said his organization is an endowment holding titles to more than 300 mosques and related property in the U.S. providing them with advice and support.
Nowhere in the petition and accompanying declarations do the words "Muslim Brotherhood" appear. And that's the crux of their relevance to the HLF case. The prosecution's theory is that HLF was part of a Brotherhood-created Palestine Committee designed to support Hamas in the United States.
ISNA and NAIT are listed first and eighth among "A list of our organizations and the organizations of our friends" in a 1991 memorandum (see the last page) entitled "On the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America."
This document has become infamous for its ominous description of the Brotherhood's long-range ambitions in the United States (see page 21 of the link):
The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack.
ISNA is especially active in interfaith outreach programs, inviting Union of Reform Judaism President Eric Yoffie to speak at its 2007 convention and Mattson making a reciprocal appearance at the UJA conference a few months later. Mattson, in a declaration to the court, describes how ISNA's inclusion on the unindicted co-conspirator list triggered criticism toward Yoffie.
That criticism, however, precedes last year's release of the unindicted co-conspirator list and is predicated upon ISNA's roots and historic support for terrorists. It has never condemned terrorist groups like Hamas or Hizballah by name. It stood by Marzook after U.S. officials arrested him as part of an extradition effort to face terrorism charges in Israel. In 1997, Marzook issued a public thank you to ISNA and other U.S.-based Islamist groups for that support.
ISNA's magazine, Islamic Horizons, wrote about Marzook's case in its November/December 1995 in an article entitled "Muslim Leader Hostage to Israeli Interests." The article described Marzook as "[a] member of the political wing of Hamas, disliked by the Zionist entity for its Islamic orientation, continues to be held hostage in the U.S. at the whims of his Zionist accusers." It concludes with a solicitation for donations to Marzook's legal defense fund.
President Clinton signed an executive order designating Hamas a terrorist organization 10 months earlier.
Other Islamic Horizons issues devoted articles to Muslim Brotherhood luminaries and even a cover story to Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna. The cover caption of the March/April 1999 issue reads "Hassan al-Banna-A Martyr of Our Times." Islamic Horizons also publishes articles by key Brotherhood figures such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Hassan al-Turabi. In an interview published in the March/April 2001 edition of Islamic Horizons, Turabi stated, "I do not think that it is only a dream, but there is a possibility not only for America to be Islamized, but also in fact to develop as the role model of Islam."
Turabi was the de facto ruler of Sudan during the 1990s. The U.S. State Department designated Sudan as a state sponsor of international terrorism in 1993.
Taking NAIT at its word, its MSA founders were Muslim Brotherhood members who came to the United States to go to college with a goal of "spreading Islam as students in North America."
And in 1992, the year after the Muslim Brotherhood memo called for sabotaging America from within, Siddiqi sat with blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, translating the sheik's remarks in a lecture at Siddiqi's mosque. Rahman later would be considered the spiritual guide to the conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He is serving a life sentence for his role in a separate conspiracy to blow up New York landmarks and tunnels.
According to an account in the January 15, 2007 issue of the New Yorker, Rahman, "dismissed nonviolent definitions of jihad as weak" and said fighting the enemies of Islam was obligatory. "If you are not going to the jihad, then you are neglecting the rules of Allah," he said.
A red toolbox was passed around for donations, and tapes of the lecture later were sold at the mosque bookstore, the New Yorker reported.
Meanwhile, evidence from the first HLF trial shows that NAIT - an ISNA subsidiary, paid Marzook a $10,000 expense voucher in addition to a separate $10,000 check made out to Marzook. A third $10,000 payment went to Marzook's wife, Nadia Elashi. Another check for $30,000 was made out to the Islamic University of Gaza (and has Shukri Abu Baker/OLF written on the memo line), a school long known to be controlled by Hamas, and where deposed Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh is a former dean.
Beyond the evidence in the HLF trial, ISNA counts among its former leadership such luminaries as convicted Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) operative Sami Al-Arian. According to his own bio:
Dr. Al-Arian has also been an active community leader. He helped establish the largest grass roots organization in the U.S., the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) in 1981, and its many affiliates such as the Muslim Arab Youth Association (1977), the Islamic Association for Palestine (1981), Islamic Committee for Palestine (I.C.P), Islamic Community of Tampa (1987) and Islamic Academy of Florida (1992). (emphasis added)
Al-Arian was a frequent speaker at ISNA events. And ISNA board members attended conferences Al-Arian organized for his Islamic Committee for Palestine (ICP), which included leaders of the PIJ and other radicals such as Turabi. At the 1989 ICP conference, where then-ISNA President Ahmad Zakki Hammad is listed as a speaker, Al-Arian introduced the conference this way:
We came here also to talk about jihad in the path of Allah. Those who did not go to jihad or never talked about jihad and die are considered as non Muslims.
It would be one thing if, in appealing to clear its name, ISNA and NAIT argued that they had broken with their past - that a new generation of leadership is willing to do what its founders refused. It could build on that claim by denouncing terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah by name.
But you can't break from the past if you aren't willing to admit it exists.
Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Steven Emerson is an internationally recognized expert on terrorism and national security and heads the Investigative Project on Terrorism.
You can find this online at: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.428/pub_detail.asp
COPYRIGHT 2008 FAMILY SECURITY MATTERS INC.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
GWB AND HST
Just wait until you see the comments left by Democrats/liberals/socialists/fellow travelers. Those I will post tomorrow.
Duane aka Nathan Hale
History will say that we misunderestimated George W Bush
By Andrew Roberts
Last Updated: 11:01pm BST 21/06/2008
As he leaves the White House at the end of his second term, the President has a poll rating of only 23 per cent, and is widely disliked and even despised. His foreign policy has been judged a failure, especially in view of the long, painful, costly war that he declared, which is still not over.
He doesn't get on with his own party's presidential candidate, who is clearly distancing himself, and had lost many of his closest friends and staff to scandals and forced resignations. The New Republic, a hugely influential political magazine, writes that his historical reputation will be as bad as that of President Harding, the disastrous president of the Great Depression.
I am writing, of course, about Harry S Truman, generally regarded today as one of the greatest of all the 43 presidents, and the man who set the United States on the course that ended decades later in the defeat of Communism.
President Bush
History may place President Bush in a far better light than he currently enjoys
If the West wins the modern counterpart of that struggle, the War Against Terror, historians will look back in amazement at the present unpopularity of George W Bush, and marvel at it quite as much as we now marvel at the 67 per cent disapproval rates for Truman throughout 1952.
Presidents are seldom remembered for more than one or two things; the rest slip away into a haze of historical amnesia. With Kennedy it was the Bay of Pigs and his own assassination, with Johnson the Great Society and Vietnam, with Nixon it was opening up China and the Watergate scandal, and so on.
George W Bush will be remembered for his responses to 9/11 in Afghanistan and Iraq, but since neither of those conflicts has yet ended in victory or defeat, it is far too early categorically to assume - as left-wingers, anti-war campaigners and almost all media commentators already do - that his historical reputation will be permanently down in the doldrums next to poor old Warren Harding's.
I suspect that historians of the future will instead see Bush's decision to insist upon a "surge" of reinforcements being sent into Iraq, combined with a complete change of anti-insurgency tactics as configured by General Petraeus, as the moment when the conflict was turned around there, in the West's favour.
No one - least of all Bush himself - denies that mistakes were made in the early days after the (unexpectedly early) fall of Baghdad, and historians will quite rightly examine them. But once the decades have put the stirring events of those years into their proper historical context, four great facts will emerge that will place Bush in a far better light than he currently enjoys.
The overthrow and execution of a foul tyrant, Saddam Hussein; the liberation of the Afghan people from the Taliban; the smashing of the terrorist networks of al-Qa'eda in that country and elsewhere and, finally, the protection of the American people from any further atrocities on US soil since 9/11, is a legacy of which to be proud.
While of course every individual death is a tragedy to the bereaved families, these great achievements have been won at a cost in human life a fraction the size of any past world-historical struggle of this magnitude.
The number of American troops killed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan is equivalent to the losses they endured - for a nation only a little over half the size in the mid-Forties - capturing a single island from the Japanese in the Pacific War.
British losses of 103 killed over seven years in Afghanistan bears comparison to a quiet weekend on the Western Front in the Great War, or the numbers the Army loses in traffic accidents in peacetime. History can lend a wider overall perspective to what are nonetheless, of course, immeasurably sad events.
History will also shine an unforgiving light on those ludicrous conspiracy theories that claim that the Iraq War was fought for any other reason than to implement the 14 UN resolutions that Saddam that had been flouting for 13 years.
The CIA and MI6 believed, like almost every other intelligence agency in the world, that Saddam had WMD, and the "Harmony" documents seized and translated since the fall of his regime make it abundantly clear that he was also supporting almost every anti-Western terrorist organisation imaginable.
Historians will appreciate how any War Against Terror that allowed Saddam to remain in place would have been an absurd travesty.
When the rise of al-Qa'eda is considered by historians like Philip Bobbitt and William Shawcross, it will be President Clinton's repeated refusal to act effectively in the 1990s, rather than President Bush's tough response after 9/11, that will be held up as culpable.
US presidential election 2008
Judging by the rise in the value of the Iraqi dinar, the huge drop in the number of Iraqi deaths in the insurgency, the number of provinces now cleansed of al-Qa'eda, and the level of arms confiscations by the Iraqi Army in Sadr City, the new American "clear and hold" tactics have succeeded far better than the cynics ever thought possible even 12 months ago.
Give Iraq five, ten or twenty years, and Bush's decision to undertake the surge - courageously taken in the face of all bien pensant and "expert" opinion on both sides of the Atlantic - will rank alongside some of Harry Truman's great decisions of 1945-53.
If that happens, the time will come when George W Bush will be able to say what Lord Salisbury called the four cruellest yet sweetest words in the English language: "I told you so."
Have your say
Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright
Duane aka Nathan Hale
History will say that we misunderestimated George W Bush
By Andrew Roberts
Last Updated: 11:01pm BST 21/06/2008
As he leaves the White House at the end of his second term, the President has a poll rating of only 23 per cent, and is widely disliked and even despised. His foreign policy has been judged a failure, especially in view of the long, painful, costly war that he declared, which is still not over.
He doesn't get on with his own party's presidential candidate, who is clearly distancing himself, and had lost many of his closest friends and staff to scandals and forced resignations. The New Republic, a hugely influential political magazine, writes that his historical reputation will be as bad as that of President Harding, the disastrous president of the Great Depression.
I am writing, of course, about Harry S Truman, generally regarded today as one of the greatest of all the 43 presidents, and the man who set the United States on the course that ended decades later in the defeat of Communism.
President Bush
History may place President Bush in a far better light than he currently enjoys
If the West wins the modern counterpart of that struggle, the War Against Terror, historians will look back in amazement at the present unpopularity of George W Bush, and marvel at it quite as much as we now marvel at the 67 per cent disapproval rates for Truman throughout 1952.
Presidents are seldom remembered for more than one or two things; the rest slip away into a haze of historical amnesia. With Kennedy it was the Bay of Pigs and his own assassination, with Johnson the Great Society and Vietnam, with Nixon it was opening up China and the Watergate scandal, and so on.
George W Bush will be remembered for his responses to 9/11 in Afghanistan and Iraq, but since neither of those conflicts has yet ended in victory or defeat, it is far too early categorically to assume - as left-wingers, anti-war campaigners and almost all media commentators already do - that his historical reputation will be permanently down in the doldrums next to poor old Warren Harding's.
I suspect that historians of the future will instead see Bush's decision to insist upon a "surge" of reinforcements being sent into Iraq, combined with a complete change of anti-insurgency tactics as configured by General Petraeus, as the moment when the conflict was turned around there, in the West's favour.
No one - least of all Bush himself - denies that mistakes were made in the early days after the (unexpectedly early) fall of Baghdad, and historians will quite rightly examine them. But once the decades have put the stirring events of those years into their proper historical context, four great facts will emerge that will place Bush in a far better light than he currently enjoys.
The overthrow and execution of a foul tyrant, Saddam Hussein; the liberation of the Afghan people from the Taliban; the smashing of the terrorist networks of al-Qa'eda in that country and elsewhere and, finally, the protection of the American people from any further atrocities on US soil since 9/11, is a legacy of which to be proud.
While of course every individual death is a tragedy to the bereaved families, these great achievements have been won at a cost in human life a fraction the size of any past world-historical struggle of this magnitude.
The number of American troops killed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan is equivalent to the losses they endured - for a nation only a little over half the size in the mid-Forties - capturing a single island from the Japanese in the Pacific War.
British losses of 103 killed over seven years in Afghanistan bears comparison to a quiet weekend on the Western Front in the Great War, or the numbers the Army loses in traffic accidents in peacetime. History can lend a wider overall perspective to what are nonetheless, of course, immeasurably sad events.
History will also shine an unforgiving light on those ludicrous conspiracy theories that claim that the Iraq War was fought for any other reason than to implement the 14 UN resolutions that Saddam that had been flouting for 13 years.
The CIA and MI6 believed, like almost every other intelligence agency in the world, that Saddam had WMD, and the "Harmony" documents seized and translated since the fall of his regime make it abundantly clear that he was also supporting almost every anti-Western terrorist organisation imaginable.
Historians will appreciate how any War Against Terror that allowed Saddam to remain in place would have been an absurd travesty.
When the rise of al-Qa'eda is considered by historians like Philip Bobbitt and William Shawcross, it will be President Clinton's repeated refusal to act effectively in the 1990s, rather than President Bush's tough response after 9/11, that will be held up as culpable.
US presidential election 2008
Judging by the rise in the value of the Iraqi dinar, the huge drop in the number of Iraqi deaths in the insurgency, the number of provinces now cleansed of al-Qa'eda, and the level of arms confiscations by the Iraqi Army in Sadr City, the new American "clear and hold" tactics have succeeded far better than the cynics ever thought possible even 12 months ago.
Give Iraq five, ten or twenty years, and Bush's decision to undertake the surge - courageously taken in the face of all bien pensant and "expert" opinion on both sides of the Atlantic - will rank alongside some of Harry Truman's great decisions of 1945-53.
If that happens, the time will come when George W Bush will be able to say what Lord Salisbury called the four cruellest yet sweetest words in the English language: "I told you so."
Have your say
Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright
Friday, June 20, 2008
WHAT THE HELL, OVER!!!
Islamic Nations Want Divisive Issues on the Agenda at UN Racism Conference
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
June 20, 2008
(CNSNews.com) - Despite the controversy surrounding a United Nations conference on racism being planned for next year, Islamic governments are reaffirming their intention to press for the inclusion of such divisive issues as "foreign occupation" and criticism of Islam.
Preparations for next spring's international gathering moved ahead this week, with a debate at the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva. Critics raised concerns about the direction the process is taking.
Plans for the conference have been dogged by concerns that it may produce a re-run of the last major U.N. conference on racism in Durban, South Africa in 200. The Durban conference was characterized by anti-Israel rhetoric, prompting the U.S. and Israeli delegations to withdraw in protest.
The aim of the 2009 conference is to review progress made since the 2001 event in the global fight against racism, but the Israel-Palestinian issue threatens once again to feature strongly, along with the question of "Islamophobia" that has taken on increasing prominence in the years since 9/11.
Canada and Israel have indicated they will not participate in the conference, and the U.S., while stopping short of announcing a boycott, says it will not attend if the conference promises to repeat the 2001 one.
In 2001, Israel was accused of employing apartheid-like policies in its dealings with the Palestinians, while Zionism -- the foundational ideology of the Jewish state -- was itself labeled racist.
Pro-Palestinian voices continue to make those arguments, while Israel's supporters contend that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not about race. Critics of the events in Durban also say that its skewed focus on Israel diverted attention from numerous issues of egregious racial discrimination around the globe.
The review conference will be held over five days next April in Geneva, home to a number of U.N. agencies, including the HRC. The council has been tasked to oversee the planning by a 20-country preparatory committee, chaired by Libya and including Iran, Cuba and Pakistan among its members.
In the Swiss city this week, members of the council held a debate on racism and discussed preparations for the review conference, including the drafting of an outcome document.
The envoy of two Islamic member states, Algeria and Azerbaijan, both raised the issue of foreign occupation.
Algeria's representative proposed that the outcome document should include a specific chapter on the issue of populations under foreign occupation, while Azerbaijan's envoy charged that those under foreign occupation were in most cases the victims of racism.
Although neither referred specifically to Israel, a paper drawn up in preparation for the drafting of the outcome document includes a section on "people under foreign occupation" and it cites only one case - the Palestinians.
'Racio-religious profiling in war on terror'
Another theme emerging in the preparation for the review conference is that of Islamophobia, a phenomenon some argue is a "contemporary form of racism" that should fall under the purview of the racism conference.
The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a bloc of Muslim states that enjoys considerable influence in the HRC, is leading a campaign at the U.N. to have what it calls the defamation of Islam outlawed.
Pakistan and Iran, both leading OIC members, raised the issue during the debate in Geneva.
Iran's delegate cited a recently-released documentary film linking the Koran with terrorism and extremism, calling it an example of incitement to racial and religious hatred.
Pakistan's envoy, Marghoob Saleem Butt, said in a statement that the document that will emerge from the review conference "must include space to eliminate new and emerging manifestations of racism."
"It must provide a comprehensive protection mechanism to the victims including those who had suffered the wrath of [the] war on terror in terms of racio-religious profiling and its consequential incitement to racio-religious hatred," he added.
Several non-governmental organizations taking part in the debate raised concern about the agenda of the OIC nations.
A International Humanist and Ethical Union representative, Roy Brown, raised the race factor in the conflict situation in Sudan and the plight of Dalits (lower-caste "untouchables") in India. Yet, he said, Muslims in the West were free to practice their religion. Brown wondered why there was a specific and selective focus on Islamophobia.
Hillel Neuer of U.N. Watch said there were "worrying signs" that the review conference may repeat some of the elements that plagued the 2001 gathering. He noted that the preparatory committee, at Iran's behest, had refused to accredit a Canadian Jewish NGO wanting to attend next year's conference.
Yet the same committee, Neuer said, had accredited another NGO, "whose very name -- the Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign -- brings back the hateful and divisive rhetoric of 2001."
(Iran says it objected to the inclusion of the NGO, the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy, because it had failed to answer a set of questions Iran had put to it. The NGO eventually withdrew its application, protesting that the deliberations had been turned into a "discriminatory procedural football.")
Also taking part in this week's debate, the World Union for Progressive Judaism's David Littman also raised the religion issue, asking why the indiscriminate killing in the name of God should not be recognized as defamation of religion.
U.N.-accredited NGIslamic Nations Want Divisive Issues on the Agenda at UN Racism Conference
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
June 20, 2008
(CNSNews.com) - Despite the controversy surrounding a United Nations conference on racism being planned for next year, Islamic governments are reaffirming their intention to press for the inclusion of such divisive issues as "foreign occupation" and criticism of Islam.
Preparations for next spring's international gathering moved ahead this week, with a debate at the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva. Critics raised concerns about the direction the process is taking.
Plans for the conference have been dogged by concerns that it may produce a re-run of the last major U.N. conference on racism in Durban, South Africa in 200. The Durban conference was characterized by anti-Israel rhetoric, prompting the U.S. and Israeli delegations to withdraw in protest.
The aim of the 2009 conference is to review progress made since the 2001 event in the global fight against racism, but the Israel-Palestinian issue threatens once again to feature strongly, along with the question of "Islamophobia" that has taken on increasing prominence in the years since 9/11.
Canada and Israel have indicated they will not participate in the conference, and the U.S., while stopping short of announcing a boycott, says it will not attend if the conference promises to repeat the 2001 one.
In 2001, Israel was accused of employing apartheid-like policies in its dealings with the Palestinians, while Zionism -- the foundational ideology of the Jewish state -- was itself labeled racist.
Pro-Palestinian voices continue to make those arguments, while Israel's supporters contend that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not about race. Critics of the events in Durban also say that its skewed focus on Israel diverted attention from numerous issues of egregious racial discrimination around the globe.
The review conference will be held over five days next April in Geneva, home to a number of U.N. agencies, including the HRC. The council has been tasked to oversee the planning by a 20-country preparatory committee, chaired by Libya and including Iran, Cuba and Pakistan among its members.
In the Swiss city this week, members of the council held a debate on racism and discussed preparations for the review conference, including the drafting of an outcome document.
The envoy of two Islamic member states, Algeria and Azerbaijan, both raised the issue of foreign occupation.
Algeria's representative proposed that the outcome document should include a specific chapter on the issue of populations under foreign occupation, while Azerbaijan's envoy charged that those under foreign occupation were in most cases the victims of racism.
Although neither referred specifically to Israel, a paper drawn up in preparation for the drafting of the outcome document includes a section on "people under foreign occupation" and it cites only one case - the Palestinians.
'Racio-religious profiling in war on terror'
Another theme emerging in the preparation for the review conference is that of Islamophobia, a phenomenon some argue is a "contemporary form of racism" that should fall under the purview of the racism conference.
The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a bloc of Muslim states that enjoys considerable influence in the HRC, is leading a campaign at the U.N. to have what it calls the defamation of Islam outlawed.
Pakistan and Iran, both leading OIC members, raised the issue during the debate in Geneva.
Iran's delegate cited a recently-released documentary film linking the Koran with terrorism and extremism, calling it an example of incitement to racial and religious hatred.
Pakistan's envoy, Marghoob Saleem Butt, said in a statement that the document that will emerge from the review conference "must include space to eliminate new and emerging manifestations of racism."
"It must provide a comprehensive protection mechanism to the victims including those who had suffered the wrath of [the] war on terror in terms of racio-religious profiling and its consequential incitement to racio-religious hatred," he added.
Several non-governmental organizations taking part in the debate raised concern about the agenda of the OIC nations.
A International Humanist and Ethical Union representative, Roy Brown, raised the race factor in the conflict situation in Sudan and the plight of Dalits (lower-caste "untouchables") in India. Yet, he said, Muslims in the West were free to practice their religion. Brown wondered why there was a specific and selective focus on Islamophobia.
Hillel Neuer of U.N. Watch said there were "worrying signs" that the review conference may repeat some of the elements that plagued the 2001 gathering. He noted that the preparatory committee, at Iran's behest, had refused to accredit a Canadian Jewish NGO wanting to attend next year's conference.
Yet the same committee, Neuer said, had accredited another NGO, "whose very name -- the Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign -- brings back the hateful and divisive rhetoric of 2001."
(Iran says it objected to the inclusion of the NGO, the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy, because it had failed to answer a set of questions Iran had put to it. The NGO eventually withdrew its application, protesting that the deliberations had been turned into a "discriminatory procedural football.")
Also taking part in this week's debate, the World Union for Progressive Judaism's David Littman also raised the religion issue, asking why the indiscriminate killing in the name of God should not be recognized as defamation of religion.
U.N.-accredited NGOs represented by Brown and Littman have raised that issue before, appealing at the HRC and other U.N. forums for "calls to kill in the name of God or religion -- any religion" to be condemned.
In a letter last year to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the (now outgoing) U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, they wrote, "A policy of silence on this ideology of Jihad by Muslim spiritual and secular leaders, the OIC and Arab League -- as well as the inter-national community -- implicitly condones this evil, an evil that should be condemned unequivocally by senior Muslim theologians as a 'defamation of Islam.'"
Os represented by Brown and Littman have raised that issue before, appealing at the HRC and other U.N. forums for "calls to kill in the name of God or religion -- any religion" to be condemned.
In a letter last year to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the (now outgoing) U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, they wrote, "A policy of silence on this ideology of Jihad by Muslim spiritual and secular leaders, the OIC and Arab League -- as well as the inter-national community -- implicitly condones this evil, an evil that should be condemned unequivocally by senior Muslim theologians as a 'defamation of Islam.'"
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
June 20, 2008
(CNSNews.com) - Despite the controversy surrounding a United Nations conference on racism being planned for next year, Islamic governments are reaffirming their intention to press for the inclusion of such divisive issues as "foreign occupation" and criticism of Islam.
Preparations for next spring's international gathering moved ahead this week, with a debate at the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva. Critics raised concerns about the direction the process is taking.
Plans for the conference have been dogged by concerns that it may produce a re-run of the last major U.N. conference on racism in Durban, South Africa in 200. The Durban conference was characterized by anti-Israel rhetoric, prompting the U.S. and Israeli delegations to withdraw in protest.
The aim of the 2009 conference is to review progress made since the 2001 event in the global fight against racism, but the Israel-Palestinian issue threatens once again to feature strongly, along with the question of "Islamophobia" that has taken on increasing prominence in the years since 9/11.
Canada and Israel have indicated they will not participate in the conference, and the U.S., while stopping short of announcing a boycott, says it will not attend if the conference promises to repeat the 2001 one.
In 2001, Israel was accused of employing apartheid-like policies in its dealings with the Palestinians, while Zionism -- the foundational ideology of the Jewish state -- was itself labeled racist.
Pro-Palestinian voices continue to make those arguments, while Israel's supporters contend that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not about race. Critics of the events in Durban also say that its skewed focus on Israel diverted attention from numerous issues of egregious racial discrimination around the globe.
The review conference will be held over five days next April in Geneva, home to a number of U.N. agencies, including the HRC. The council has been tasked to oversee the planning by a 20-country preparatory committee, chaired by Libya and including Iran, Cuba and Pakistan among its members.
In the Swiss city this week, members of the council held a debate on racism and discussed preparations for the review conference, including the drafting of an outcome document.
The envoy of two Islamic member states, Algeria and Azerbaijan, both raised the issue of foreign occupation.
Algeria's representative proposed that the outcome document should include a specific chapter on the issue of populations under foreign occupation, while Azerbaijan's envoy charged that those under foreign occupation were in most cases the victims of racism.
Although neither referred specifically to Israel, a paper drawn up in preparation for the drafting of the outcome document includes a section on "people under foreign occupation" and it cites only one case - the Palestinians.
'Racio-religious profiling in war on terror'
Another theme emerging in the preparation for the review conference is that of Islamophobia, a phenomenon some argue is a "contemporary form of racism" that should fall under the purview of the racism conference.
The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a bloc of Muslim states that enjoys considerable influence in the HRC, is leading a campaign at the U.N. to have what it calls the defamation of Islam outlawed.
Pakistan and Iran, both leading OIC members, raised the issue during the debate in Geneva.
Iran's delegate cited a recently-released documentary film linking the Koran with terrorism and extremism, calling it an example of incitement to racial and religious hatred.
Pakistan's envoy, Marghoob Saleem Butt, said in a statement that the document that will emerge from the review conference "must include space to eliminate new and emerging manifestations of racism."
"It must provide a comprehensive protection mechanism to the victims including those who had suffered the wrath of [the] war on terror in terms of racio-religious profiling and its consequential incitement to racio-religious hatred," he added.
Several non-governmental organizations taking part in the debate raised concern about the agenda of the OIC nations.
A International Humanist and Ethical Union representative, Roy Brown, raised the race factor in the conflict situation in Sudan and the plight of Dalits (lower-caste "untouchables") in India. Yet, he said, Muslims in the West were free to practice their religion. Brown wondered why there was a specific and selective focus on Islamophobia.
Hillel Neuer of U.N. Watch said there were "worrying signs" that the review conference may repeat some of the elements that plagued the 2001 gathering. He noted that the preparatory committee, at Iran's behest, had refused to accredit a Canadian Jewish NGO wanting to attend next year's conference.
Yet the same committee, Neuer said, had accredited another NGO, "whose very name -- the Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign -- brings back the hateful and divisive rhetoric of 2001."
(Iran says it objected to the inclusion of the NGO, the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy, because it had failed to answer a set of questions Iran had put to it. The NGO eventually withdrew its application, protesting that the deliberations had been turned into a "discriminatory procedural football.")
Also taking part in this week's debate, the World Union for Progressive Judaism's David Littman also raised the religion issue, asking why the indiscriminate killing in the name of God should not be recognized as defamation of religion.
U.N.-accredited NGIslamic Nations Want Divisive Issues on the Agenda at UN Racism Conference
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
June 20, 2008
(CNSNews.com) - Despite the controversy surrounding a United Nations conference on racism being planned for next year, Islamic governments are reaffirming their intention to press for the inclusion of such divisive issues as "foreign occupation" and criticism of Islam.
Preparations for next spring's international gathering moved ahead this week, with a debate at the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva. Critics raised concerns about the direction the process is taking.
Plans for the conference have been dogged by concerns that it may produce a re-run of the last major U.N. conference on racism in Durban, South Africa in 200. The Durban conference was characterized by anti-Israel rhetoric, prompting the U.S. and Israeli delegations to withdraw in protest.
The aim of the 2009 conference is to review progress made since the 2001 event in the global fight against racism, but the Israel-Palestinian issue threatens once again to feature strongly, along with the question of "Islamophobia" that has taken on increasing prominence in the years since 9/11.
Canada and Israel have indicated they will not participate in the conference, and the U.S., while stopping short of announcing a boycott, says it will not attend if the conference promises to repeat the 2001 one.
In 2001, Israel was accused of employing apartheid-like policies in its dealings with the Palestinians, while Zionism -- the foundational ideology of the Jewish state -- was itself labeled racist.
Pro-Palestinian voices continue to make those arguments, while Israel's supporters contend that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not about race. Critics of the events in Durban also say that its skewed focus on Israel diverted attention from numerous issues of egregious racial discrimination around the globe.
The review conference will be held over five days next April in Geneva, home to a number of U.N. agencies, including the HRC. The council has been tasked to oversee the planning by a 20-country preparatory committee, chaired by Libya and including Iran, Cuba and Pakistan among its members.
In the Swiss city this week, members of the council held a debate on racism and discussed preparations for the review conference, including the drafting of an outcome document.
The envoy of two Islamic member states, Algeria and Azerbaijan, both raised the issue of foreign occupation.
Algeria's representative proposed that the outcome document should include a specific chapter on the issue of populations under foreign occupation, while Azerbaijan's envoy charged that those under foreign occupation were in most cases the victims of racism.
Although neither referred specifically to Israel, a paper drawn up in preparation for the drafting of the outcome document includes a section on "people under foreign occupation" and it cites only one case - the Palestinians.
'Racio-religious profiling in war on terror'
Another theme emerging in the preparation for the review conference is that of Islamophobia, a phenomenon some argue is a "contemporary form of racism" that should fall under the purview of the racism conference.
The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a bloc of Muslim states that enjoys considerable influence in the HRC, is leading a campaign at the U.N. to have what it calls the defamation of Islam outlawed.
Pakistan and Iran, both leading OIC members, raised the issue during the debate in Geneva.
Iran's delegate cited a recently-released documentary film linking the Koran with terrorism and extremism, calling it an example of incitement to racial and religious hatred.
Pakistan's envoy, Marghoob Saleem Butt, said in a statement that the document that will emerge from the review conference "must include space to eliminate new and emerging manifestations of racism."
"It must provide a comprehensive protection mechanism to the victims including those who had suffered the wrath of [the] war on terror in terms of racio-religious profiling and its consequential incitement to racio-religious hatred," he added.
Several non-governmental organizations taking part in the debate raised concern about the agenda of the OIC nations.
A International Humanist and Ethical Union representative, Roy Brown, raised the race factor in the conflict situation in Sudan and the plight of Dalits (lower-caste "untouchables") in India. Yet, he said, Muslims in the West were free to practice their religion. Brown wondered why there was a specific and selective focus on Islamophobia.
Hillel Neuer of U.N. Watch said there were "worrying signs" that the review conference may repeat some of the elements that plagued the 2001 gathering. He noted that the preparatory committee, at Iran's behest, had refused to accredit a Canadian Jewish NGO wanting to attend next year's conference.
Yet the same committee, Neuer said, had accredited another NGO, "whose very name -- the Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign -- brings back the hateful and divisive rhetoric of 2001."
(Iran says it objected to the inclusion of the NGO, the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy, because it had failed to answer a set of questions Iran had put to it. The NGO eventually withdrew its application, protesting that the deliberations had been turned into a "discriminatory procedural football.")
Also taking part in this week's debate, the World Union for Progressive Judaism's David Littman also raised the religion issue, asking why the indiscriminate killing in the name of God should not be recognized as defamation of religion.
U.N.-accredited NGOs represented by Brown and Littman have raised that issue before, appealing at the HRC and other U.N. forums for "calls to kill in the name of God or religion -- any religion" to be condemned.
In a letter last year to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the (now outgoing) U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, they wrote, "A policy of silence on this ideology of Jihad by Muslim spiritual and secular leaders, the OIC and Arab League -- as well as the inter-national community -- implicitly condones this evil, an evil that should be condemned unequivocally by senior Muslim theologians as a 'defamation of Islam.'"
Os represented by Brown and Littman have raised that issue before, appealing at the HRC and other U.N. forums for "calls to kill in the name of God or religion -- any religion" to be condemned.
In a letter last year to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the (now outgoing) U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, they wrote, "A policy of silence on this ideology of Jihad by Muslim spiritual and secular leaders, the OIC and Arab League -- as well as the inter-national community -- implicitly condones this evil, an evil that should be condemned unequivocally by senior Muslim theologians as a 'defamation of Islam.'"
UNSECURED BORDERS
I still believe in the old adage that good fences make good neighbors. The higher and stronger the fence, the better the neighbor. It is more than just illegals who are coming across in droves, it is the illegal activities that surround it. Start on the border itself and stretch it back into this country for at least 500 yards. Turn it into a no man's land. A land that even a rattle snake wouldn't want to go into.
Mexican Smugglers Make US Lands Unsafe
By Penny Starr
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
June 20, 2008
(CNSNews.com) - Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne has said that drug traffickers sneaking into the United States from Mexico through U.S. lands administered by his department have made some of those lands unsafe for American families.
As reported by Cybercast News Service last month, the State Department similarly issued a largely unpublicized travel alert for the Mexican side of the border on April 14, warning would-be tourists that the "equivalent to military small-unit combat" was taking place there and that "dozens" of Americans had been "kidnapped and/or murdered" in Tijuana alone in 2007. (See story)
As Cybercast News Service subsequently reported, State Department records indicate that 128 Americans have been murdered in Mexico over the past three years. (See story) And because the State Department headquarters in Washington does no centralized monitoring of how the Mexican justice system handles those murder cases, it cannot say whether anyone has ever been arrested or convicted for any of them. (See story)
Even before the State Department issued its travel alert for Mexico, however, Interior Secretary Kempthorne had stated -- again, with almost no publicity -- that some of the lands administered by his department on the U.S. side of the Mexican border have become dangerous places where "families can no longer live or recreate without fear of coming across drug smugglers."
"Unfortunately," an Interior Department spokesperson told Cybercast News Service on Thursday, "DOI lands make up approximately 40 percent of the Southwest border, and I think there has been a shift in some of those illegal activities, particularly drug-trafficking crossings, to those lands because they tend to be less populated.
"It's becomes more of a prime location for people to come through," he added, "and the net result has been an increase in violence."
Larry Parkinson, Interior's deputy assistant secretary for law enforcement, told Cybercast News Service Thursday that criminal activity along the U.S.-Mexico border has increased over the past seven years as criminals seek more remote locations to cross into the U.S.
"On the law enforcement side, it's our biggest challenge," Parkinson said.
The Department of Interior's Southwest Borderlands Web page warns visitors about criminals and criminal activities in national parks, wildlife refuges and recreation areas near the Mexican border. Five Indian tribes have land bordering Mexico.
"Once pristine landscapes on the U.S. Southwest border have become dangerous corridors for drug smuggling operations and other illegal activities that threaten Indian communities, public land stewards and recreational visitors," the Web site says.
"Drug smugglers establish observations posts on public lands, and carry assault weapons, encrypted radios, night vision optical equipment and other sophisticated devices," it says. (See Web site)
The Web site also indicates that human and drug traffic has increased over the years.
"Last year, nearly 200,000 illegal entrants into the United States were apprehended on public lands in the Southwest, an 11-fold increase since 2001, as illegal activity shifts from increasingly well-protected urban areas to more rural outposts," the Web site states.
The site reports that in 2007, law enforcement seized nearly 3,000 pounds of cocaine and 740,000 pounds of marijuana.
In February, Secretary Kempthorne announced that his department was seeking an $8 million increase in its budget for law enforcement and "to remediate the environmental impacts of these illegal activities" along the Mexican border.
"Times have changed along our international border with Mexico," Kempthorne said. "Our employees, residents and visitors face daily dangers. In many locations families can no longer live or recreate without fear of coming across drug smugglers. Residents of Indian communities are especially hard hit by rampant illegal activity and unsafe living conditions."
When Kempthorne testified before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior on April 15, he repeated the point: "There are significant areas along the border that are not safe for American families to visit, to spend an overnight camping opportunity because of the drug smuggling that's taking place by the national drug cartels," Kempthorne told the committee.
Some $2 million of the $8 million Kempthorne is requesting will be used to repair environmental damage done by illegal entrants and drug smugglers.
"The illegal traffic has resulted in significant theft and vandalism and physical damage to public land resources, sensitive fish and wildlife habitat and valuable archeological sites," the website states.
Parkinson said despite the increased violence on public lands, he believes the U.S. is "in the process" of securing the border. He cites, for example, that from Oct. 1, 2007 to May 2008, apprehensions were down 14 percent on the border between Mexico and Arizona.
"Some of the security efforts are beginning to turn the corner," Parkinson said.
GEORGE W's WAR
George W.'s War
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, June 20, 2008 4:20 PM PT
No one likes war. War is a horrific affair, bloody and expensive. Sending our men and women into battle to perhaps die or be maimed is an unconscionable thought.
Read More: Iraq | Global War On Terror
Yet some wars need to be waged, and someone needs to lead. The citizenry and Congress are often ambivalent or largely opposed to any given war. It's up to our leader to convince them. That's why we call the leader "Commander in Chief."
George W.'s war was no different. There was lots of resistance to it. Many in Congress were vehemently against the idea. The Commander in Chief had to lobby for legislative approval.
Along with supporters, George W. used the force of his convictions, the power of his title and every ounce of moral suasion he could muster to rally support. He had to assure Congress and the public that the war was morally justified, winnable and affordable. Congress eventually came around and voted overwhelmingly to wage war.
George W. then lobbied foreign governments for support. But in the end, only one European nation helped us. The rest of the world sat on its hands and watched.
After a few quick victories, things started to go bad. There were many dark days when all the news was discouraging. Casualties began to mount. It became obvious that our forces were too small. Congress began to drag its feet about funding the effort.
Many who had voted to support the war just a few years earlier were beginning to speak against it and accuse the Commander in Chief of misleading them. Many critics began to call him incompetent, an idiot and even a liar. Journalists joined the negative chorus with a vengeance.
As the war entered its fourth year, the public began to grow weary of the conflict and the casualties. George W.'s popularity plummeted. Yet through it all, he stood firm, supporting the troops and endorsing the struggle.
Without his unwavering support, the war would have surely ended, then and there, in overwhelming and total defeat.
At this darkest of times, he began to make some changes. More troops were added and trained. Some advisers were shuffled, and new generals installed.
Then, unexpectedly and gradually, things began to improve. Now it was the enemy that appeared to be growing weary of the lengthy conflict and losing support. Victories began to come, and hope returned.
Many critics in Congress and the press said the improvements were just George W.'s good luck. The progress, they said, would be temporary. He knew, however, that in warfare good fortune counts.
Then, in the unlikeness set of circumstances and perhaps the most historic example of military luck, the enemy blundered and was resoundingly defeated. After six long years of war, the Commander in Chief basked in a most hard-fought victory.
So on that historic day, Oct. 19, 1781, in a place called Yorktown, a satisfied George Washington sat upon his beautiful white horse and accepted the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, effectively ending the Revolutionary War.
WITH OUT GEORGE W THERE MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN BEEN A USA. THANK YOU GENERAL, THANK YOU.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, June 20, 2008 4:20 PM PT
No one likes war. War is a horrific affair, bloody and expensive. Sending our men and women into battle to perhaps die or be maimed is an unconscionable thought.
Read More: Iraq | Global War On Terror
Yet some wars need to be waged, and someone needs to lead. The citizenry and Congress are often ambivalent or largely opposed to any given war. It's up to our leader to convince them. That's why we call the leader "Commander in Chief."
George W.'s war was no different. There was lots of resistance to it. Many in Congress were vehemently against the idea. The Commander in Chief had to lobby for legislative approval.
Along with supporters, George W. used the force of his convictions, the power of his title and every ounce of moral suasion he could muster to rally support. He had to assure Congress and the public that the war was morally justified, winnable and affordable. Congress eventually came around and voted overwhelmingly to wage war.
George W. then lobbied foreign governments for support. But in the end, only one European nation helped us. The rest of the world sat on its hands and watched.
After a few quick victories, things started to go bad. There were many dark days when all the news was discouraging. Casualties began to mount. It became obvious that our forces were too small. Congress began to drag its feet about funding the effort.
Many who had voted to support the war just a few years earlier were beginning to speak against it and accuse the Commander in Chief of misleading them. Many critics began to call him incompetent, an idiot and even a liar. Journalists joined the negative chorus with a vengeance.
As the war entered its fourth year, the public began to grow weary of the conflict and the casualties. George W.'s popularity plummeted. Yet through it all, he stood firm, supporting the troops and endorsing the struggle.
Without his unwavering support, the war would have surely ended, then and there, in overwhelming and total defeat.
At this darkest of times, he began to make some changes. More troops were added and trained. Some advisers were shuffled, and new generals installed.
Then, unexpectedly and gradually, things began to improve. Now it was the enemy that appeared to be growing weary of the lengthy conflict and losing support. Victories began to come, and hope returned.
Many critics in Congress and the press said the improvements were just George W.'s good luck. The progress, they said, would be temporary. He knew, however, that in warfare good fortune counts.
Then, in the unlikeness set of circumstances and perhaps the most historic example of military luck, the enemy blundered and was resoundingly defeated. After six long years of war, the Commander in Chief basked in a most hard-fought victory.
So on that historic day, Oct. 19, 1781, in a place called Yorktown, a satisfied George Washington sat upon his beautiful white horse and accepted the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, effectively ending the Revolutionary War.
WITH OUT GEORGE W THERE MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN BEEN A USA. THANK YOU GENERAL, THANK YOU.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
LIBERALS HATE DIVERSITY--REALLY
Taken from the AMERICAN THINKER for 06/19/08
SCREW THE DAMNED LIBERALS.....Wish we could feed them to the sharks but the sharks would probably reject them. What a pity.
June 18, 2008
Battling Diversity at the University of Chicago
Ethel C. Fenig
In a perfect example of Edward Bernard Glick's scenario, an outspoken, hostile but decidedly minority (so far) group of professors at the University of Chicago are protesting against the following proposal from other professors to name a new research center:
The Milton Friedman Institute, proposed by faculty members who included three Nobel Prize winners in economics, is intended to attract visiting scholars who will conduct research on topics related to economics, business and law. It will promote workshops, seminars and lectures.
And just why are the dissident professors -- none of whom are Nobel Prize winners yet --protesting naming an institute after a Nobel Prize winner, a noted thinker and researcher of free market economics whose ideas were successfully utilized by former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and a host of leaders in formerly socialist South American and European countries?
In an Orwellian statement
... to U. of C. President Robert Zimmer, 101 professors -- about 8 percent of the university's full-time faculty -- said they feared that having a center named after the conservative, free-market economist could "reinforce among the public a perception that the university's faculty lacks intellectual and ideological diversity."
Got that? Suppression leads to "intellectual and ideological diversity." Only liberal professors residing in an isolated ivory tower could sincerely belch such twisted logic. And make no mistake about it, the University of Chicago is an isolated ivory tower situated in the city's relatively affluent Hyde Park neighborhood surrounded by crime ridden neighborhoods carefully, but not always successfully, kept out.
Listen to the liberal arts professors whine at the dire consequences of being associated with such an outstanding individual.
"It is a right-wing think tank being put in place," said Bruce Lincoln, a professor of the history of religions and one of the faculty members who met with the administration Tuesday. "The long-term consequences will be very severe. This will be a flagship entity and it will attract a lot of money and a lot of attention, and I think work at the university and the university's reputation will take a serious rightward turn to the detriment of all."
Hmmm but its often "serious" leftward reputation is not a detriment as is this denial of different ideas.
"I don't think any institute of any educational institution should be so strongly aligned behind a single ideological program," said U. of C. music professor and department chair Robert Kendrick.
Perhaps music just isn't ideological.
"For many people who travel around the word, the university has had a pretty bad reputation that is tied to the Chicago School and economic principles that Milton Friedman advocated," said Yali Amit, a U. of C. statistics and computer science professor. "We don't think it's a great idea to strengthen this reputation."
Thatcher and South America and numerous Nobel Prize winning economics professors apparently constitute "a pretty bad reputation" in Amit's part of the world, which is apparently a closed liberal one.
Cowed by these closed minded academics, university administrators stress the proposed center's impartiality and non partisan bent.
[Provost] Rosenbaum said the center will not push any particular point of view.
"We are honoring a great scholar, and that is the intent here," Rosenbaum said. "We are supportive of a wide range of ideas across the spectrum of ideologies, and it's not intended to promote any ideology."
SCREW THE DAMNED LIBERALS.....Wish we could feed them to the sharks but the sharks would probably reject them. What a pity.
June 18, 2008
Battling Diversity at the University of Chicago
Ethel C. Fenig
In a perfect example of Edward Bernard Glick's scenario, an outspoken, hostile but decidedly minority (so far) group of professors at the University of Chicago are protesting against the following proposal from other professors to name a new research center:
The Milton Friedman Institute, proposed by faculty members who included three Nobel Prize winners in economics, is intended to attract visiting scholars who will conduct research on topics related to economics, business and law. It will promote workshops, seminars and lectures.
And just why are the dissident professors -- none of whom are Nobel Prize winners yet --protesting naming an institute after a Nobel Prize winner, a noted thinker and researcher of free market economics whose ideas were successfully utilized by former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and a host of leaders in formerly socialist South American and European countries?
In an Orwellian statement
... to U. of C. President Robert Zimmer, 101 professors -- about 8 percent of the university's full-time faculty -- said they feared that having a center named after the conservative, free-market economist could "reinforce among the public a perception that the university's faculty lacks intellectual and ideological diversity."
Got that? Suppression leads to "intellectual and ideological diversity." Only liberal professors residing in an isolated ivory tower could sincerely belch such twisted logic. And make no mistake about it, the University of Chicago is an isolated ivory tower situated in the city's relatively affluent Hyde Park neighborhood surrounded by crime ridden neighborhoods carefully, but not always successfully, kept out.
Listen to the liberal arts professors whine at the dire consequences of being associated with such an outstanding individual.
"It is a right-wing think tank being put in place," said Bruce Lincoln, a professor of the history of religions and one of the faculty members who met with the administration Tuesday. "The long-term consequences will be very severe. This will be a flagship entity and it will attract a lot of money and a lot of attention, and I think work at the university and the university's reputation will take a serious rightward turn to the detriment of all."
Hmmm but its often "serious" leftward reputation is not a detriment as is this denial of different ideas.
"I don't think any institute of any educational institution should be so strongly aligned behind a single ideological program," said U. of C. music professor and department chair Robert Kendrick.
Perhaps music just isn't ideological.
"For many people who travel around the word, the university has had a pretty bad reputation that is tied to the Chicago School and economic principles that Milton Friedman advocated," said Yali Amit, a U. of C. statistics and computer science professor. "We don't think it's a great idea to strengthen this reputation."
Thatcher and South America and numerous Nobel Prize winning economics professors apparently constitute "a pretty bad reputation" in Amit's part of the world, which is apparently a closed liberal one.
Cowed by these closed minded academics, university administrators stress the proposed center's impartiality and non partisan bent.
[Provost] Rosenbaum said the center will not push any particular point of view.
"We are honoring a great scholar, and that is the intent here," Rosenbaum said. "We are supportive of a wide range of ideas across the spectrum of ideologies, and it's not intended to promote any ideology."
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
ON HEALTH CARE
Kick the liberal/socialist block out of Congress and things will work themselves out. There are good ideas in these two articles but one of them is NOT MORE GOVERNMENT REGULATION. More regulation = more taxes = more pain in the rear end for all of us.
Morning Bell: Government Is Cause Of, Not Solution To, High Health Care Costs
The Foundry
Morning Bell: Government Is Cause Of, Not Solution To, High Health Care Costs
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress Monday that health care spending
will “rise relentlessly” unless lawmakers overhaul the health care system. As if trying to prove his point, PriceWaterhouseCoopers released a study yesterday showing employer health care costs will increase 9.9% in 2008, more than double the annual rate of inflation.
Liberals will tell you that health care costs can be controlled through more government regulation of the health care industry. For example, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) says he can save $200 billion in health care spending every year through investing in electronic medical records, more centralized coordination of individual care, and government mandated reduction of unnecessary medical procedures. Problem is, no one with any training in the economics of health care believes that savings will materialize. John Sheils, vice president of the health care consulting firm the Lewin Group, says the savings “are just dramatically overstated .” And MIT health economist Jonathan Gruber calls the numbers “nonsense,” noting that there is “zero credible evidence to support that conclusion.”
Obama is right about one thing, though. In February of this year, he said: “The reason people don’t have health insurance isn’t because they don’t want it, it’s because they can’t afford it.” That is true. But the solution to expensive health insurance is not more government mandates and regulations; it’s less. A major why reason health insurance premiums keep rising is because special interests keep successfully lobbying state legislatures to mandate more and more procedures into all insurance plans. So even though a 25-year-old male has no need for in vitro fertilization and no interest in acupuncture, a state like New Jersey forces him to buy a plan that covers those procedures. The result? That 25-year-old could buy a basic health plan in Kentucky for $960 a year, but the cheapest plan in New Jersey (full of mandates he doesn’t want or need) costs him $5,880. A study for the Health Insurance Association of America found that 20% to 25% of uninsured Americans lack insurance due to benefits mandates.
Another major factor driving up American health care costs is our antiquated tax code. Thanks to advantages slanted toward employers, the current tax code imposes a tax penalty of up to 50% on the cost of an individually owned policy, effectively pricing millions of working families out of coverage. Americans are not forced to all buy the same type of cell phones, and they are not forced to buy their cell phones through their employers. But thanks to oppressive state mandates and World War II era wage controls, that’s how Americans are forced to buy health insurance. Moving to a consumer-centered health care market , where individuals could purchase health insurance on a level playing field with corporations is a much better way to both reduce health care costs and get more Americans the health care they need.
Published: June 17, 2008
WASHINGTON — Ben S. Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, told Congress on Monday that health spending would “rise relentlessly” unless lawmakers overhauled the health care system, and he recommended an eclectic approach.
His remarks opened a daylong bipartisan symposium convened by the Senate Finance Committee to lay the groundwork for what leaders of both parties predict will be a major push for health care legislation next year.
“We will move quickly in 2009,” said Senator Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat who is chairman of the committee.
Mr. Baucus suggested that “some kind of federal health board” could help Congress make technical policy decisions. “How in the world am I supposed to know what the proper reimbursement rate should be for a certain procedure?” he asked.
Mr. Bernanke said Congress could establish an independent health care panel like the one used to recommend the closing of military bases. Congress, he said, could approve or reject the panel’s recommendations, but not amend them.
Alternatively, Mr. Bernanke said, Congress could establish a commission like the Federal Reserve Board to set health policy. But, he said, such a panel would need “very clear guidance from Congress,” because health care accounts for “an enormous part of our economy.”
“At some point,” Mr. Bernanke said, “health care spending as a share of gross domestic product will stop rising, but it is difficult to guess when that will be, and there is little sign of it yet.”
At the end of the day, Democrats and Republicans appeared to agree on this much: All Americans should be insured, but they should have a choice of private health plans competing in the market alongside government programs.
“Democrats are right in saying that if you are going to fix the system, you have to cover everybody,” said Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon. “Republicans are right in saying that you have to have markets, choices and private alternatives.”
The impatience of some Republicans was expressed by Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Finance Committee.
Health care is “the No. 1 economic issue in our country,” Mr. Grassley said, but “Congress does not seem to have the political guts to do anything about it.”
Craig R. Barrett, the chairman of Intel, expressed immense frustration at the inefficiency of the health care system, and he said employers were determined to do something about it.
Almost every other industry “has automated itself and now pays less for better quality,” Mr. Barrett said. Employers will demand similar changes in health care, he added.
Mr. Barrett said large employers were “an agent of change” in the health care system, and he warned Congress not to do anything that would undermine employer-sponsored health insurance.
President Bush and members of both parties have proposed giving new tax breaks to individuals, including employees, so they can shop for health insurance on their own.
Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, described that idea as “a political nonstarter.” It would, he said, threaten coverage for many of the 160 million people with employer-sponsored health insurance.
Morning Bell: Government Is Cause Of, Not Solution To, High Health Care Costs
The Foundry
Morning Bell: Government Is Cause Of, Not Solution To, High Health Care Costs
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress Monday that health care spending
will “rise relentlessly” unless lawmakers overhaul the health care system. As if trying to prove his point, PriceWaterhouseCoopers released a study yesterday showing employer health care costs will increase 9.9% in 2008, more than double the annual rate of inflation.
Liberals will tell you that health care costs can be controlled through more government regulation of the health care industry. For example, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) says he can save $200 billion in health care spending every year through investing in electronic medical records, more centralized coordination of individual care, and government mandated reduction of unnecessary medical procedures. Problem is, no one with any training in the economics of health care believes that savings will materialize. John Sheils, vice president of the health care consulting firm the Lewin Group, says the savings “are just dramatically overstated .” And MIT health economist Jonathan Gruber calls the numbers “nonsense,” noting that there is “zero credible evidence to support that conclusion.”
Obama is right about one thing, though. In February of this year, he said: “The reason people don’t have health insurance isn’t because they don’t want it, it’s because they can’t afford it.” That is true. But the solution to expensive health insurance is not more government mandates and regulations; it’s less. A major why reason health insurance premiums keep rising is because special interests keep successfully lobbying state legislatures to mandate more and more procedures into all insurance plans. So even though a 25-year-old male has no need for in vitro fertilization and no interest in acupuncture, a state like New Jersey forces him to buy a plan that covers those procedures. The result? That 25-year-old could buy a basic health plan in Kentucky for $960 a year, but the cheapest plan in New Jersey (full of mandates he doesn’t want or need) costs him $5,880. A study for the Health Insurance Association of America found that 20% to 25% of uninsured Americans lack insurance due to benefits mandates.
Another major factor driving up American health care costs is our antiquated tax code. Thanks to advantages slanted toward employers, the current tax code imposes a tax penalty of up to 50% on the cost of an individually owned policy, effectively pricing millions of working families out of coverage. Americans are not forced to all buy the same type of cell phones, and they are not forced to buy their cell phones through their employers. But thanks to oppressive state mandates and World War II era wage controls, that’s how Americans are forced to buy health insurance. Moving to a consumer-centered health care market , where individuals could purchase health insurance on a level playing field with corporations is a much better way to both reduce health care costs and get more Americans the health care they need.
Published: June 17, 2008
WASHINGTON — Ben S. Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, told Congress on Monday that health spending would “rise relentlessly” unless lawmakers overhauled the health care system, and he recommended an eclectic approach.
His remarks opened a daylong bipartisan symposium convened by the Senate Finance Committee to lay the groundwork for what leaders of both parties predict will be a major push for health care legislation next year.
“We will move quickly in 2009,” said Senator Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat who is chairman of the committee.
Mr. Baucus suggested that “some kind of federal health board” could help Congress make technical policy decisions. “How in the world am I supposed to know what the proper reimbursement rate should be for a certain procedure?” he asked.
Mr. Bernanke said Congress could establish an independent health care panel like the one used to recommend the closing of military bases. Congress, he said, could approve or reject the panel’s recommendations, but not amend them.
Alternatively, Mr. Bernanke said, Congress could establish a commission like the Federal Reserve Board to set health policy. But, he said, such a panel would need “very clear guidance from Congress,” because health care accounts for “an enormous part of our economy.”
“At some point,” Mr. Bernanke said, “health care spending as a share of gross domestic product will stop rising, but it is difficult to guess when that will be, and there is little sign of it yet.”
At the end of the day, Democrats and Republicans appeared to agree on this much: All Americans should be insured, but they should have a choice of private health plans competing in the market alongside government programs.
“Democrats are right in saying that if you are going to fix the system, you have to cover everybody,” said Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon. “Republicans are right in saying that you have to have markets, choices and private alternatives.”
The impatience of some Republicans was expressed by Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Finance Committee.
Health care is “the No. 1 economic issue in our country,” Mr. Grassley said, but “Congress does not seem to have the political guts to do anything about it.”
Craig R. Barrett, the chairman of Intel, expressed immense frustration at the inefficiency of the health care system, and he said employers were determined to do something about it.
Almost every other industry “has automated itself and now pays less for better quality,” Mr. Barrett said. Employers will demand similar changes in health care, he added.
Mr. Barrett said large employers were “an agent of change” in the health care system, and he warned Congress not to do anything that would undermine employer-sponsored health insurance.
President Bush and members of both parties have proposed giving new tax breaks to individuals, including employees, so they can shop for health insurance on their own.
Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, described that idea as “a political nonstarter.” It would, he said, threaten coverage for many of the 160 million people with employer-sponsored health insurance.
Monday, June 16, 2008
DO TELL. FOR SHAME, FOR SHAME.
State Dept Warns on Prostitute Use
Monday, June 16, 2008 3:53 PM
By: Jim Meyers
The U.S. State Department has issued its annual report on human trafficking, analyzing 170 countries� efforts to fight trafficking for prostitution, forced labor and other purposes.
But Newsmax has learned that the Department has also issued a directive to its own employees warning them not to contribute to the problem by enlisting the services of a prostitute.
The notice sent to employees states:
�Combating human trafficking has become a central component of U.S. government foreign policy over the last several years�
�The United States is committed to eradicating human trafficking, which includes the exploitation of persons in prostitution through threat, force, fraud, or coercion�
�People who buy sex acts fuel the demand for sex trafficking. This cable serves as a reminder to all employees and contractors under Chief of Mission (CoM) Authority that irrespective of whether prostitution is legal in the host country, employees
should not in any way abet sex trafficking or solicit people in prostitution. DOS [Department of State] employees who engage in this conduct are subject to discipline.
�Penalties range from admonishment, reprimand, suspension to separation from Federal service, depending on the circumstances.
�Involvement with the commercial sex industry is unacceptable in light of the diplomatic and foreign policy goals of the United
States and the conduct that is expected of Department employees.�
The State Department�s �Trafficking in Persons Report� includes allies Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia on the list of nations that traffic in people. Others include North Korea, Sudan, Algeria, Iran, Myanmar, and Cuba.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Monday, June 16, 2008 3:53 PM
By: Jim Meyers
The U.S. State Department has issued its annual report on human trafficking, analyzing 170 countries� efforts to fight trafficking for prostitution, forced labor and other purposes.
But Newsmax has learned that the Department has also issued a directive to its own employees warning them not to contribute to the problem by enlisting the services of a prostitute.
The notice sent to employees states:
�Combating human trafficking has become a central component of U.S. government foreign policy over the last several years�
�The United States is committed to eradicating human trafficking, which includes the exploitation of persons in prostitution through threat, force, fraud, or coercion�
�People who buy sex acts fuel the demand for sex trafficking. This cable serves as a reminder to all employees and contractors under Chief of Mission (CoM) Authority that irrespective of whether prostitution is legal in the host country, employees
should not in any way abet sex trafficking or solicit people in prostitution. DOS [Department of State] employees who engage in this conduct are subject to discipline.
�Penalties range from admonishment, reprimand, suspension to separation from Federal service, depending on the circumstances.
�Involvement with the commercial sex industry is unacceptable in light of the diplomatic and foreign policy goals of the United
States and the conduct that is expected of Department employees.�
The State Department�s �Trafficking in Persons Report� includes allies Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia on the list of nations that traffic in people. Others include North Korea, Sudan, Algeria, Iran, Myanmar, and Cuba.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
OPERATION SHIELD OF STRENGTH
Operation Shield of Strength
"There is a Shield of Strength in the Oval Office...and, aside from the official insignias they wear, it is the emblem most often carried by members of the military in Afghanistan and Iraq." -- Stephan Mansfield, Author, Faith of the American Soldier
"[T]he soldier's heart, the soldier's spirit, the soldier's soul are everything. Unless the soldier's soul sustains him, he cannot be relied upon and will fail himself, his commander, and his country in the end." --General of the Army George C. Marshall
Operation Shield of Strength
It is not "official issue," but thousands of military personnel are now wearing a "Shield of Strength" dog-tag bearing a Scriptural passage on one side (Joshua 1:9 "I will be strong and courageous. I will not be terrified, or discouraged; for the Lord my God is with me wherever I go.") and the words "United States of America - One Nation Under God" on the other.
Army Ranger Capt. Russell Rippetoe, murdered at a checkpoint by a homicide bomber, was the first casualty in Operation Iraqi Freedom to be interred at Arlington National Cemetery. His father, retired Lt. Col. Joe Rippetoe (disabled after two tours of duty in Vietnam), reports, "All the men who served with my son wear the shield around their necks, as do many of the elite 75th Rangers." (Click here for more about Capt. Rippetoe's story.)
Marines with SoS Tags
Army Command Sgt. Maj. J. Clay writes from Iraq, "I cannot even begin to count how many soldiers are wearing them. It also has a spiritual camaraderie impact -- for example, when you meet another Christian or military member and they have the shield on their ID tags ... it bonds you, even though you may not know them."
Beaumont, Texas native Kenny Vaughan started the campaign to distribute Shields of Strength to military personnel, and we are partnering with Kenny to help identify Patriots with the means to purchase bulk quantities of the SoS tags for distribution to military units of your choosing (or we will identify a unit for you).
More than 1,000,000 Shields have already been distributed. We currently have sponsors for thousands of additional Shield of Strength tags, and are shipping those tags to military personnel in Iraq, Afghanistan and other military fronts. But there are many military units that do not yet have sponsors.
Here is how you can participate in Operation Shield of Strength:
The cost of the shields, chains and silencers is about $2.50 per unit, including postage. We have a matching program -- for every tag you purchase in a bulk order designated for a military unit, we will match that order. The minimum bulk order is 250 ($625) so the tags shipped to military units will total 500. If you can't sponsor a bulk order, any amount you send for this effort will help. Click here for information on how to purchase a small number of Shields for yourself.
1. Please make your check payable to Operation Shield of Strength.
2. Please send your check to the following address:
The Patriot Post
Operation SoS
P.O. Box 507
Chattanooga, TN 37401-0507
3. Please note for bulk orders of 250 (500), please include mailing instructions. If you want them sent to a particular unit or service branch, please designate that branch with an address if applicable. We can also choose a military unit for you.
The Shields will be shipped within two weeks of receipt of your check. (For additional questions, e-mail SoS@contact.PatriotPost.US .)
(NOTE: 100% of donor proceeds are applied to sponsor orders for military units. The Patriot Post is not compensated in any way for Operation Shield of Strength. We are donating our services and personnel to match our reader-sponsors and military units. We will continue to provide this service for as long as sponsors continue to support Operation Shield of Strength.)
Home | About The Patriot | Subscribe FREE | Manage Subscription | Current Edition | Alexander's Essays | Patriot Archive | Reader Comments | Sup
DAMN LIBERAL ACTIVIST JUDGES
Posters Of Communist icon Che Guevara and Barack Obama hang on a wall as Common Pleas Judge James Burge speaks in his office in Loraine, Ohio, in this April 22 photo. Last week, Burge ruled that Ohio's lethal injection process is unconstitutional because it could cause pain and the state mandates that an inmate's death be painless.
RONNIE, ONE OF THE GOOD GUYS
Reagan legacy: Telling the truth
'My advice to the next president is: Trust the people'
________________________________________
Posted: June 07, 2008
12:50 am Eastern
By Sterling Meyers
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Ronald Reagan
For a political candidate, there's nothing quite like telling the American public the truth. At least that's the conclusion from several experts at a panel asking the question for today's generation: "What would Reagan do?"
The event, sponsored by the Young America's Foundation, featured Mark Tapscott, a former member of the Reagan administration and now an editorial page editor of "The Washington Examiner."
"Reagan believed there was no substitute for telling the American people the truth," he said.
On the fourth anniversary of President Ronald Reagan's death, Tapscott was joined on the panel by Rebecca Cox, another former member of Reagan's administration, and Congressman John Shadegg of Arizona.
They speculated what Reagan would do now.
(Story continues below)
Though presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama has great communication skills like Reagan had, said Tapscott, he "doesn't have the genuine convictions that make him credible."
Reagan was a political figure that "engender[ed] good feelings from both sides," said Frank Donatelli, chairman of the Reagan Ranch Board of Directors.
Tapscott and Cox, onetime Reagan assistant for public liaison and now a vice president at Continental Airlines, said the next president must be honest with a trustworthy American people.
Cox said she hopes the American people "see through" the charismatic senator, adding that she thinks the American people are smart enough to know the how some Obama policies would spark dramatic tax increases.
Reagan challenged the American people to do great things and to take care of their own lives, Tapscott said. He quoted Reagan, who said, "Government is not the solution. Government is the problem."
Cox and Tapscott agreed that Reagan's convictions drove his actions, which marks a good president.
"My advice to the next president is: Trust the people," said Cox.
Shadegg echoed the sentiments of the other panelists when he said that "[Americans] already have the freedom, we just have to fight for it."
When asked how Reagan would face a long war, Donatelli said, "I have no doubt that he would see it through."
Panelists said that if the next president acted like Reagan, who approached a struggling economy and international unrest at the time of his presidency, he might revive optimism and succeed, like Reagan did, at becoming one of America's great leaders.
'My advice to the next president is: Trust the people'
________________________________________
Posted: June 07, 2008
12:50 am Eastern
By Sterling Meyers
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Ronald Reagan
For a political candidate, there's nothing quite like telling the American public the truth. At least that's the conclusion from several experts at a panel asking the question for today's generation: "What would Reagan do?"
The event, sponsored by the Young America's Foundation, featured Mark Tapscott, a former member of the Reagan administration and now an editorial page editor of "The Washington Examiner."
"Reagan believed there was no substitute for telling the American people the truth," he said.
On the fourth anniversary of President Ronald Reagan's death, Tapscott was joined on the panel by Rebecca Cox, another former member of Reagan's administration, and Congressman John Shadegg of Arizona.
They speculated what Reagan would do now.
(Story continues below)
Though presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama has great communication skills like Reagan had, said Tapscott, he "doesn't have the genuine convictions that make him credible."
Reagan was a political figure that "engender[ed] good feelings from both sides," said Frank Donatelli, chairman of the Reagan Ranch Board of Directors.
Tapscott and Cox, onetime Reagan assistant for public liaison and now a vice president at Continental Airlines, said the next president must be honest with a trustworthy American people.
Cox said she hopes the American people "see through" the charismatic senator, adding that she thinks the American people are smart enough to know the how some Obama policies would spark dramatic tax increases.
Reagan challenged the American people to do great things and to take care of their own lives, Tapscott said. He quoted Reagan, who said, "Government is not the solution. Government is the problem."
Cox and Tapscott agreed that Reagan's convictions drove his actions, which marks a good president.
"My advice to the next president is: Trust the people," said Cox.
Shadegg echoed the sentiments of the other panelists when he said that "[Americans] already have the freedom, we just have to fight for it."
When asked how Reagan would face a long war, Donatelli said, "I have no doubt that he would see it through."
Panelists said that if the next president acted like Reagan, who approached a struggling economy and international unrest at the time of his presidency, he might revive optimism and succeed, like Reagan did, at becoming one of America's great leaders.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
WALTER E. WILLIAMS
Columns by Walter E. Williams
Born in Philadelphia in 1936, Walter E. Williams holds a bachelor's degree in economics from California State University (1965) and a master's degree (1967) and doctorate (1972) in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles.
In 1980, he joined the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., and is currently the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics. He has also served on the faculties of Los Angeles City College (1967-69), California State University (1967-1971) and Temple University (1973-1980). From 1963 to 1967, he was a group supervisor of juvenile delinquents for the Los Angeles County Probation Department.
More than 50 of his publications have appeared in scholarly journals such as Economic Inquiry, American Economic Review and Social Science Quarterly and popular publications such as Reader's Digest, The Wall Street Journal and Newsweek. He has made many TV and radio appearances on such programs as Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose," William F. Buckley's "Firing Line," "Face The Nation," "Nightline" and "Crossfire."
He is also the author of several books. Among these are The State Against Blacks, later made into a television documentary, America: A Minority Viewpoint, All It Takes Is Guts, and South Africa's War On Capitalism.
In 1981, he began writing his weekly column called "A Minority View" for Heritage Features Syndicate. And in 1991, he joined Creators Syndicate as part of its friendly takeover of Heritage Features.
Williams sits on many advisory boards, including the Review Board of Economics Studies for the National Science Foundation, the Research Foundation, the National Tax Limitation Committee, the Taxpayer's Foundation and the Hoover Institution.
The awards and honors Williams have received are many. These include the National Fellow at the Hoover Institute of War, Revolution, and Peace; the Ford Foundation Dissertation Fellowship; the National Service Award from the Institute for Socioeconomic Studies; and the George Washington Medal of Honor from the Valley Forge Freedom Foundation. In 1984-1985, he received the Faculty Member of the Year Award from the George Mason University Alumni. He is also a member of the American Economic Association, the Mont Pelerin Society and is a Distinguished Scholar of the Heritage Foundation.
Williams participates in many debates and conferences, is a frequent public speaker and often gives testimony before both houses of Congress.
Born in Philadelphia in 1936, Walter E. Williams holds a bachelor's degree in economics from California State University (1965) and a master's degree (1967) and doctorate (1972) in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles.
In 1980, he joined the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., and is currently the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics. He has also served on the faculties of Los Angeles City College (1967-69), California State University (1967-1971) and Temple University (1973-1980). From 1963 to 1967, he was a group supervisor of juvenile delinquents for the Los Angeles County Probation Department.
More than 50 of his publications have appeared in scholarly journals such as Economic Inquiry, American Economic Review and Social Science Quarterly and popular publications such as Reader's Digest, The Wall Street Journal and Newsweek. He has made many TV and radio appearances on such programs as Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose," William F. Buckley's "Firing Line," "Face The Nation," "Nightline" and "Crossfire."
He is also the author of several books. Among these are The State Against Blacks, later made into a television documentary, America: A Minority Viewpoint, All It Takes Is Guts, and South Africa's War On Capitalism.
In 1981, he began writing his weekly column called "A Minority View" for Heritage Features Syndicate. And in 1991, he joined Creators Syndicate as part of its friendly takeover of Heritage Features.
Williams sits on many advisory boards, including the Review Board of Economics Studies for the National Science Foundation, the Research Foundation, the National Tax Limitation Committee, the Taxpayer's Foundation and the Hoover Institution.
The awards and honors Williams have received are many. These include the National Fellow at the Hoover Institute of War, Revolution, and Peace; the Ford Foundation Dissertation Fellowship; the National Service Award from the Institute for Socioeconomic Studies; and the George Washington Medal of Honor from the Valley Forge Freedom Foundation. In 1984-1985, he received the Faculty Member of the Year Award from the George Mason University Alumni. He is also a member of the American Economic Association, the Mont Pelerin Society and is a Distinguished Scholar of the Heritage Foundation.
Williams participates in many debates and conferences, is a frequent public speaker and often gives testimony before both houses of Congress.
DEFINE SLAVERY
This is someone I really like:
Let's do a thought experiment asking whether Americans are for or against slavery. You might say, "What are you talking about, Williams? We fought a war that cost over 600,000 lives to end slavery!" To get started, we might find a description that captures the essence of slavery. A good working description is: slavery is a set of circumstances whereby one person is forcibly used to serve the purposes of another person and has no legal claim to the fruits of his labor.
The average American worker toils from January 1st to the end of April, and has no legal claim to the fruits of his labor for that period. Federal, state and local governments, through the tax code, take what he produces. A small portion of the fruits of his labor is used to provide for the constitutional functions of government. Most of what's taken, up to two-thirds, is given to some other American in the forms of farm and business subsidies, Social Security, Medicare, welfare and hundreds of other government handout programs. As in slavery, one person is being forcibly used to serve the purposes of another person.
You might ask, "Williams, aren't you a bit off base? Slavery means that you are owned by another person." Who owns a person is not nearly important as who has the rights to use that person. In other words, a plantation owner having the power to force a black to work for him would have been just as well off, and possibly better off, not owning him. Not owning him means not having to bear medical expenses and loss of wealth if the slave died. During World War II, Nazis didn't own Jews, but they had the power to force them to labor for them. Not owning Jews meant that working and starving them to death had little cost to the Nazis. The fact that American slaves were owned, with prices sometimes ranging from $800 to $1,300, meant that owners had a financial stake in the slave's well-being and they were not worked and starved to death.
You might argue that my analogy is irrelevant because unlike American slaves and Nazi concentration camp inmates, we can come and go as we please, live where we want, buy a car, clothes and other things with the money left over after the government gets four months' worth of our earnings. But, does that make much of a difference?
During slavery, visitors to the South often observed "a great many loose negroes about." Officials in Savannah, Mobile and Charleston and other cities complained about "nominal slaves," "virtually free negroes," and "quasi free negroes" who were seemingly oblivious to any law or regulation. Frederick Douglass, a slave, explained this phenomenon when he was employed as a Baltimore ship's caulker: "I was to be allowed all my time; to make bargains for work; to find my own employment, and to collect my own wages; and in return for this liberty, I was … to pay him (Douglass' master) three dollars at the end of each week, and to board and clothe myself, and buy my own caulking tools."
There are some benefits to being a quasi free person such as Frederick Douglass. There are two ways U.S. Congress might force me to serve the purposes of another American. They might force me spend a couple of hours each day actually working, without compensation, for another American. Or, they might forcibly take a portion of my earnings so that American can hire someone. I see myself as being better off with Congress doing the latter -- taking a portion of my earnings and giving it away.
Some might be put off by my thought experiment and consider it an illegitimate use of the term "slavery." At what point should we consider ourselves a quasi free American -- when government takes two-thirds or three-quarters of our earnings
About The Author Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well.
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Walter Williams' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Let's do a thought experiment asking whether Americans are for or against slavery. You might say, "What are you talking about, Williams? We fought a war that cost over 600,000 lives to end slavery!" To get started, we might find a description that captures the essence of slavery. A good working description is: slavery is a set of circumstances whereby one person is forcibly used to serve the purposes of another person and has no legal claim to the fruits of his labor.
The average American worker toils from January 1st to the end of April, and has no legal claim to the fruits of his labor for that period. Federal, state and local governments, through the tax code, take what he produces. A small portion of the fruits of his labor is used to provide for the constitutional functions of government. Most of what's taken, up to two-thirds, is given to some other American in the forms of farm and business subsidies, Social Security, Medicare, welfare and hundreds of other government handout programs. As in slavery, one person is being forcibly used to serve the purposes of another person.
You might ask, "Williams, aren't you a bit off base? Slavery means that you are owned by another person." Who owns a person is not nearly important as who has the rights to use that person. In other words, a plantation owner having the power to force a black to work for him would have been just as well off, and possibly better off, not owning him. Not owning him means not having to bear medical expenses and loss of wealth if the slave died. During World War II, Nazis didn't own Jews, but they had the power to force them to labor for them. Not owning Jews meant that working and starving them to death had little cost to the Nazis. The fact that American slaves were owned, with prices sometimes ranging from $800 to $1,300, meant that owners had a financial stake in the slave's well-being and they were not worked and starved to death.
You might argue that my analogy is irrelevant because unlike American slaves and Nazi concentration camp inmates, we can come and go as we please, live where we want, buy a car, clothes and other things with the money left over after the government gets four months' worth of our earnings. But, does that make much of a difference?
During slavery, visitors to the South often observed "a great many loose negroes about." Officials in Savannah, Mobile and Charleston and other cities complained about "nominal slaves," "virtually free negroes," and "quasi free negroes" who were seemingly oblivious to any law or regulation. Frederick Douglass, a slave, explained this phenomenon when he was employed as a Baltimore ship's caulker: "I was to be allowed all my time; to make bargains for work; to find my own employment, and to collect my own wages; and in return for this liberty, I was … to pay him (Douglass' master) three dollars at the end of each week, and to board and clothe myself, and buy my own caulking tools."
There are some benefits to being a quasi free person such as Frederick Douglass. There are two ways U.S. Congress might force me to serve the purposes of another American. They might force me spend a couple of hours each day actually working, without compensation, for another American. Or, they might forcibly take a portion of my earnings so that American can hire someone. I see myself as being better off with Congress doing the latter -- taking a portion of my earnings and giving it away.
Some might be put off by my thought experiment and consider it an illegitimate use of the term "slavery." At what point should we consider ourselves a quasi free American -- when government takes two-thirds or three-quarters of our earnings
About The Author Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well.
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Walter Williams' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
JUST IN CASE YOU MISSED THIS
McCain and Obama Square Off
by Ericka Andersen (more by this author)
Posted 06/05/2008 ET
John McCain’s national campaign finally has an identified adversary: Barack Obama, despite Hillary Clinton’s last-minute pleas for a reprieve -- will be the Democratic nominee this fall. And McCain is already seizing on the most obvious Obama weakness: his inability to think quickly and answer questions for which he isn’t prepared.
McCain seems to thrive in person-to-person debates. Obama is uncomfortable unless he is speaking prepared remarks to an adoring crowd. The two -- in this and so many other ways -- are polar opposites.
Wednesday, McCain said he wants joint town hall meetings across the country with his presidential opponent. He hopes they will promote a “pure form of democracy” and force Obama to “respond directly to the specific questions and concerns that people have” instead of pandering to audiences in eloquent but long, vague speeches. As any good pol would want to, McCain seeks to apply his strength to Obama’s weakness.
In a campaign conference call yesterday, McCain said Obama’s frequent “catch all phrases” do not capture the “specific positions and action for the future of the country.”
McCain hopes the American people will learn of and understand Obama’s ultra-liberal record: Obama was rated the most liberal US Senator by the non-partisan National Journal this year.
Both candidates delivered major speeches to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) this week, each acknowledging a vital connection and U.S. interest in the protection of Israel as a Jewish state.
In a conference call yesterday, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) noted a significant “disconnect” for these reasons. Obama pledged to “never compromise when it comes to Israel's security”, but as Lieberman pointed out, he was one of only a handful of Senators that did not support last year’s Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization. Even the Senate’s other most liberal members -- Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton -- voted for the amendment -- but not Obama.
In a debate last year, Obama called it “saber-rattling” but in yesterday’s speech he backtracked by saying we should boycott “firms associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, whose Quds force has rightly been labeled a terrorist organization.”
McCain, though he said he had not seen Obama’s speech, was not surprised by the sudden change in direction, noting that Obama often switches on issues. This one, though, was particularly “remarkable.”
“He made several comments on this amendment…that it would affect troop levels and was the wrong thing to do,” said McCain. “Now he goes before AIPAC and changes…he’s moving through various evolutions…and I don’t think the American people will buy it.”
McCain said it proves again that Obama lacks the experience and knowledge to make the judgments necessary in a time of war.
The Kyl-Lieberman amendment does not purport military action though Obama opposed on those grounds.
Randy Scheunnemann, senior foreign policy and national security advisor to the McCain campaign, said Obama never made any public statements supporting the designation of the IRG as a terrorist group until yesterday so it is “hard to escape the conclusion that…today when it’s AIPAC and a Pro-Israel audience that…Obama has a different message for different audiences.”
Obama made other switches in his speech as well. A few weeks ago, he referred to Iran as only a “tiny” threat compared to the Soviet Union during the Cold War but yesterday, he labeled the country a “grave threat.”
He blamed the U.S. decision to invade Iraq for strengthening the power of the Iranian regime. He said the United States knew of Iran’s threat to Israel before 2002 and “instead of pursuing a strategy to address this threat, we ignored it.” Obama repeated that he said before we invaded that entering Iraq would “fan the flames of extremism in the Middle East.”
Lieberman was quick to disagree, saying, “It’s not because of what we’ve done in Iraq, it’s because Iran is a fanatical terrorist expansionist state…with a leadership that constantly threatens to extinguish the state of Israel.”
Obama’s opinions on Iraq and Iran were challenged recently when it was publicized he had visited Iraq only once -- two years ago -- and never spoke personally with US Army Commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, when he could have done so easily.
“Obama continues to deny that the surge has succeeded in Iraq -- in direction contradiction to fundamental facts on the ground,” McCain said. “This is the 788th day… since he’s been to Iraq and has never requested to sit down and get a briefing from Petraeus.”
McCain concluded that, “That is a degree of lack of judgment about this war that I think Americans will not agree with.”
In the past, Obama has pledged to meet with the leaders of rogue nations such as Iran without pre-conditions but he went back on that statement too. He now claims he would meet with those leaders only if it advances American interests.
“He presents a false choice today that the only diplomacy can work is with Iranian leaders,” said Scheunemann, who also called Obama out on his negativity towards working more closely with European allies.
Obama said the U.S. was “outsourcing diplomacy” to European allies, provoking criticism from the McCain camp.
“To say we are ‘outsourcing diplomacy’ to European allies disparages the very essence of allied cooperation,” Scheunnemann said. “Sen. McCain wants to work with our allies …with sanctions. Sen. Obama seems more interested in…engaging in cowboy summitry with unnamed leaders.”
Obama’s constant calls for troop withdrawals appease a public sick of the Iraq war but don’t consider grave consequences for Israel’s safety, the stability of the region or the security of the US in the war on terror.
“Withdrawal from Iraq…regardless of the situation…that would lead to al-Qaeda declaring victory and giving Iran more power,” said Scheunemann, adding that to think a phased withdrawal wouldn’t have consequences is, “frankly, naïve.”
McCain admitted that Obama’s views on the now-successful troop surge have changed.
“It’s not the categorical condemnation of the surge that he articulated before -- and again -- I hope he goes to Iraq soon, sits down with Petraeus,” said McCain. “Any objective observer…will admit to the fact that the surge is success.”
McCain said Obama will have to discuss the success at length sooner or later -- whether he wants to or not.
Ms. Andersen is a news producer and reporter for HUMAN EVENTS. She previously interned for The Washington Examiner newspaper. She has appeared on MSNBC live and been a guest on the Lars Larson radio show and the Jim Bohannon radio show. She wrote for the Indiana Daily Student, Indiana University's daily newspaper. E-mail her at eandersen@eaglepub.com.
Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions
Copyright © 2008 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
by Ericka Andersen (more by this author)
Posted 06/05/2008 ET
John McCain’s national campaign finally has an identified adversary: Barack Obama, despite Hillary Clinton’s last-minute pleas for a reprieve -- will be the Democratic nominee this fall. And McCain is already seizing on the most obvious Obama weakness: his inability to think quickly and answer questions for which he isn’t prepared.
McCain seems to thrive in person-to-person debates. Obama is uncomfortable unless he is speaking prepared remarks to an adoring crowd. The two -- in this and so many other ways -- are polar opposites.
Wednesday, McCain said he wants joint town hall meetings across the country with his presidential opponent. He hopes they will promote a “pure form of democracy” and force Obama to “respond directly to the specific questions and concerns that people have” instead of pandering to audiences in eloquent but long, vague speeches. As any good pol would want to, McCain seeks to apply his strength to Obama’s weakness.
In a campaign conference call yesterday, McCain said Obama’s frequent “catch all phrases” do not capture the “specific positions and action for the future of the country.”
McCain hopes the American people will learn of and understand Obama’s ultra-liberal record: Obama was rated the most liberal US Senator by the non-partisan National Journal this year.
Both candidates delivered major speeches to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) this week, each acknowledging a vital connection and U.S. interest in the protection of Israel as a Jewish state.
In a conference call yesterday, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) noted a significant “disconnect” for these reasons. Obama pledged to “never compromise when it comes to Israel's security”, but as Lieberman pointed out, he was one of only a handful of Senators that did not support last year’s Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization. Even the Senate’s other most liberal members -- Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton -- voted for the amendment -- but not Obama.
In a debate last year, Obama called it “saber-rattling” but in yesterday’s speech he backtracked by saying we should boycott “firms associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, whose Quds force has rightly been labeled a terrorist organization.”
McCain, though he said he had not seen Obama’s speech, was not surprised by the sudden change in direction, noting that Obama often switches on issues. This one, though, was particularly “remarkable.”
“He made several comments on this amendment…that it would affect troop levels and was the wrong thing to do,” said McCain. “Now he goes before AIPAC and changes…he’s moving through various evolutions…and I don’t think the American people will buy it.”
McCain said it proves again that Obama lacks the experience and knowledge to make the judgments necessary in a time of war.
The Kyl-Lieberman amendment does not purport military action though Obama opposed on those grounds.
Randy Scheunnemann, senior foreign policy and national security advisor to the McCain campaign, said Obama never made any public statements supporting the designation of the IRG as a terrorist group until yesterday so it is “hard to escape the conclusion that…today when it’s AIPAC and a Pro-Israel audience that…Obama has a different message for different audiences.”
Obama made other switches in his speech as well. A few weeks ago, he referred to Iran as only a “tiny” threat compared to the Soviet Union during the Cold War but yesterday, he labeled the country a “grave threat.”
He blamed the U.S. decision to invade Iraq for strengthening the power of the Iranian regime. He said the United States knew of Iran’s threat to Israel before 2002 and “instead of pursuing a strategy to address this threat, we ignored it.” Obama repeated that he said before we invaded that entering Iraq would “fan the flames of extremism in the Middle East.”
Lieberman was quick to disagree, saying, “It’s not because of what we’ve done in Iraq, it’s because Iran is a fanatical terrorist expansionist state…with a leadership that constantly threatens to extinguish the state of Israel.”
Obama’s opinions on Iraq and Iran were challenged recently when it was publicized he had visited Iraq only once -- two years ago -- and never spoke personally with US Army Commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, when he could have done so easily.
“Obama continues to deny that the surge has succeeded in Iraq -- in direction contradiction to fundamental facts on the ground,” McCain said. “This is the 788th day… since he’s been to Iraq and has never requested to sit down and get a briefing from Petraeus.”
McCain concluded that, “That is a degree of lack of judgment about this war that I think Americans will not agree with.”
In the past, Obama has pledged to meet with the leaders of rogue nations such as Iran without pre-conditions but he went back on that statement too. He now claims he would meet with those leaders only if it advances American interests.
“He presents a false choice today that the only diplomacy can work is with Iranian leaders,” said Scheunemann, who also called Obama out on his negativity towards working more closely with European allies.
Obama said the U.S. was “outsourcing diplomacy” to European allies, provoking criticism from the McCain camp.
“To say we are ‘outsourcing diplomacy’ to European allies disparages the very essence of allied cooperation,” Scheunnemann said. “Sen. McCain wants to work with our allies …with sanctions. Sen. Obama seems more interested in…engaging in cowboy summitry with unnamed leaders.”
Obama’s constant calls for troop withdrawals appease a public sick of the Iraq war but don’t consider grave consequences for Israel’s safety, the stability of the region or the security of the US in the war on terror.
“Withdrawal from Iraq…regardless of the situation…that would lead to al-Qaeda declaring victory and giving Iran more power,” said Scheunemann, adding that to think a phased withdrawal wouldn’t have consequences is, “frankly, naïve.”
McCain admitted that Obama’s views on the now-successful troop surge have changed.
“It’s not the categorical condemnation of the surge that he articulated before -- and again -- I hope he goes to Iraq soon, sits down with Petraeus,” said McCain. “Any objective observer…will admit to the fact that the surge is success.”
McCain said Obama will have to discuss the success at length sooner or later -- whether he wants to or not.
Ms. Andersen is a news producer and reporter for HUMAN EVENTS. She previously interned for The Washington Examiner newspaper. She has appeared on MSNBC live and been a guest on the Lars Larson radio show and the Jim Bohannon radio show. She wrote for the Indiana Daily Student, Indiana University's daily newspaper. E-mail her at eandersen@eaglepub.com.
Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions
Copyright © 2008 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
PRO-LIFE
Planned Parenthood's Obscene Profits
By Michelle Malkin
June 4, 2008
GOP presidential candidate John McCain sounded more like a Democratic presidential candidate (a recurring trend) when he joined the Left's oil industry bashers a few weeks ago. Asked by a North Carolina voter whether he supported a Jimmy Carter-era windfall profits tax, McCain responded: "Um, I don't like obscene profits being made anywhere -- and I'd be glad to look not just at the windfall profits tax -- that's not what bothers me -- but we should look at any incentives that we are giving to people or industries or corporations that are distorting the market."
Here's an idea for all the hand-wringing GOP strategists in Washington wondering what it will take to win back disgusted economic and social conservatives: How about a Republican presidential candidate who will talk about the tax-subsidized abortion industry the way McCain talks about the oil industry?
In April, the annual report for Planned Parenthood Federation of America revealed that the abortion giant had a total income of $1.02 billion -- with reported profits of nearly $115 million. Taxpayers kick in more than $336 million worth of government grants and contracts at both the state and federal levels. That's a third of Planned Parenthood's budget.
And what market-distorting results do we get for those government incentives? In 2006 alone: 289,750 abortions.
Oil execs, tobacco execs, banking execs, pharmaceutical company execs and baseball players have all been hauled up before Congress for highly publicized whippings by crusading lawmakers. But the executives of Planned Parenthood have escaped government scrutiny and public accountability for their predatory behavior, dangerous medical practices, deception and deadly windfall.
In Washington, D.C., the family of 13-year-old Shantese Butler filed a $50 million suit against Planned Parenthood after a botched abortion left the girl permanently injured and infertile. Students for Life of America reports that Shantese was left with "severe abdominal bleeding, severe vaginal injury, severe injury to the cervix, significant uterine perforation and a small bowel tear." In addition, parts of the unborn child were found inside Shantese's abdomen.
In Nebraska, Planned Parenthood refused to disclose the terms of a settlement with another victim whose botched abortion resulted in a perforated uterus, massive blood loss, an emergency hysterectomy, permanent infertility, seizures, and lifelong pain and suffering. According to the suit obtained by Life News, the woman instructed the abortionist and his assistants to stop, but was told: "We can't stop." The Planned Parenthood employees held her down to complete the procedure.
Where's the subpoena-wielding Henry Waxman? Can Arlen Specter spare a moment from investigating the New England Patriots to probe Planned Parenthood's efforts to advise underage teens on how to circumvent parental notification laws to secretly obtain RU-486, the abortion drug cocktail? Where is the concern for the women and children who were mistreated by Planned Parenthood clinics in Kansas, where Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline has filed a 107-count criminal complaint against the abortion racket, with charges ranging from falsifying documents to performing illegal late-term abortions?
And where are Nancy Pelosi and the For The Children brigade to investigate the shocking evidence of Planned Parenthood's nefariousness exposed by undercover student journalist Lila Rose?
Last year, Rose caught a Planned Parenthood official encouraging a female minor to evade statutory rape laws in order to obtain an abortion in California. In February, Rose released undercover tapes of her discussion with an Idaho Planned Parenthood official eager to accept money from a racist donor who wanted his funds earmarked for aborting black babies. In April, she released video of clinic officials in New Mexico and Oklahoma willing to take money from a blatantly racist donor. One Planned Parenthood staffer admits that "for whatever reason, we'll accept the money."
For whatever reason, Washington has turned a blind bipartisan eye to this bloody, government-funded business -- and pro-life, limited-government conservatives in the Beltway have gone along with subsidizing it. "Obscene profits," indeed.
---
Michelle Malkin is author of "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild." Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.
By Michelle Malkin
June 4, 2008
GOP presidential candidate John McCain sounded more like a Democratic presidential candidate (a recurring trend) when he joined the Left's oil industry bashers a few weeks ago. Asked by a North Carolina voter whether he supported a Jimmy Carter-era windfall profits tax, McCain responded: "Um, I don't like obscene profits being made anywhere -- and I'd be glad to look not just at the windfall profits tax -- that's not what bothers me -- but we should look at any incentives that we are giving to people or industries or corporations that are distorting the market."
Here's an idea for all the hand-wringing GOP strategists in Washington wondering what it will take to win back disgusted economic and social conservatives: How about a Republican presidential candidate who will talk about the tax-subsidized abortion industry the way McCain talks about the oil industry?
In April, the annual report for Planned Parenthood Federation of America revealed that the abortion giant had a total income of $1.02 billion -- with reported profits of nearly $115 million. Taxpayers kick in more than $336 million worth of government grants and contracts at both the state and federal levels. That's a third of Planned Parenthood's budget.
And what market-distorting results do we get for those government incentives? In 2006 alone: 289,750 abortions.
Oil execs, tobacco execs, banking execs, pharmaceutical company execs and baseball players have all been hauled up before Congress for highly publicized whippings by crusading lawmakers. But the executives of Planned Parenthood have escaped government scrutiny and public accountability for their predatory behavior, dangerous medical practices, deception and deadly windfall.
In Washington, D.C., the family of 13-year-old Shantese Butler filed a $50 million suit against Planned Parenthood after a botched abortion left the girl permanently injured and infertile. Students for Life of America reports that Shantese was left with "severe abdominal bleeding, severe vaginal injury, severe injury to the cervix, significant uterine perforation and a small bowel tear." In addition, parts of the unborn child were found inside Shantese's abdomen.
In Nebraska, Planned Parenthood refused to disclose the terms of a settlement with another victim whose botched abortion resulted in a perforated uterus, massive blood loss, an emergency hysterectomy, permanent infertility, seizures, and lifelong pain and suffering. According to the suit obtained by Life News, the woman instructed the abortionist and his assistants to stop, but was told: "We can't stop." The Planned Parenthood employees held her down to complete the procedure.
Where's the subpoena-wielding Henry Waxman? Can Arlen Specter spare a moment from investigating the New England Patriots to probe Planned Parenthood's efforts to advise underage teens on how to circumvent parental notification laws to secretly obtain RU-486, the abortion drug cocktail? Where is the concern for the women and children who were mistreated by Planned Parenthood clinics in Kansas, where Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline has filed a 107-count criminal complaint against the abortion racket, with charges ranging from falsifying documents to performing illegal late-term abortions?
And where are Nancy Pelosi and the For The Children brigade to investigate the shocking evidence of Planned Parenthood's nefariousness exposed by undercover student journalist Lila Rose?
Last year, Rose caught a Planned Parenthood official encouraging a female minor to evade statutory rape laws in order to obtain an abortion in California. In February, Rose released undercover tapes of her discussion with an Idaho Planned Parenthood official eager to accept money from a racist donor who wanted his funds earmarked for aborting black babies. In April, she released video of clinic officials in New Mexico and Oklahoma willing to take money from a blatantly racist donor. One Planned Parenthood staffer admits that "for whatever reason, we'll accept the money."
For whatever reason, Washington has turned a blind bipartisan eye to this bloody, government-funded business -- and pro-life, limited-government conservatives in the Beltway have gone along with subsidizing it. "Obscene profits," indeed.
---
Michelle Malkin is author of "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild." Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)