UN: Another Scandal

Fire of Liberty

Check out yet another story on the ongoing soap-opera "The Corrupt and Unaccountable UN." It seems that the folks at the UN are proposing some $1.2 billion of renovations on their buildings on our dime. It seems that this outlandish request by the UN has irked Donald Trump and several Senators, check out what John Hinderaker reported inThe Weekly Standard about Donald Trump:

Trump has gone further, expressing the view that the expenses projected by the U.N. can only be the result of graft or incompetence. In a speech on the Senate floor on April 6, 2005, Senator Jeff Sessions recounted his conversation with Trump:

Let me share this story with you, which is pretty shocking to me. The $1.2 billion loan the United Nations wants is to renovate a building. Some member of the United Nations, a delegate, apparently, from Europe, had read in the newspaper in New York that Mr. Donald Trump . . . had just completed the Trump World Tower--not a 30-story building like the United Nations, but a 90-story building, for a mere $350 million, less than one-third of that cost. So the European United Nations delegate was curious about the $1.2 billion they were spending on the United Nations. He knew he didn't know what the real estate costs are in New York. So, he called Mr. Trump and they discussed it. Mr. Trump told him that building he built for $350 million was the top of the line. It has the highest quality of anything you would need in it. They discussed the matter, and an arrangement was made for Mr. Trump to meet Kofi Annan, Secretary-General, to discuss the concerns. . . . So according to Mr. Trump, who I talked to personally this morning, they go meet with Mr. Annan, who had asked some staff member to be there . . . When the European asked how these numbers could happen, Mr. Trump said the only way would be because of incompetence, or fraud. That is how strongly he felt about this price tag because he pointed out to me that renovation costs much less than building an entirely new building. So he has a meeting with Mr. Annan, and they have some discussion. And Mr. Trump says these figures can't be acceptable. He told me in my conversation this morning, he said: You can quote me. You can say what I am saying. He said they don't know. The person who had been working on this project for 4 years couldn't answer basic questions about what was involved in renovating a major building. He was not capable nor competent to do the job. He went and worked on it, and talked about it, and eventually made an offer. He said he would manage the refurbishment, the renovation, of the United Nations Building, and he would not charge personally for his fee in managing it. He would bring it in at $500 [million], less than half of what they were expecting to spend, and it would be better. . . . Yet he never received a response from the United Nations.

It appears there are serious questions about the U.N.'s renovation project. Depending on which assumptions one accepts about cost and square footage, anywhere from $500 million to $1 billion in expense is unaccounted for. Given the U.N.'s history, is there any reason to doubt that the costs projected by that organization include substantial sums representing, as Trump put it, incompetence or fraud? Given what we know about the oil-for-food program, is there any reason to trust the U.N.'s business or accounting practices?

Boy, does the UN ever get anything straight? I guess not, since they are not held accountable for what they do. Thank G-d that the US is standing up to such shenanigans.

Chechnya's Terrorist Hunting Commandos

Fire of Liberty

This is an interesting article by Mark Franchetti in The Sunday Times on the Chechen Commando group that actively search out the Islamic terrorists that has corrupted and turned the separatist movement of Chechen people into their personal jihad. If you want to read a good and informative piece on Chechnya, then this is it.

WFB Jr. on the Nuke Option

Fire of Liberty

Here's William F. Buckley Jr. take on the "nuclear option" and how everyone should calm down and stop jumping up and down shouting "the end is near" or that the Senate will be forever changed. Though he notes that the Senate should have taken this option with Judge Bork instead of Owens, he still understands the merits of what the GOP is doing. See for yourself.

A Un-yielding Faith in God

Fire of Liberty

If you recall from my pre-UK election coverage, I wrote about the savage attack on Abigail Witchalls, well it seems that she is slowly recovering from her injuries and has placed a considerable amount of her recovery is due to her faith in God. I found this tid-bit from a wonderful post by John Derbyshire over at The Corner:

THE STRENGTH OF FAITH [John Derbyshire]
To those readers who are perfectly irreligious and can't see the point at all, as well as to those (ahem) who see the point but aren't as pious as they wish they were, I commend this piece from the Daily Telegraph.

What happened to Mrs. Witchalls is about as bad as a thing can be. Her faith is seeing her through it with a smile and words of forgiveness.

I swear this must be constitutional. I could no more exhibit that kind of spiritual strength than I could run 100 meters in 9.4 seconds, or solve the Riemann Hypothesis, or play the fiddle like Jascha Heifetz. I know a lot of you disagree, but I line up with Tom Utley here. Admire? Sure. Emulate? No way.

(And, as a matter of fact, even my admiration is a bit qualified -- not so far as Mrs. Witchalls's ability to handle the situations, which is a shining example to us all, but in regard to the turn-the-other-cheek stuff. I think the bastard who did that should swing for it. In fact, it seems he has already committed suicide, which is better than he deserves.)
Posted at 03:16 PM

Here's the piece that Derbyshire mentioned in his post. You might need to register at The Daily Telegraph but see if you can get through. It's a great piece, that everyone should read.

Mubarak's Sham Continues

Fire of Liberty

Max Boot has written another gem of a column in Thursday's edition of The Los Angeles Times on the duplicitous nature of Hosni Mubarak and his gaggle of friends in Egypt. As America continues to shell out some $2 billion in military/economic aid to the Egyptian government to ensure peace, Mubarak makes a mockery of this nation and our call for democratic reforms. Though Mubarak offers mere platitudes of change by announcing the upcoming presidential election is opened to other parties and candidates as long as they meet the narrowly tailored qualifications of Mubarak's parliament. Just look at what Boot has to say about the sham reforms of Mr. Mubarak:

There is little hope that Mubarak will give opposition candidates equal access to state-owned TV stations and newspapers, which regularly extol his virtues with embarrassing exaggeration. Nor can he be trusted to hold a fair vote. A group representing Egyptian judges has refused to supervise the balloting because, as one judge put it, they "won't participate in fraud." Even Egyptian Prime Minister Ahmed Nazief, on a charm tour of the United States this week, has to admit that Egypt won't see a truly contested election until 2011 at the earliest.

Nazief justifies this go-slow approach with soothing talk about how "democracy is an evolutionary process," and you can't go too fast lest Islamic extremists take control. But that's what the shah of Iran said in the 1970s. It turned out that his opposition to democratic reform made an Islamist takeover more, not less, likely. Same with Egypt: The less access that fed-up people have to the political process, the more likely they are to be seduced by the hard-line mullahs' siren song.

It's amazing that we continue to shell out such sums of money to this dictatorial regime and gladly look the other way because Mubarak and the people from the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the State Department continue to argue that this loss of funds and reform will bring about the emergence of Islamic fundamentalists. We can continue this Cold War/Realist game with Egypt or we can push the Bush doctrine of promoting Democracy in the Middle East. Remember, there were similar voices of Islamists taking over in the run-up to the elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, but as you know these parties either failed to garner any votes or enough to make a significance in the government. So maybe it's time to trust the people of Egypt rather than a man who has been running Egypt some 25 years. It's time to see.

Uzbekistan

Fire of Liberty

If you've been watching, reading or listening to the news, you should be aware of the uprising in Uzbekistan that has resulted in a massive crackdown by Islam Karimov and some 700 deaths. Though people like Lee Harris over at Tech Central Station have written that the people who initiated this revolt are purely anti-American and are threatening an allied nation, Stephen Schwartz argues in The Weekly Standard that these revolters are actually fighting for their freedom from the 20 year plus rule Islam Karimov. While I might be standing on a weak branch, I believe that Schwartz has a better understanding of the situation not to mention that he's been on the ground in Andjian, Uzbekistan and got a feel of what's going down. Even though I side with Schwartz on this one, I still respect the merits and thought provoking aspect of Harris' article. So read both if you can.

Insurgency Insanity

Fire of Liberty
While the various newspaper and TV' news programs continue to point out that the "insurgents" are increasing their attacks or that their gaining strength, Christopher Hitchens has offered his beef with these news outlets calling the horrific actor "insurgents." Hitchens notes in this article over at Slate that the people initiating and carrying out these missions of death are not some type of grassroots revolutionaries but are actual Ba'athist, Bin Ladenists and jihadists (Aside from Ba'athist, the other two are from other nations). As long as the press continues to peg these people as insurgents they will basically undermine the government of Iraq and do a disservice to the prideful and brave people of Iraq who face death everyday while trying to form a democracy.

If you can't find time to read Hitchens' wonderful piece, just read this brief sample:

A letter from Zarqawi to Bin Laden more than a year ago, intercepted by Kurdish intelligence and since then well-authenticated, spoke of Shiism as a repulsive heresy and the ignition of a Sunni-Shiite civil war as the best and easiest way to thwart the Crusader-Zionist coalition. The actions since then have precisely followed the design, but the design has been forgotten by the journal of record. The Bin Laden and Zarqawi organizations, and their co-thinkers in other countries, have gone to great pains to announce, on several occasions, that they will win because they love death, while their enemies are so soft and degenerate that they prefer life. Are we supposed to think that they were just boasting when they said this? Their actions demonstrate it every day, and there are burned-out school buses and clinics and hospitals to prove it, as well as mosques (the incineration of which one might think to be a better subject for Islamic protest than a possibly desecrated Quran, in a prison where every inmate is automatically issued with one.)

Then we might find a little space for the small question of democracy. The Baath Party's opinion of this can be easily gauged, not just from its record in power but from the rancid prose of its founding fascist fathers. As for the Bin Ladenists, they have taken extraordinary pains to say, through the direct statements of Osama and of Zarqawi, that democracy is a vile heresy, a Greek fabrication, and a source of profanity. For the last several weeks, however, the Times has been opining every day that the latest hysterical murder campaign is a result of the time it has taken the newly elected Iraqi Assembly to come up with a representative government. The corollary of this mush-headed coverage must be that, if a more representative government were available in these terrible conditions (conditions supplied by the gangsters themselves), the homicide and sabotage would thereby decline. Is there a serious person in the known world who can be brought to believe such self-evident rubbish?

Good ole Hitch does it again. Bravo!!!

Donald Kagan

Fire of Liberty

Here's a great column by Suzanne Fields on Donald Kagan, Sterling professor of Classics and History at Yale, who presented the 34 annual Jefferson Lecture (Sponsored by the National Endowment of Humanities). It's a good read on how a "liberal studies" have been corrupted by the odious idea of multiculturalism. A good read though.

Also, check out George Will's take on Professor Kagan and his recent speech. Here's a brief sample:

"Religion and the traditions based on it were once the chief sources for moral confidence and strength. Their influence has faded in the modern world, but the need for a sound base for moral judgments has not. If we cannot look simply to moral guidance firmly founded on religious precepts it is natural and reasonable to turn to history, the record of human experience, as a necessary supplement if not a substitute."

Kagan's idea is not novel. Nearly three centuries ago Lord Bolingbroke said that "history is philosophy teaching by examples." However, at this American moment of mutual incomprehension and even contempt between theists and their postmodernist despisers, it is "transgressive" -- to purloin a bit of the postmodernists' jargon -- for Kagan to insist that there is a firm middle, or perhaps higher, ground for moral confidence.

I just wish we had more academics like Kagan on the various campuses of the US. We could learn a lot from these rare gems.

Liberal Disaster in Canada

Fire of Liberty

Arnold Beichman has a great commentary in The Washington Times on the political and ethical decline of the Liberal party in Canada. Howard Dean might think Tom DeLay is a criminal but the Liberals in Canada make him look like a Saint. Thank G-d we're not in Canada.

Brits should reject EU Constitution

Fire of Liberty

Boris Johnson (Tory MP of Henley) has a great Opinion piece in The Daily Telegraph on the upcoming French vote on the EU Constitution and why the Brits should reject the EU Constitution next year. It's an excellent read by the editor of The London Spectator. Enjoy.

Also, read this Leader in The Daily Telegraph (registration required) on why the Brits and other Europeans should say no to the EU Cnstitution. Here's a sample:

Anyone who thinks that we exaggerate should read the text (available online at www.euabc.com). You need only look at the first dozen or so clauses to get a sense of what the constitution is about: "The Constitution shall have primacy over the law of the Member States" (Article I-6); "The Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised, or has decided to cease exercising, its competence" (Article I-12). Then comes the list of areas where Brussels is to have jurisdiction: transport, energy, agriculture, fisheries, trade competition, asylum, immigration, social policy, employment law, foreign affairs, defence, space exploration, justice and home affairs. No wonder Tony Blair spent the election blathering about schools and hospitals: they're pretty much all he'll have left.

This point is not made flippantly. European integration was a malign if unremarked presence throughout the recent campaign. There it sat like Banquo's ghost, invisible to most voters, but shaking its gory locks at the party leaders, who knew that they had to draw up their manifestos within the parameters allowed by EU law. There was a spectacular illustration of this when Michael Howard pledged that a future Conservative government would set an upper limit for immigrants and a separate quota for refugees, only to be told that such a policy was not compatible with the EU's "Area of Freedom, Security and Justice" (1984-style nomenclature is very much a feature of Brussels life).

Equally, no party could promise to revive our countryside (because of the CAP), rescue our fishing communities (because of the CFP) or deregulate our labour markets (because of the social chapter). No party could take up this newspaper's proposal to replace VAT with a local sales tax.

I couldn't have written anything like this.

Squawking Terrorists

Fire of Liberty

James S. Robbins has an excellent article over at National Review Online on the song-bird qualities of the various terrorists the US and our allies have caught. While the mere capture of these terrorists causes massive chaos in the organization, it makes it even tougher on these people when these captured thugs start chirping on their associates. Just look at what these terrorists are willing to do if they're captured:

But don’t any captives protect their fellows? Don't they show devotion to their comrades and their cause? Take Azmi Jayousi, a Jordanian loyal to Zarqawi, currently on trial with a dozen other terrorists for plotting a chemical attack in Jordan last year. The courtroom has been a daily scene of defiance as Jayousi denounces the court, the king, and others on his personal list. "Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi will chop off your heads and stuff them in your mouths, you enemies of God!" Jayousi pledged from the dock, throwing his shoes at the judge. Co-conspirator Ahmad Samir added, "The blood of our brothers will not go wasted!"

Oh, but if Ahmad only knew what kind of person he was keeping company with. Moments after these outbursts, Jordanian security officers took the stand and blew the whistle on Jayousi. Despite his bluster in the courtroom, the terror leader had in fact been instrumental in taking down his entire band. When counterterrorist forces raided his hideout just before the planned chemical attack was launched, Jayousi did not fight to the death, he did not resist at all. He began cutting side deals on the spot. No torture, no coercion — Jayousi rolled right away and gave up the locations of all the other safe houses. Later in court when Jayousi denounced the story as a lie, the Jordanians, who videotape all their operations, released footage to the press showing the entire thing. It must have been an uncomfortable scene back in the holding cell that night. Say it ain't so, Azmi.

I guess their loyalty stops when they get pinched by the US and its allies. This just goes to show you that the terrorists can only trust each other as far as they can throw them. Hopefully this will continue well into the future. The only thing we can do is to continue to seek out these mongers of terror and hope they chirp like a bird (I suspect the terrorists expect this even if they're not talking). Or we can just continue to launch various operations like Matador and kill the terrorists on location. Either way is good for me.

Castro's US Team

Fire of Liberty

Aside from Chris Dodd and a small smattering of Senators getting chummy with the various dictators of South America like Chavez and Castro, it seems that there's a block of some 22 to 27 members of the US House of Representatives who have similar interests in supporting Castro. This grouping of Congressmen has found it fit to vote against two bills that promoted freedom towards Cuba. As people anguish in Castro's Gulag of an island, these various Congressmen give Castro succor and the much needed propaganda to keep the Cuban people under his thumb. Just read this piece by Duncan Currie inThe Weekly Standard to read about these Congressional rubes and their arrant disregard for Human Rights in Cuba. It's quite revealing.

Newsweak

Fire of Liberty

Here's a grouping of commentaries/columns about Newsweek's slide in credibility with it fraudulent news story on the Koran. First, check out this piece by the ultimate commentator, William F. Buckley Jr. Whenever you read WFB, you're always bound to learn something that few others know. Secondly, here's another terrific column by Thomas Sowell on how the MSM is losing its grip on differentiating between commentary and straight reporting. Thirdly, Austin Bay has an interesting look at Newsweek by noting how the people in the news-room are stuck in the 1970's Vietnam or Get Nixon stage and have forgotten that we are fighting a 21st Century War in a 21st Century atmosphere. With the information highway just a mouse-click away, Newsweek has to be aware that whatever they print for the domestic reader can be seen by people around the World. Finally, check out this piece by William Kristol over at The Weekly Standard.

A Choice, Not a Labour Echo

Fire of Liberty

After seeing the Tory defeat on May 5 and Howard resigning shortly after the UK election results, a considerable amount of observers have noted that the Tories lost the recent election because they have abandoned the Conservative/Classical Liberalism of Thatcher, Smith, Burke and Disraeli. Instead of presenting a political manifesto that offered a bold contrast to Labour, the Tories opted for the pastels policy which tried to out-Labour Labour, because they were fearful of pushing away voters. When a party becomes so scared that its afraid to present a clear cut difference from the other party, they project an aura of instability to the voting public thus destroying their chances of being put into power. Though they picked up some 30 seats in the House of Commons, the Tories could have achieved a greater victory by being bold but not petty like the Blair is a "liar" silliness.

While I've read a considerable amount of experts in the UK and US press, who have professed what's wrong with Tories, I think that the best analysis that I've read so far has been this article by Marian Tupy over at Tech Central Station. Tupy argues that the best way to get the Tories back on track is to embrace Margaret Thatcher's political philosophy of free markets, limited government and individual freedoms. It time that the Tories go out and buy copies of Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty (Mrs. Thatcher modeled her policies around this powerful book) and various other Classical Liberalism texts to get a better grip on how they should operate. Better yet they should follow Tupy's advice, see here:

The politics of choice would put Labour in a difficult position. The Labour Party would either have to embark on a reformist course, thus alienating its socialist base, or come out against freedom to choose. Yet freedom is the most British of values. It has permeated the history of that island nation from the time of the Magna Carta, through the execution of King Charles, through the wars against Napoleon and Hitler, right up to the struggle against home-grown socialism in the 1980s.

The politics of choice would also contribute toward solving the Tory's European conundrum. At the moment, it is all too easy for Mr. Blair to paint the Conservatives as a group of reactionary "little Englanders," bent on withdrawing from the European Union. A choice-based Tory party would be more believable when arguing that their opposition to the centralization of economic and political decision-making in Brussels is based not on nationalism and isolationism, but on Britain's wish to preserve freedoms unknown on the European continent. Moreover, the politics of choice would underline the contrast between those members of the EU who wish to move ahead and those EU members who prefer to remain wedded to the past.

I hope the Tories get their act together pretty soon. If they get back to the Thatcher basics, they'll surely win the next General Election and push Labour of their high mount. With a lead of only 66, the mission is achievable.

Iraq: Terror is on the wane

Fire of Liberty

Here's a great piece on the ever growing death of the terrorists movement in Iraq by Ralph Kinney Bennett over at Tech Central Station. Just read what's going on in Iraq:

But one must wonder at the cynicism of their leadership, who know that they now fight for nothing but blood hatred. They offer the people of Iraq nothing -- neither stability, nor "heritage," nor hope. They are increasingly isolated and informed upon, forced into more remote regions of the country.

And now there are more signs that one of al-Qaida's chief sources of cannon fodder -- young Iraqi Sunni men -- may be diminishing. Here's a headline from the May 9th edition of the Arabic newspaper Alsharq Alawsat:

"Iraqi Arab Sunnis head towards Army Enlisting Posts in spite of Explosions."

The article (picked up thanks to the ever-amazing chrenkoff.blogspot.com) notes that "we witnessed thousands of Iraqi Arab Sunnis coming from different provinces to military enlisting stations in Baghdad."

The paper interviewed some of them, including Ahmed Mahmud, 30, who says, "I came because I desire to join in protecting the peace and my country." Another, who had served in the old Iraqi army, says, "I heard a number of (Sunni) religious leaders call for us to join the new army."

It's amazing that the news-media continues to report that the situation in Iraq is going to hell. I guess they forgot that for some 11 to 12 years after the Revolutionary War under the Articles of Confederation until we finally got things straight under the Constitution. Luckily - counting me - there seems to be a considerable amount of optimists out there on Iraq.

Bill Gates to the Rescue

Fire of Liberty

Nick Schulz has a great piece over at National Review Online on Bill Gates emphasis towards reform at the WHO when dealing with HIV/AIDS, TB, Malaria and malnutrition in the various developing nations of Asia and Africa. As one of the most successful as well as wealthy business men of America or for even the World, Gates has a mind focused on innovation and more effective policies on reducing such scourges in these areas. It's rather refreshing to see a fellow American challenging this World organization and these various states to reform. Until these entities start listening to Gates and similar voices of innovation and reform, countless people will continue to die or starve due to the bureaucratic nonsense that continues. Just look at what Schulz has to report on Gates:

In recent years Gates has expressed a keen concern for global health issues and made that interest manifest through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Gates believes in the power of human ingenuity to develop products that address the "staggering disease burden unknown in the rich world." Many global health problems — from HIV/AIDS to malaria to tuberculosis — can only be tackled with ingenious technologies. Gates aims, through his philanthropy, to provide incentives for their development, providing the capital necessary to unlock the creative, entrepreneurial genius within the world's science community.

Unlike many activists and bureaucrats who simply hector the world's wealthy nations for more aid, Gates put his money where his mouth is, and this week he pledged $250 million — on top of the $200 million he has already committed — to the Grand Challenges Initiative, an effort launched in 2003 to pursue scientific advances beneficial to global health. He has already given over $4 billion to global health efforts out of an endowment of nearly $30 billion.

Most of these funds are not typical aid grants. They are carefully designed to spur innovation by offering incentives for scientists and engineers to develop "breakthroughs you can use."

Typically at these U.N.-sponsored events, the rich nations of the world — particularly the U.S — are painted as the bad guys. And while Gates prodded the rich countries to do more, refreshingly he highlighted the disastrous response to epidemic disease from developing-country governments. "Countries in sub-Saharan Africa," Gates said, "spend a smaller percentage of their GDP on health than any other region in the world."

I just don't understand why so many people seem to despise Gates so much. Though he could sit back and enjoy his billions and let governments deal with these problems, Gates is out front leading a campaign to put a dent in the problem. Where is Gates Nobel Prize? Unlike Arafat, Gates has tried and probably has saved lives with his efforts. I wish him good luck because the UN and WHO needs help.

Abe Lincoln's Mission

Fire of Liberty

For the History buffs, here a great piece by Mackubin Thomas Owens over at National Review Online on Lincoln's original strategy in ending slavery in the US. As Owens notes that throughout history that Lincoln's detractors have claimed that he wasn't interested in ending slavery when he entered the White House. (Even though the GOP was partially created to the ending of slavery). Luckily for Lincoln's supporters there's a book by Allen Guelzo titledLincoln's Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America, which shows Lincoln coming into the Presidency with a well developed policy. Take a gander at Owens wonderful description of Lincoln's policy:

Guelzo argues persuasively that Lincoln’s “face was set toward the goal of emancipation from the day he first took the presidential oath.” To achieve this goal, he planned to pursue a policy of legislated, gradual, compensated emancipation from the very outset of his presidency. He believed he could convince Congress to appropriate funds for compensating slave owners to gradually free their slaves. His plan was to begin where slavery was weakest: in the northern-most slave states, especially Delaware.

The key to his strategy was to prevent the expansion of slavery into the federal territories while working to convince the legislatures of slave states to changes their statutes relating to slavery. After all, the Constitution left the issue of slavery to the states. This state legislative strategy also offered the best chance for keeping the issue of emancipation out of the federal court system, where an unfavorable judgment, a likelihood as long as Roger Taney was chief justice, could set back its prospects.

As with most good policies, they start off good but eventually get mired in the meat-grinder of state and federal governments. It also got side-tracked with the Civil War and thus the emergence of plan B, The Emancipation Proclamation. Luckily, this worked. Enjoy the read.

John Bolton is the One

Fire of Liberty

Check out this Op/Ed by Rudy Boschwitz, US Ambassador to the UN Commission on Human Rights, on why John Bolton should be at the head the US table in the UN. It's a pretty good piece.

UK Elections

Fire of Liberty

Michael Barone has a great column on the UK election over at The Washington Times. Good stuff.

A Blast From America's Past

Fire of Liberty

People seem to forget where the US Marines got the line "To the shores of Tripoli" in their famous hymn. Thanks to this wonderful article by Robert McHenry over at Tech Central Station we are reminded that we fought the Barbary Pirates some 200 years ago and defeated them in Tripoli. Here's a look at McHenry's piece:

In November of that same year the former U.S. consul in Tunis, William Eaton, landed in Egypt with a tiny detachment of Marines under the command of Lieutenant Presley N. O'Bannon. Gathering irregular troops from the countryside as they went, they trekked some 500 miles across the Libyan Desert in March-April 1805 and on April 27 stormed and occupied the Tripolitan stronghold of Derna. The Marines on that day raised the U.S. flag - then featuring 15 stars and 15 stripes - for the first time over foreign soil. Tripoli signed a treaty of peace on June 4, and other Barbary states quickly followed suit. State-sponsored piracy in the Mediterranean was ended.

The Tripolitan War may well be counted the first instance of America's stepping forth to solve a problem on Europe's doorstep, a line that runs down to the Balkans and the Middle East and Central Asia today. More significantly, it first thrust the United States into the unsought role of enforcer of international law against rogue states in league with terrorists.

Maybe a little bunting after all. It's never too late, or the wrong date, to remember, and perhaps to think.

Thanks to Robert McHenry for reminding us of the Tripolitan War and the America tradition of defeating tyranny wherever it raises its ugly head. For further reading on this war, check out Max Boot's wonderful book The Savage Wars of Peace.

North Korea: A Hell of a Place

Fire of Liberty

One area that everyone should agree on is the horrific tyranny that Kim Jong Il has imposed on his people. After reading this piece by Young Howard in The San Diego Union-Tribune, one can truly understand why President Bush and John Bolton have publicly condemned the Hermit Kingdom for it Gulags, severe starvation as well as the mass human rights violations against it's people. Just read a brief snippet of Young Howards great piece:

The sadistic regime led by Kim Jong Il has developed and maintained all kinds of extreme terror machines in order to cruelly suppress any dissident opposition. They range from gulags and the forced abortion of babies of prisoners to public firing squads and execution by burning, though the latter is rare. During the extreme famine of the late 1990s when about 3 million people starved to death in North Korea, public executions were staged nearly every month in every town in order to prevent spontaneous uprisings by the local population, according to Jang Yeop Hwang, the former secretary of North Korea's ruling North Korea Workers' Party. On many occasions, some of the victim's family members came out before the executions and declared: "Though you are my son, you are a traitor and a puppet of imperialists. You therefore deserve your death."

In March, 2005, a video of a public execution in the northern part of North Korea was successfully smuggled out and viewed all over the world. One can see a wooden pole is being set up for the execution before the judge even completes his verdict. The entire process is finished in just 20 minutes with no chance for the condemned to appeal to a higher court or even to defend himself. As part of the execution ritual, stones are placed in the condemned man's mouth to prevent him from shouting criticism of the regime. His legs and arms were already broken. His crime was attempting to help North Korean people flee to China.

If the North Korean leadership is willing to do this to its people, one shudders to think what the regime is likely to do if Kim Jong Il has a bad day especially when he might have some nukes. With this at hand, the World would be better off if Kim Jong Il and his Stalinist police-state no longer existed. After seeing China's weak effort to persuade North Korea to come to the Six Party Talks and South Korea's inability to mark Kim Jong Il as an terrible menace, I think it's time for a reassessment. While I'm not recommending a war with the North Koreans, I think its time to impose harsher sanctions on the North or establish a naval blockade that will cut off their lifeline. I might be "mis-underestimating" President Bush on this one but from the looks of it, Kim Jong Il is sitting on the edge of the shallow end of the diplomatic pool just dipping his feet in the water afraid to get in. If he's waiting for ole GWB to pull him into the shallow end and make a bilateral deal like he did for Clinton and Christopher Perry (that he broke) then he needs better advisors. My suggestion is to remove this stain on humanity before he hurts us. I know in one of the corners of Donald Rumsfeld's or President Bush's desk is a contingency plan for removing Kim Jong Il. Let's leave it to them to figure that one out.

Newsweek creates a problem

Fire of Liberty

As we look at the aftermath in Afghanistan from the report on the Koran in Newsweek(which turned out to be fraudulent), one has to ask the question of what was this news magazine thinking by putting out such a story. Didn't they realize that the various but small contingent of Muslim radicals in Afghanistan and elsewhere would use this story to stir up trouble and create a dangerous situation that resulted in the death of some 14 people. It's amazing that a magazine that has a Mid-East savvy staff and individuals like Fareed Zakaria hanging around (Newsweek International), couldn't find someone to advise them on the possible dangers of putting such a story out for consumption. For a magazine that always professes to know the workings of distant regions and cultures, they seem to be pretty dumb in understanding how important the Koran is to the Muslim World. Maybe this is a little to much to ask for a magazine that might have a handful of people who might attend a Church, Temple or Mosque. Maybe they should read this great article by Lee Harris over at Tech Central Station on how some mild religious slight in the eyes of the fellows at Newsweek and the US is a different creature in the Middle East. He notes that the Koran is taken by Muslims as the true last words and revelations of Allah to the World and should never be destroyed or desecrated. (I'm the same about the desecration of the Bible or the American flag- you just shouldn't do it.) I think Harris put the problem of Newsweek in a clear a concise manner in the following paragraphs:

This complete lack of visceral sympathy with a book that Muslims regard as co-eternal and uncreated, existing at the same ontological level as God Himself, is nothing that we Westerners can overcome, no matter how hard they try to empathize. Yes, many of the moral injunctions of the Koran are uplifting and noble, but the truth is that we Westerners have acquired our tastes in sacred literature from some of the world's most fabulous storytellers, and our expectations have been set high. It would be like asking a man who loved Beethoven's symphonies to gush over a Muzak version of Pepsi jingle.

If I have offended anyone, including Karen Armstrong, I sincerely apologize. But we cannot continue to pretend to venerate what we have no interest in, or sympathy with. Yet, precisely because the Koran is worlds away from us we must always proceed with great caution in dealing with it. For Muslims, dissing the Koran is the hot button of all hot buttons. It is what flag burning is to a construction worker. The proper procedure for dealing with those who insult the Koran is not to investigate the matter in more detail, but to riot in the streets until those who have insulted the Koran have paid the price for this transgression -- and as Salmon Rushdie could tell you, if he stopped attacking the United States for a moment, is that blasphemy against the Koran is a crime that is only suitably punished by death.

Maybe the people at Newsweek are have a very introspective moment and are seeking a better understanding of what makes the Muslim World tick. From what I've heard and seen on TV from the people at Newsweek since Sunday, I pretty much doubt it. Once again, the folks at Newsweek were trying to break a juicy story on Guantanamo and forgot to find a corroborating source. When you begin to forget rules of good journalism, you not only tarnish your own work but endanger the lives of our servicemen in the Middle-East. It's about time that these journalists to stop looking for gotcha moments and think through what they're going to run. What's even worse is that these folks have editors. At least bloggers have the courage to admit problems and correct their mistakes. Hopefully this fact will motivate the MSM. Lets hope.

Bolton has already been trained for UN

Fire of Liberty

Throughout the vast John Bolton saga, we've seen various Senators citing this or that individual in the State Department or the CIA that Mr. Bolton had a run-in with or disagreed with on matters that dealt with WMD programs in places like North Korea and Cuba. Well according to this piece by Thomas Joscelyn in The Weekly Standard there's an understandable reason why Bolton had a problem over Cuba with the likes of CIA analyst Fulton Armstrong. As with a lot of individuals seated in the professional bureaucracy of the CIA and the State Department, Armstrong seems to doubt the threat from Cuba. See for yourself:

One of Armstrong's writings appears in an unclassified edition of the CIA's Studies in Intelligence from 2002. In a piece titled "Sorting Out 'National Interests', Ways to Make Analysis Relevant But Not Prescriptive," Armstrong sorts what politicians and policymakers debate as national interests into "four different types of priorities, only one or two of which are of genuine strategic importance."

Armstrong classifies U.S. policies towards Cuba in the third of these categories and, thus, not of "genuine strategic importance." Under his category titled "sectoral interests," Armstrong explains,

. . . Sometimes issues that do not affect the whole country become elevated to national interest status because of the power of their constituencies. While generally consistent with the national interest, these policy priorities favor one parochial position over others. Their proactive constituencies espouse approaches that their opponents claim overshadow more important issues. Should analysts accept the point of view of narrow interest groups as valid expressions of national interest, when an administration appears to endorse them?

Armstrong then goes on to explain that U.S. foreign policy towards Cuba caters to "narrow interest groups":

On Cuba, senior and mid-level policymakers have barely concealed in the past the fact that a relatively small constituency is the most intense promoter of the "pressure cooker" approach of maintaining the economic embargo, isolating Havana internationally, and promoting internal upheaval. One past Coordinator for Cuban Affairs at the State Department would answer challenges to the government's policy, in open forum, with the answer, "Cuba is first and foremost a domestic political matter." You do not have to be a cynic to see a link between Cuba policy, Florida elections, and campaign finances. Most observers judge that the chance is extremely slim that explosive change on the island--the sectoral interest--would result in stability and democracy--the national interest. But that view continues to underpin the interpretation of our national interests in Cuba.

It's amazing that a CIA analyst could have such a myopic view of such a dangerous state like Cuba. Aside from being a human-rights hell-hole, Cuba has also played an active role in promoting its Marxist revolution throughout South America by supplying money and arms to various terrorists and individuals like Hugo Chavez. Yes, it's true that Cuba is not as pressing as a problem as the Islamic terrorists in the Middle East but it still shouldn't be pushed aside like Armstrong has done.

While Bolton has continued his great work as Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security and sought a clarification of the intelligence reports on countries like Cuba for his speeches or other aspects of the World. Throughout this time, he would hit a brick-wall put up by Armstrong and liked minded individuals who had policies counter to the official US policy. Even with all of the problems, John Bolton has demonstrated his ability to get things done no matter what's thrown at him. If you can survive the entrenched bureaucracy of the State Department and the CIA, you shouldn't have a problem with the UN. No wonder why President Bush wants Bolton to be his man in the UN.

UN Reformer

Fire of Liberty

Mark Steyn has a moving column in The Chicago Sun-Times on why John Bolton is needed at the UN. Steyn notes that Bolton has dealt with the inner workings of the UN and understands how incompetent and inefficient that the system at Turtle Bay has become. Therefore, Bolton is more attuned on how to fix the situation at the institution that has demonstrated failure time and time again. So, we might hear some ruckus about or from Bolton but at least this man will get the job done. Who would have figured that a fellow like Bolton could have ever pushed through a resolution that removed the odious "Zionism = Racism" resolution instituted in the 1970's. I'd say he's a better diplomat that what Joe Biden ever thought of.

Iraq: A Tide Changing Moment

Fire of Liberty

Jack Kelly has an awesome column in The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on how the tide is turning despite the ominous doom being projected by the MSM. Kelly points out that if we can spare a contingent of Marines to fight in western Iraq, then the actual destruction of the insurgency is at hand. Though the vast amount of bombs that have been going off throughtout the major cities of Iraq seems to be a real life "the sky is falling" epidemic, its merely is a last gasp for fresh air. As with a major storm, you will always have a remaining storm cell that releases a big deluge and then all is clear. The terrorists might have a deadly reach right now but it's much smaller now than several weeks ago thanks to the US Marines (all other US soldiers) and the brave Iraqi people. This elimination of the terrorists in Iraq will take some time but at least we're fighting on our terms and not theirs.

Darfur: Where's the UN?

Fire of Liberty

Here's a good column by Peter Worthington in The Toronto Sun on the lack of moral clarity in the UN when it comes to Darfur, Sudan.

V-E Day 2005

Fire of Liberty

When President Bush rightly noted in his recent trip to Eastern Europe the horrors of Yalta and the onslaught of communism that wreaked havoc on Europe, he faced a massive condemnation by the MSM and the likes of Arthur Schlesinger Jr. for besmirching FDR's legacy and our ally the Soviet Union. What we didn't hear from these critics, who continued to cite the 27 million Soviet people who died fighting the Nazi war-machine, is how brutal the Soviets Union actually were to these brave people who defended their nation. Luckily, we have have historians like Max Boot who are willing to point out such left out facts. In his most recent column in The Los Angeles Times, Boot cuts through the MSM gift-wrapped presentation of the Russian half of V-E day and presents a more balanced look at what occurred in Mother Russia. Take a look below:

Stalin was ruthless in rallying support for the war effort. Surrender was declared to be treasonous. Anyone suspected of defeatist or counterrevolutionary sentiments was shot or sentenced to hard labor. During the siege of Stalingrad alone, 13,000 were executed. Though a million inmates were released from prison camps for military service, many more were consigned to the gulag during the war. Millions died at the hands of NKVD secret police.

The Red Army eventually showed considerable skill in mechanized warfare, but right up until the end its commanders were profligate with their men's lives. The Soviets suffered 350,000 casualties in the battle of Berlin in 1945. The butcher's bill could have been lessened by going slower but that would have risked letting the German capital fall into Western hands.

After V-E Day, Stalin was true to his dictum, "We do not have prisoners of war, we only have traitors." Most Russian soldiers liberated from German captivity were sent to the gulag; some were shot outright.

I'd say this is one of Boot's best columns since he started writing in the LA Times.

Poll: Dutch are against EU Constitution

Fire of Liberty

It looks like the Euro-skeptic camp is gaining ground in the Netherlands after reading this piece in the Saturday edition of The Times. Just see for yourself:

Successive polls have shown that the "no" vote is in the lead, but a survey of 16,000 people for Dutch television released yesterday suggested that the gap has widened sharply, with opponents of the constitution outnumbering supporters by almost three to one. It showed that the "no" vote rose from 53 per cent in April to 60 per cent, while the "yes" vote fell from 24 per cent to 21 per cent. The Netherlands was a founding member of the EU.

So even if the French let me and various other Euro-skeptics down on May 29, at least there's hope with the Dutch. I guess they value their national sovereignty more than others. Hopefully the French people will keep their senses and shoot down the EU Constitution. It's amazing how a system that was initially created as a common market has morphed into a supranational behemoth that threatens to wipe away the sovereignty from the states that have made Europe with this atrocious constitution. Also check out this piece in The Daily Telegraph (registration required) on the Dutch vote.

Shocker!!! Ire for US in the World Up

Fire of Liberty

I think that Victor Davis Hanson nips the "Why are we hated in the World," complaint from the left in the bud with this powerful piece over at National Review Online. After reading this passage, I think you will concur:

Think about it. When Europe orders all American troops out; when Japan claims our textbooks whitewash the Japanese forced internment or Hiroshima; when China cites unfair trade with the United States; when South Korea says get the hell off our DMZ; when India complains that we are dumping outsourced jobs on them; when Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinians refuse cash aid; when Canada complains that we are not carrying our weight in collective North American defense; when the United Nations moves to Damascus; when the Arab Street seethes that we are pushing theocrats and autocrats down its throat; when Mexico builds a fence to keep us out; when Latin America proclaims a boycott of the culturally imperialistic Major Leagues; and when the world ignores American books, films, and popular culture, then perhaps we should be worried. But something tells me none of that is going to happen in this lifetime.

When you think all is falling down, leave it to VDH to put things in perspective.

Diplomatic Genius

Fire of Liberty

Here's a great piece in The New York Observer by Richard Brookhiser on President Bush's recent trip to Latvia, Russia, and Georgia. As Brookhiser notes, the various critics are mystified at the various successes that President Bush has achieved via his non-traditional diplomacy. They can't understand why the President can visit Latvia and speak about democracy and the yuck it up with ole Vlad in Russia the next day. I'd say that Brookhiser's laid out a good description of Bush's foreign/diplomatic policy in the following paragraph:

A more important reason for Mr. Bush’s Latvian stopover is ideological. This President is committed to democracy, and liberals who have long loved such rhetoric, as well as conservatives who have long distrusted it, are beginning to realize the fact. Mr. Bush believes the ultimate answer to the Islamist menace is draining the swamps of dictatorship, impotence and self-hatred masked as hatred in the Middle East. He also believes that the way to keep the post-Soviet world on keel is to encourage democratic and anti-imperial tendencies in its component parts. He uses both violence and patience; he has fought two wars, and he is willing to hold a Saudi’s hand. But he seems truly relentless in his approach.

It's amazing what a conservative Texas boy from Harvard Business School can achieve. That just goes to show you that the "diplomatic experts" don't always know what they're talking about.

Spreading Freedom Abroad

Fire of Liberty

Ralph Peters has an excellent column on President Bush's visit to Latvia and Georgia in Tuesday's edition of The New York Post(registration required). As a retired soldier with an extensive knowledge of the former Soviet occupied nations, Peters is able to present an impassioned look at the region that has planted freedom and democracy while Mother Russia has begun its regressive slide to the dark days of the USSR. Though the Russian leadership and various foreign policy pros may find the President's visit to the two countries, speeches saluting their turn to freedom and apologizing for Yalta as a slap in the face of Russia, the people of these nations saw a leader with a genuine desire to promote freedom throughout the World. Just read a bit of Peters' work below:

That's why President Bush's visits to Latvia and Georgia were vital. America finally took a stand against Russia's renewed aggression.

To us, these were brief stops, minor footnotes to history. But to the people of the Baltic states and the Caucasus, they confirmed their right to independence. Our president didn't mince words. He denounced the tragic outcome of the Yalta summit and stated clearly that the Soviets had been unwanted occupiers.

Bush's words and deeds mattered immensely. We must make up for time lost during the Clinton years, when incompetent "friends of Bill" insisted that our future lay with Russia — which was bound to become a model democracy. The newly independent states were treated as nuisances. And Moscow began to lust for a restored empire.

While cooperating rationally with Moscow, Bush made a vital course correction. First by supporting popular revolutions in Ukraine and Kyrgystan, and now by digging his heels into the soil of two brave countries — despite the Kremlin's protests. Our president brought us back to the American tradition of sticking up for the little guy.

I hope the trend towards democracy increases in the region and other areas that are darkened by tyranny. From the looks of things, this quest for freedom seems to have caught on.

The Rising Dragon

Fire of Liberty

While people in the media are carrying on about the possible dangers that President Bush has sparked within Russia with his promotion of freedom in the Baltic states and in the former Soviet republics, few have overlooked a more dangerous problem which is China. According to this column in The Christian Science Monitor by John Hughes, the Asian dragon is becoming a major player in the region with its growing economy and military. When your economy is steadily chugging along at such a large pace and you have a 12.6 percent increase in your defense budget, you generally attract the eyes of your neighbors as well as the US. While we are a long way from a confrontation (hopefully we never will) with China, Hughes believes we still have a great interest in this emerging giant. Just read a few paragraphs from Hughes great piece on what the US should do in order to deal with China:

In recent days, Japan, Australia, and Taiwan have felt the verbal wrath of this new and self-confident China. India, no slouch itself in economic growth, is watching anxiously a Chinese economy that has come to dominate low-cost manufacturing and has made extraordinary inroads into the US market.

While the US is not, geographically, an Asian power, it has long been, and should remain, a key player in that region. It should be cautious about helping China's military buildup (European Union please note). It should press for human rights improvement in China, while engaging China as an ally in efforts to curb North Korea's nuclear-weapons development. It should spur America's competitive capacity with better education, particularly graduating more homegrown engineers and scientists. A friend tells me that when his daughter graduated from Columbia recently she was the only American in her group of 20 PhDs.

It is wise to keep an eye on the Russian bear, but as important to be vigilant with the Chinese dragon.

I can assure you that the Pentagon has reams of data on China and are constantly updating their strategic strategy in case of a showdown.

Uyghur Struggle

Fire of Liberty

Nury Turkel has a great article over at National Review Online on the Uyghurs of northwest China and their daily struggle for religious, political, and social rights that are being repressed by the PRC. If you want to see a demonstration of how cruel China is to its various religious/cultural minorities, then this is a good first step. Luckily, the Uyghur people have individuals like Turkel who provide them with a great link to the outside World of what is occurring in the northwest corner of China. Please check out the article and look at the Uyghur American Association on these proud people battling the forces of an authoritarian China.

Tory Party Future

Fire of Liberty

I know I was off about Howard and the Tories winning the UK parliament but I got it right on the election being close and the Tories gaining seats in the House of Commons. I still would have enjoyed Howard staying on and leading the opposition instead pushing the Tories into another semi-wilderness period. I think that five different leaders for the Tories since 1997 is pretty sad. They need to find someone and stick with instead of bouncing around because stability breeds confidence in the voters mind. Stability and the ability to present ideas rather than calling people "liars," is a sure way of getting elected. Hopefully they'll get on track sometime soon. From the looks of the news here, here and here they might just be doing such.

Another Reason Why you Should Vote "No" on EU

Fire of Liberty

As the French and the Dutch contemplate voting "yes" or "no" on the EU Referendum at the end of this month, the Members of the European Parliament have provided a good reason why they should vote no. According to this article in The Financial Times, the MEP has struck a blow to the UK economy by voting 378-262 to eliminate the UK's opt-out from the EU's 48 hour work week. It's a crying shame that a sovereign nation cannot even make changes to their work week because a supranational body like the MEP and the Council of Ministers decide they know best. Throughout my years of studying governments, I can say that the national government of the UK has a better knowledge of their own economy and the people who work in these various businesses rather than the 640 member MEP which also has members from all of the 25 member nation's of the EU. You can't put a national policy like this is in the hands of a massive organization like the EU bureaucracy which doesn't have to answer to the UK voting public come election time.

As a small-government conservative, I know that an economy that has too many regulations like the MEP has imposed on the UK is doomed to fail. When a company can only work someone for only 48 hours in a week they will become highly constrained and unable to get the productivity that they could get from workers who were willing to work for more hours a get paid overtime. A person should not be restrained on how many hours they can work because the MEP's from other nations believe that they should. One only has to look at France and it's 35 hour work rules to understand how damaging these rules are to an economy. With these rules, the French economy has been basically put into an enormous stall that has amassed an atrocious un-employment rate of 10 percent. With so many constraints on the amount of time a worker can work in France, the various businesses can't keep up with their competitors from other nations because they usually experience a massive cut back on their production thus prompting the owners to pick up stakes and move to a more business friendly nation.

If the French would only lift such a constrictive policy and create a more friendly environment for these businesses and allow a flexible work schedule, they would experience a stratospheric boost to the economy with companies returning to France. One only has to look at the US and various other nations that don't have such tight restrictions and see how they have low unemployment numbers, growing economies and workers taking home more income because they're getting paid overtime. I guess this is what happens when various socialist members of the government has their claws in what goes on in these nations. What's more worrisome is the fact that the MEP is filled with socialists who are more than willing to find ways to constrain the more successful nations and their flexible work rules.

I hope the UK can convince the various member states who have flexible work rules to side with it in the 25 EU Council of Ministers and remove such a odious breech of national sovereignty which blights a nation's economy. One can only imagine what these MEP's could think up next or impose on the 25 member states of the EU. This decision by the MEP's should be a big flashing example of why the French and Dutch should vote "non" and "neen" at the end of this month. Losing one's sovereignty is a huge price to pay to join the EU.

Russia

Fire of Liberty

Leon Aron, who is the resident scholar and director of Russian studies at the American Enterprise Institute, has written a wonderful Op/Ed in yesterday's USA Today on the current situation in Russia under Putin. If you want to truly understand the state of democracy in Russia, the Leon Aron is the one to read. I think Aron makes a very good point about the reason why this visit and the President's words are so important:

Even in the Soviet days, U.S. public opinion mattered a great deal to the Kremlin, especially when conveyed by a U.S. president at face-to-face summit meetings. The Russians want acceptance in the world of the "civilized" nations, such as at the Group of Eight economic summits, where the U.S. is the major sponsor of Russia's membership. For all its talk about "multipolar" world and protests against "hegemony" (a euphemism for U.S. dominance), Moscow and Russian people alike look to the United States (and not to France or Germany or China) as a model of economic might and political stability. Partnership with the U.S. is important to the Russian national pride.

The Russia visit gives Bush an opportunity to try to leverage this influence. In addition to expressing his concerns about the re-centralization in politics and economy at the private dinner with Putin on Sunday night, Bush would have been wise to raise the stakes by concentrating Putin's mind on the importance for the U.S. government and public opinion of the 2008 Russian presidential election. Its freedom and fairness will be crucial for U.S. acceptance. Any underhanded efforts to secure the outcome contrary to the will of the people — such as the actions taken in neighboring Ukraine — will not only mean the end of U.S. partnership, but will also turn Russia into an international pariah.

The fact that the Russians have great respect for the opinion of the US has not gone un-noticed in the White House. Just look at the various speeches in which President Bush called for Russia to reform itself and push for greater democratic freedoms rather than this slow return to centrally controlled nation in the hands of a select few. Hopefully, the people in Russia were able to hear President Bush's support of democracy and freedom and have taken heart that the "main man" of DC knows what's up.

Very good stuff. Also check out Aron' book Yeltsin: A Revolutionary Life. (Though he was a drunk, Yeltsin was still more of a democrat than Putin has been.)

Our Brave Soldiers

Fire of Liberty

After reading several articles on our servicemen and women in The Christian Science Monitor, I am more convinced that our military will remain on top for generations to come. Whether it's their ability to adapt to very fluid situations on the ground during the heat of battle, learning complicated languages or a pure determination to get things done and bring the buddies home. You just gotta love 'em. See here and here.

Bolton Time

Fire of Liberty

Jed Babbin has a great column in today's edition of The New York Post on the ongoing battle within the Senate Foreign Relations Committee over Secretary Bolton's confirmation to the UN. Just look what Mr. Babbin has to say:

We should have learned a lesson from the days of Moynihan and Kirkpatrick. When we send a tough-talking ambassador to the U.N., it doesn't end the nitwittery there — but it can at least expose it.

That lesson was lost in the last two decades. Rather than using the U.N. as a bully pulpit to condemn the worst in the world, our U.N. diplomats have been very . . . diplomatic. Even as the United Nations failed to act against the Rwandan genocide of the late 1980s — or the Sudanese genocide of today.

Which brings us back to John Bolton. Bolton is no bully, but precisely the kind of person who can use the U.N. as a bully pulpit. As the president said at his recent press conference, "John Bolton is a blunt guy. Sometimes people say I'm little too blunt. . . . If you're interested in reforming the U.N. like I'm interested in reforming the U.N., it makes sense to put somebody who's skilled and who's not afraid to speak his mind at the United Nations."

If Bolton's not available, how about Babbin?

Head to the East George

Fire of Liberty

It great that some nations like Latvia have not forgotten the contribution the US made towards the spread of freedom in Eastern Europe during the Cold War. Just read these paragraphs from this article in The Financial Times:

Arturs Krisjanis Karins, the economics minister, said: “The overall sense is one of great pride that we as a country can again host a president.”

Liene Kule, senior analyst at Hansa Bank in Riga, said: “Some people are negative because of the security restrictions but there's also a positive feeling that this will further enhance our relationship with the US long-term.”

The country, bounded to the west by the Baltic Sea and to the east by Russia, was annexed by the Soviet Union at the end of the second world war. For the next 50 years, a country that had been a founding member of the League of Nations was just another brick in the Soviet empire, with its cultural identity suppressed, its flag banned and its population almost swamped by Russian-speaking immigrants.

“We were an oppressed people in slavery to a dictatorship,” said Vaira Vike-Freiberga, Latvia's charismatic president, in a televised speech yesterday. And this, she added, explained why Latvians were today extending Mr Bush such a hearty welcome.

Riga's streets are festooned with flags, dilapidated buildings have been spruced up and Mr Bush will Saturday have Latvia's highest award the Three-Star Order pinned to his chest.

See, we're not as hated around the World like various politicians and pundits claim we are. If I was planning a trip to Europe, I'd head towards Eastern Europe rather than France or Germany. Expect President Bush to visit these Eastern European nations even more during his term.

Paul Wolfowitz

Fire of Liberty

Here's a great but long piece by Stephen F. Hayes on Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz over at The Weekly Standard. If you want to get a reasonable assessment of Wolfowitz that is free of the conspiracy theory "neo-con cabal," then this is the best article to read. I'll let you judge for yourself.

I wish Secretary Wolfowitz all the best as he goes forth as the President of the World Bank.

EU a threat to European Nation-States

Fire of Liberty

I just want to add a few more thoughts about the recent statements by Margot Wallstrom on the EU. For one thing, she notes that the continued insistence of one's pride for their nation and the devotion to national sovereignty is one of the chief causes of WWII, thus the need for a United States of Europe. The only problem with this is that the supranational body that Wallstrom is promoting is actually modeled around the grandiose ideas of Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin. All of these individuals wanted and darn well tried to gather all of the nations of Europe into one super-state under their domain and wipe away the identity and cultures of these nations. Though these three leaders used force and their militaries to expand their sphere of power, they still attempted to make a super-state out of these individual nation, like the people at the EU high command are promoting.

I can assure you if you asked a person in France, Germany, Spain or even Sweden if they identified themselves as a native of their individual nations or a European, they would identify themselves as being either French, German, Spanish or Swedish. They would also argue with you until they turn blue in their native tongues that they also had a different heritage, culture and history than the other nations in Europe. No matter how you cut it, people throughout the world have a great pride in their nation and generally don't like to cede their nation's power or sovereignty to another nation or an entity like the EU.

I think that Wallstrom would be really upset if someone from Romania imposed a 15% Flat tax , slashed the enormous welfare state and changed the various socially liberal laws of Sweden, she would be jumping up and down yelling that isn't fair. Well, the same applies to the people of France, the Netherlands and the UK who seem to be adamantly opposed to joining a super-state, which over-rules all decisions that their national assemblies or parliaments have made for the voting public. Even in the United States under the concept of federalism, the federal government is restrained to certain powers via the US Constitution with the states retaining the powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution. (Though some would beg to differ). Unlike the US, the nation-states in Europe don't have a constitution which is based on the people's rights but the government's rights. You can truly see why the people of Europe are leery of entering a union that takes all of the power from their hands and places it in the hands of the bureaucrats who spend half the year in France and the other half in Brussels giving out commands from on high without the worry of facing a defeat in an upcoming election.

Even if the EU survives in the upcoming referendums, the strong Atlanticist relationship (Aside from the spat over Iraq) between the various countries in Europe and the United States will be forever darkened if not destroyed by this huge EU construct. I'd say that David Frum had a good way of noting the dissolution of the European/US relationship in today's Frum Diary over at National Review Online:

For half a century, the Western world has found freedom, security and prosperity in an alliance between the United States and a Europe of sovereign states. Today that Europe is dissolving itself into a new kind of union - and as a result, the American-European partnership is daily becoming weaker, more difficult, more embittered. It's not too late for Americans to recall to mind their national stake in European national independence, including German independence - and to recall too that national independence is sustained by national pride, including German national pride.

So, I'd say to all of the people of Europe to be prideful of their nation's culture, heritage and history and recognize that Wallstrom represents the general consensus of the leadership in Brussels. She can forewarn of the return to the turmoil of the 1930's and 1940's but I think the people of Europe are well aware of the of the horrors of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Fascist Spain, the Balkans as well as the Soviet Union to know when their pride has stretched into extremism. Maybe the knowledge of what an institution or leader with absolute power can do to the people is the reason why the people of France, the Netherlands, and the UK are leaning towards "non," "neen," and "no," in the EU Constitutional referendum.

Something stinks in Brussels

Fire of Liberty

It's amazing what extremes the bureaucrats in Brussels will go to keep people in the various European nations like France, the Netherlands and various others from voting "no" on the EU Constitution. To show you how desperate they have become, just look at what The Daily Telegraph say Margot Wallstrom and her fellow EU commissioners are up to now:

Mrs Wallstrom, vice-president of the commission for institutional relations and communications, was speaking in the former Jewish ghetto of Terezin in the Czech Republic.

She blamed the Second World War on "nationalistic pride and greed, and … international rivalry for wealth and power". The EU had replaced such rivalry with an historic agreement to share national sovereignty.

Her fellow commissioners also issued a joint declaration, stating that EU citizens should pay tribute to the dead of the Second World War by voting Yes to the draft constitution for Europe.

The commissioners also gave the EU sole credit for ending the Cold War, making no mention of the role of Nato and the United States.

I hope the people in France, the Netherlands and the UK take a long look at the people who will be running the EU Super-State and check no on the ballots in their forthcoming EU referendums. From the looks of it, the EU construct is beginning to unravel before our eyes, with people like Margot Wallstrom running the show it might be sooner rather than later.

Fire of Liberty

Fire of Liberty
Dear Readers,

I apologize for the lack of posts but I've been under the weather this week, so expected limited posts this weekend. I'll be back to normal sometime next week.

Thanks,
John R. Starley Jr.

Democracy Movement in Iran is Waiting for its Tipping Point

Fire of Liberty

Michael Ledeen has a good piece over @ National Review Online on the situation in Iran and how the State Department and the White House seems to have slacked off in effectively promoting democracy in Iran. As Ledeen notes, the terror masters of Iran poses a greater threat to the democratic movements in Iraq and Lebanon because it whole-heartedly supports and trains the various terrorists who are wreaking havoc in Iraq as well as the support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, which is the most blood soaked terrorists in the Muslim world. Along with the training and support of these terrorists, the Iranian government continues its crackdown to stifle all types of opposition that traverse the streets of the various cities in the ancient Persian nation. Just read what Ledeen has to say about the horrible Tiananmen Square like crack-down that the regime has participated in these past months:

Worst of all, from the standpoint of the terror masters, the ultimate threat — freedom — is growing stronger, just as the president wishes, and freedom is spreading even though, despite his constant promises to support democratic revolution, he is doing virtually nothing to help it. He, along with Secretaries Rice and Rumsfeld, has not rallied to the side of the Iranian people, even though the Iranians have abundantly demonstrated their desire to be rid of the mullahs. Two weeks ago there were massive demonstrations and work stoppages in the oil-rich regions, centering around the city of Ahwaz. The demonstrators called for an end to the regime, scores of people were killed, and hundreds were beaten and arrested. On May Day, workers again demonstrated against the regime, this time in all the major cities. In Tehran, strongman and likely president-in-waiting Hashemi Rafsanjani was hooted down by the crowd, and pictures of him and Supreme Leader Khamenei were torn down and trampled. Yet no one in the American Government spoke a word of support for the demonstrators, and no one has yet endorsed the one thing that unites the overwhelming majority of Iranians, whatever their political proclivities: a national referendum on the legitimacy of the regime itself. If there were a national ballot on the single question "Do you want an Islamic republic?" the regime would pass into history overnight. But there is silence in official Washington.

The anti-Rafsanjani demonstrations are very important, because Rafsanjani will soon formally declare his candidacy for the presidency. Elections are scheduled for June, and the regime is desperate to "prove" its standing with the people. To that end, they will use force and trickery to produce a huge voter turnout. They will compel all government employees and all military personnel to go to the polls, and they will spread rumors (if you don't vote, you'll never get an exit visa; if you don't vote, your family members will be punished, etc.) to bring the unwilling to vote. The mullahs know that many millions of Iranians plan to boycott the elections, in a kind of silent demonstration of contempt.

What seems to be amiss is that the Bush administration seems to have slacked off in our active participation of supporting the fight for freedom and democracy in Iran. Through the various reports from the bloggers, dissidents, and available news sources within Iran, the White House and the State Department should have a well of information that the Fire of Liberty has been burning in the souls of the young people of Iran (70% of the 65 million people are under 30) for a considerable amount of time and are waiting for more than a statement about our support but some actual moves on our part. It's time for us to beef up our moral, political and diplomatic support for the various dissidents and true-democrats and not those who are quoted as "reformers" by certain members of the media and diplomatic core. The democratic movement within and outside of Iran needs a Cold-War like commitment (Poland) from this nation to ensure that they are not forced to live more decades under the mullah's jack-boot.

The President and Secretary Rice need to publicly support the people of Iran by spotlighting the horrors of the regime, inviting various dissidents of the mullah's regime to the White House, pointing out the various democratic movement's leaders within Iran to let the regime know we are watching and these people and it would be in the mullah's best interests to leave them alone (Such worked with Natan Sharansky, Andrei Sakarov, Lech Walesa, Havel and various other Soviet Dissidents) and we need to restart the US Information Agency to help ensure that the people in Iran get the various works on democracy and freedom that was very helpful to the various dissidents during the Cold-War (Radio Farsi is a joke at the moment because it's more top 40 and not NPR like (Information wise not the lefty politics)). Luckily, the young people have mastered their own underground press through the Internet, text messengers, blogs, as well as the various dissident pro-democracy TV programs that are beamed to Iran via satellite.

Though they might have these technological wonders, this democratic movement in Iran needs President Bush to give them help to shove aside the mullah. Unlike Iraq, the regime in Tehran can be knocked off its pedestal by the people of Iran if the leadership of the US just devotes more energy to support the democratic movement in Iran. Though we are focused on Iran's nukes and the current E3 negotiations over scrapping this program, the best way to ensure that the mullah's never use them is to get rid of the regime. A peaceful democracy is far better than a terrorist state with nukes and ties to Hezbollah. So get off your duff and pass forward another flame of freedom into one more darkened corner in the Outposts of Tyranny.

After reading Ledeen's piece, I found this article in The Financial Times that seems to show that someone in the Bush White House or Dr. Rice staff have been reading Mr. Ledeen's work. I just wished the number was in the 100's of millions instead of a paltry $3 million.

The Numbers, They are a Changin'

Fire of Liberty

Here's a book review of the demographic hits Fewer and The Empty Cradle by Mark Krikorian in the Spring 2005 issue of The Clermont Review of Books. Looks like a good one.

UK Election Eve: A Time for Choosing

Fire of Liberty

As we wait to see the results in tomorrow's UK Election, I thought you'd like to see Andrew Stuttaford's great overview of the UK's Election over at National Review Online. While he's come to the conclusion that Blair will probably pull off a win in tomorrow's election, he still argues that the UK would be better off if it rejects Blair for the Tories, which offer a better future than the wacky Liberal-Democrats. Stuttaford notes that their are three specific reasons why the UK should push Blair and Labour aside.

The first reason to vote for the Tories is to offer a more scandal free government than what Labour has produced these past eight years. Secondly, you have a flawed economy that looks good for the press but is really a socialistic mess. Whether it is a the tax rates reaching a twenty-five year high, 13.4% of GDP spent on debt, private saving dropped by half, 850,000 new jobs created in the public sector (on UK people's dole), ever increasing inflation as well as an excessive regulatory burden on the private sector, the UK seems to be falling backward rather than moving forward, like Blair promised in 1997 and 2001. One can almost choke on the Clement Attlee socialism wafting through the British Isle. It's a shame that Brown and Blair have besmirched the legacy of Thatcher by claiming they are modeling her economic policy. Remember, she saved the UK from all of this socialistic non-sense that Blair and Brown are currently imposing on the UK. And last but not least, Blair and Brown will take the UK down a path to a further integrating into the European Union thus ceding the UK's sovereignty to the unelected bean-counters in Brussels.

All of these reasons should give the UK voting public an insight into what a win for Labour will bring to their nation. At least the Tories who will ensure that the UK will still be it's own nation making its own political/social/military decisions. Though the odds are stacked up against them, the Tories still might have a chance if the British people share at least some of Stuttaford's beef with Labour. We'll know sometimes tomorrow night if the people are willing to go Tory Blue or stay Labour red (Don't know why Republican's aren't Blue, I guess it's red because that was Reagan's favorite color) It might not be a solid blue but it'll at least be more purple in the UK tomorrow.

The only thing that needs to be done is that the UK needs to add more color and a better debate in the next election cycle, see here.

UK Needs More Nukes

Fire of Liberty

I found the pro-nuclear power Leader in today's edition of The Times. While the "Green Lobby" and Prime Minister Blair continue to raise an alarm about Global Warming by implementing Kyoto and replacing coal/LNG fired power-plants with large wind farms and bio-mass fuel, the fail to notice that nuclear energy would be a better way to prevent the release of these climate changing contaminates. So instead of building an efficient, durable and pollutant free energy source, the Greens would rather destroy the beautiful countryside or coastline with large metallic turbines that will kill birds or large bio-mass farms taking up valuable living space. Know tell me what is environmentally sound about these approaches on behalf of the "Greens." At least with nuclear energy and the newly designed power-plants that reduce the amount of waste, the UK can go about limiting the emissions. The solution is nuclear power but Blair is too beholden to the Green lobby to do anything. As with most problems in this World the viable solutions get clouded over by meddling politicians.

UK Election: Uncertainties exist for Labour Landslide

Fire of Liberty

Here's John O'Sullivan's latest article on the UK Election over at National Review Online. He notes that even though Blair and Labour are destined for a win on May 5, they will probably run into some serious voter speedbumps that could rock the party to the core. O'Sullivan points out that these speedbumps can be summed up in several factors which include 1. Mixed polls -showing Labour up big and up by a small margin-demonstrates that voters willing to change horses, 2. Polls understate Tories share of seats- Last 3 elections Tories gained more than Labour, 3. Multi-Parties on ballots make projections even harder-Party, 4. Low voter turnout, and finally, you have to worry about the "marginal seats" which have voted with Labour since 1997 but have become dishearted by rising crime, NHS, immigration and taxes that they could migrate to the Tories. All of these combined will make a big difference in raising the chances of a Tory win or a greater than expected showing come Thursday night. Though Tony Blair deserves our praise in his steely support of the US during the Iraq War, my heart still yearns for a Tory return to 10 Downing Street to ensure that the UK stays out of the EU and Gordon Brown and the lefty-loonies don't wrestle the reigns of power from Blair some months or years down the road. You might think things are rocky between the US and Europe but you haven't seen anything compared to what awaits us when Brown takes over.

Also check out this piece from The Financial Times on the "marginal seats"-what's better known as Middle England -who have become disillusioned by Labour. It's an interesting insight into British politics and reminds me of the US election of 2000 when states carried by Clinton in 96 were carried by Bush some four years later. Expect a big discussion on the how Blair lost these voters in the post election coverage.

Time to End Judicial Filibusters

Fire of Liberty

I'd have to say that Bill Kristol has written one of the best pieces in The Weekly Standard on why the Senate Republicans have the right and should enact a rule change on judicial nominations. Though Frist has been wary to pull the trigger on these rule changes for various reasons like the lack of 51 votes or the weary Republicans who fear the Democrats will be unrestrained if they ever regain control of the Senate, the majority leader still has got to enact such changes for the good of our Judicial Branch especially with the possibility of having to appoint another Justice and Chief Justice to the Supreme Court this summer. One thing I can assure you of is that if the Democrats ever retake the Senate and the White House, they will surely change the rules on Judicial nominees to get their judges approved. Let me offer a bit of advice to Senator Frist: "Bill, this is no time to go wobbly."

Europe: A Dying Soul?

Fire of Liberty

George Weigel wrote a wonderful commentary in Sunday's edition of The Los Angeles Times on the continuing decline of Europe's population. Here's a sample of this great piece:

Europe, and especially Western Europe, is suffering from a crisis of civilizational morale. The most dramatic manifestations are not Europe's fondness for governmental bureaucracy or its devotion to fiscally shaky healthcare schemes and pension plans, its lagging productivity or the appeasement mentality that some leaders display toward Islamist terrorism. No, the most dramatic manifestation is the brute fact that Europe is depopulating itself.

Europe's below-replacement-level birthrates have created situations that would have been unimaginable when the European Common Market was being created in the 1950s. As recent demographic studies show, by the middle of the 21st century, 60% of Italians will have no personal experience of a brother, a sister, an aunt, an uncle or a cousin; Germany will lose the equivalent of the population of the former East Germany; and Spain's population will decline by almost one-quarter.

Europe is depopulating itself in numbers greater than at any time since the Black Death of the 14th century. When an entire continent, healthier, wealthier and more secure than ever before, fails to create the human future in the most elemental sense — by creating the next generation — something serious is afoot.

I'd have to say that Europe needs to address this problem soon our it will severely damage the integrity of Western Civilization. Unfortunately, Weigel notes further in his piece that this could be the least of Europe's worries.

Iraq: A Democratic Oasis in a Deadly Desert

Fire of Liberty

First thing first, I'd like to offer an enormous congratulations to the newly democratically elected government which was officially formed today. After decades of tyranny and oppression, the Iraqi people can finally begin their Pheonixesque rise and demonstrate how an oasis of democracy can emerge in a desert of tyranny. I wish them a good future and hope their path to democracy continues and has a domino effect in the region like it has in Lebanon. While a lot of people in the media have pointed to the extensive time lapse between the Jan 30, 2005 election and the formation of the government today as an example of the Iraqi democracy project on life support, Amir Taheri begs to differ. According to Taheri's column in yesterday's New York Post, the delay was actually an example of a working democracy in a multi-party parliamentary system like Iraq. During this extensive period, the various parties were sorting out their party leadership, negotiating on the various governmental posts and the formation of a coalition government that respects smaller minorities, all of which is needed to ensure that Iraq starts off on the right path. Here's a sample of what Taheri says has conspired since January 30, 2005:

The last two weeks of February were thus taken up by horse-trading within the United Iraqi Alliance, the principal Shiite bloc backed by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani.

The key issue was the choice of a prime minister.

There were four candidates in the field, representing the four main blocs within the alliance. At one point, all the groups went to Sistani and asked him to choose the prime minister. He refused — because he wanted the new leadership to remain accountable only to the Iraqi electorate.

Once al-Jaafari had been chosen as a compromise candidate for premiership, the fight started over who should fill the other key posts of the new administration, notably the three-man presidential council, the speakership of the parliament, and the key ministries.

THE task was further complicated by the Transition Administration Law (TAL) left behind by Paul Bremer, the American "pasha" who ruled the country until the transfer of power to Premier Iyad Allawi's interim government last June. The TAL requires that all key positions be agreed upon with a two-third majority.

Theoretically, the united Shiite list and its Kurdish counterpart, which together do have a two-third majority in the parliament, could have filled all the posts as they pleased. They decided not to do so because they knew that Iraq's fragile democracy needed the largest possible measure of participation if it is to defeat its armed enemies.

Thus the entire month of March was devoted to negotiations between the leaders of the Shiite and Kurdish lists.

Reaching consensus was not easy. The Kurds insisted to retain a right of veto under any future constitution. They also refused to disband their separate armies, known as the "Peshmerga," despite the fact that they had de facto control over the Defense Ministry. At the same time, the Kurds continued to press their claim to Kirkuk and taking measures to change its ethnic composition to their own advantage.

UNDER other circumstances, any of these issues could have led not only to a breakdown of coalition talks but to civil war. The fact that the worst did not happen is to the credit of Iraq's new pluralist system, in which problems could be resolved through negotiations and compromise rather than fighting and ethnic cleansing.

We can sit hear in the comfort of our homes or in the TV studios or halls of Congress and complain all day about how Iraq is moving too slow in forming a government but we also need to understand that this is an Iraqi decision by Iraqis who know the political plumbing of their country more than we do. You'd have to say that a three month delay is well worth the wait for a nation that lived under Saddam's jack-boot for a generation or more. Remember that the US went some thirteen years until it drafted the Constitution, so a three month wait in Iraq is a miracle. So keep up the good work in Iraq.