News
Striving For Mediocrity Thomas Kilgannon
2006 03 30
Striving For Mediocrity
By Thomas P. Kilgannon
March 30, 2006
Last week, UN Ambassador John Bolton, cast a lonely ballot when he voted against the creation of the United Nation’s new Human Rights Council. In so doing, he expressed the belief of the Bush administration that the UN can do a better job of promoting human rights than it has in recent years when, for example, it allowed Libya—a state sponsor of terrorism—to set the international human rights agenda.
“We must not let history remember us as the architects of a Council that was a ‘compromise’ and merely ‘the best we could do’ rather than one that ensured doing all we could do to promote human rights,” Bolton said.
But the administration’s belief that the UN can do better is rooted more in optimism than in reality. The concept of excellence is one with which most UN bureaucrats are not familiar. If the institution were to undergo an extreme makeover—as it is in the process of doing under the title “UN Reform,”—it might rise from failure to mediocrity. That was evident when the General Assembly voted 170-4 last week to brush aside American concerns about poor huddled masses yearning to be free, and engaged in diplomatic drivel which resulted in little more than a name change of a failed and disgraced human rights institution.
The day began at the United Nations as it often does—with the Venezuelan and Cuban delegations seeking recognition to denounce the United States. When they were finished with their anti-American rants, the member states voted to create the new Human Rights Council which was empowered to work “towards the prevention of human rights violations and respond promptly to human rights emergencies.” But such declarations are laughable from an institution which can not even recognize that genocide is taking place under its nose in Darfur, Sudan.
The Council, we are told, will “make recommendations with regard to the promotion and protection of human rights.” But the only country that has drawn the ire of UN human rights inspectors of late is the United States. In February, the UN issued a scathing report about how poorly prisoners were being treated by U.S. military personnel at the terrorist detention facility in Guantanamo Bay. What is interesting to note is that the “inspectors” who wrote the report never bothered to visit Gitmo. They undoubtedly obtained their “facts” from Air America.
The new human rights Council promises to conduct its business in a “transparent” manner, but only after its members have been elected by a secret ballot. The only substantive change is that the new Council will have six fewer members than the old Commission. But membership remains “open to all Member States of the United Nations” including Saudi Arabia where women are repressed. Zimbabwe is eligible for membership even though the Mugabe government is carrying out Operation Murambatsvina which means “Clean out the Trash.” Under this program, hundreds of thousands have lost their homes or businesses. Even Iran, which is openly advocating another Holocaust is eligible to sit on the new Human Rights Council and cast judgment on the human rights records of other nations.
Bolton advocated stronger reforms to the human rights apparatus including a prohibition on membership for rights abusers and placing an emphasis on quality of membership, not quantity, by allowing no more than twenty nations to serve. These and other good suggestions were promptly dismissed by countries who, in Kofi Annan’s words, still seek membership “not to strengthen human rights but to protect themselves against criticism or to criticize others.”
The UN’s failure to promote human rights, coupled with its various scandals, has lead to some of the institution’s worst approval ratings in its history. A recent Gallup poll found that only 30 percent of the American public think the United Nations is doing a “good job”—a number that has steadily declined over the past three years.
Ambassador Bolton was right to reject the UN’s fraudulent alternative to the failed Human Rights Commission. But the Bush administration should have gone further and withheld funding for the new institution until member states proved that they would elect only those countries that would take seriously the promotion of human rights, and who themselves have strong records on the issue.
To view this article online, click here.
Former Judge Charles Pickering Sr. signs books, gives talk
2006 03 27
Former Judge Charles Pickering Sr. signs books, gives talk
By Leesha Faulkner, Managing Editor 03/26/2006
When retired federal Judge Charles Pickering Sr. talks about the filibuster that retired him, a little bitterness creeps into his voice.
He holds the leftists in favor of abortion and redefinition of marriage responsible for his retirement.
A group of notables and friends listened Friday night to Pickering, 69, discuss his trials in failing to hold onto President George W. Bush’s recess appointment to the Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
“Ink on a recess commission is like Cinderella’s carriage,” Pickering said. “It disappears after some time.”
Pickering autographed copies of his book, “Supreme Chaos: The Politics of Judicial Confirmation & the Culture War” at Turnrow Book Co. on Howard Street.
The book talks about the confirmation woes of the former judge from Laurel. In it, he calls the struggle over the court seat “part of the larger culture war in America.”
By that, Pickering referred to one side as those who support religious values and those who support the secular. He identifies the players on both sides in his book. The battlefield: Congress.
The onetime politician who ran for governor on the GOP ticket said he’s out of politics. “I’ll leave that up to Chip,” Pickering said of his son, a Republican congressman who represents the Third District in Mississippi.
The author believes a political move in 1976 that had the Mississippi Republican delegation taking a position against abortion drove his opponents in Congress last year to attack him for the Court of Appeals confirmation.
Yet, Pickering said, the opposition spent so much of its time and energy on appellate judges that they lost momentum by the time Bush made his U.S. Supreme Court nominations of John G. Roberts Jr. for chief justice and Samuel Alito for justice.
“In the long run, we won,” Pickering said.
The proud grandfather of 21, Pickering says he’s working on a second book - a sequel to “Supreme Chaos,” that will speak to his personal journey and a possible solution to the politics of the judiciary.
To view this article online click here.
The State Department v. Congress
2006 03 09
The State Department v. Congress
Mar 9, 2006
by Martha Zoller
There is no doubt that diplomats are great patriots. One only has to walk into the State Department to see that many diplomats have given their lives in service to their country and earned a tremendous amount of respect. Sometimes, however, I wonder which side they are on. They often favor the status quo over real progress, and they respond to Congress as if Congress was the adversary, rather than one of the three equal branches of government.
At the end of last year, in a very hard-fought compromise—and with a close party divide in Congress, they are all hard-fought compromises—H.R. 3057, the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006, included an amendment, Section 583. It dealt with the cooperation of countries that receive foreign aid from the United States to facilitate the extradition of indicted suspects from their countries back to the United States for trial and, if convicted, for sentencing.
This amendment applied to all countries but was especially designed for the Mexican government, which consistently allows criminal suspects to seek safe haven in Mexico. The amendment states that no money made available in this Act for the Department of State, other than funds earmarked for “International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement,” may be used to aid the federal government of any country that has an extradition treaty with the United States. These governments must notify the Department of State of their refusals to extradite any individual indicted for a criminal offense if the maximum penalty is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The only exception to this is if the Secretary of State verifies for the Committees on Appropriations that applying this restriction is contrary to the national interest of the United States.
Simply stated, countries that have extradition treaties with the United States must comply with those treaties and allow indicted suspects to be extradited back to the United States to face trial or else the country will not receive foreign aid. Congress made an exception of funds designated for Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement, but any other funds would be withheld. In particular, there were several cases of law enforcement officers being killed by illegal immigrants from across the border who fled back to Mexico. Congress did make the concession: if convicted, the suspects would get a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
Even that wasn’t good enough for the State Department. Last week, the State Department notified Congress that they were giving a blanket waiver to all countries on the matter of extradition. Thus, the State Department is ignoring the law that requires countries to comply with their extradition treaties in return for foreign aid. It was a slap in the face for Congress, and that slap would be understood if the Executive Branch and Congress were controlled by different parties, but they are not.
“This amendment was a legitimate shot at countries that take our taxpayer dollars and refuse to extradite from their country to the United States individuals who have broken our laws and fled to their country,” said one Republican Congressional Aide. He went on to say, “The State Department continues to ignore the Congressional intent on this issue.”
How often does this go on? Too often. One of the things former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was working on before his departure from Congress was the reform of the State Department and the intelligence community. In a post-9/11 world, these organizations in State and intelligence don’t understand that they do not operate independent of Congress and that it is not their right (or privilege) to undermine the legitimate power of Congress to write legislation to be implemented as law.
I think that Secretary Rice is doing a great job, but I think that she, like many of her predecessors, is operating a State Department that thinks it is not beholden to the president or Congress. It thinks it runs the foreign policy of this government, but it does not. The appropriations of taxpayers dollars is the responsibility of Congress, and in Section 583 of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for Fiscal 2006,
Congress was right to say that if a country is going to take money from the people of the United States, then it must cooperate with the treaties that are in place. Welcome to the real world—working Americans live in that world every day. Clearly, the State Department does not live in that world. It is not their money to be appropriated. The State Department, as any part of government, has no money without taxation and appropriation by Congress, or without the hard work and sweat of the American people. It seems they have forgotten that.
Martha Zoller is a radio talk show host, political analyst and author—-and a wife and mother. She is the author of Indivisible: Uniting Values for a Divided America.
To view this article online click here.
A word to conservatives: stop being bullied
2006 03 02
A word to conservatives: stop being bullied
A review of Martha Zoller’s Indivisible
Mar 2, 2006
Review by Monique E. Stuart
Indivisible: Uniting Values for a Divided America by Martha Zoller takes an interesting look at the supposed “red state vs. blue state” divide that is commonly trumpeted by the liberal media.
In this book, Zoller argues that there is no such divide, stating in the introduction “the red states are getting redder and the blue states are getting purple.” Using mostly anecdotal evidence, Zoller explores the founding principles of our country and concludes that, after a hiatus marked by such events as the sexual revolution, Americans are turning back to their conservative roots.
Exploring each major issue, Zoller takes a common-sense approach using examples from our founding and throughout American history, juxtaposing them with examples of current events that support this claim. As for the mistaken divide in our country, she blames the liberal media and posturing politicians.
“The left in this country is stacked in the cities, where the liberal media moguls and the big government bureaucrats live, work and play,” she writes. “By the time you finish this book, I hope you see what many liberals don’t want you to see—that we have more that unites us than divides us…. In the end, America is a center-right country – historically, ideologically, and practically.”
On the health care issue, Zoller writes, “There are two things at play here. First, government miscalculates the cost of just about everything…. Second, when people think someone else is paying for something and access is unlimited, then they will overuse it.”
She states that the truth about people without health insurance, exposing the liberal myth that they are too poor to afford it, but instead their priorities aren’t in order and they’d rather spend their money elsewhere. “There are people who can afford healthcare but won’t buy it at any price. Their priorities are out of sync, and they think luxuries are necessities…. Health insurance has to be one of the necessities in every budget. It should come before expensive cell phones, cable television, Internet access, or a new car.”
Zoller calls the federal government to task on their lax immigration enforcement, stating that, “The federal government is not doing its job in regard to illegal immigration, and our states and cities are drowning because of the federal government’s abdication of its duties by the Constitution.”
Throughout the book, Zoller explains the founding principles of our nation, the true meaning of the Constitution, and argues that most of America sees these “self-evident truths” as well.
Conservatives are charged with the mighty task of re-educating America. In her view, although America is center-right, they need to be convinced of this. They need to be taught what conservatism is, not what the left has typecast it as.
“While the country is center-right, many Americans still have to be convinced that conservatism is the best way to go,” Zoller writes. “Conservatives need to continue educating. Offsetting the message the liberal media perpetuates of conservatives as Bible-toting, right-wing, pro-life nuts takes a great deal of work and commitment to ideals. The impression is that we are out of the mainstream, but the 2004 election proved we are not.”
Some of her most poignant observations are of the feminist movement in this country and the abortion issue. On abortion, she writes, “Americans agree on abortion in overwhelming numbers. The abortion-on-demand people are in the minority in this country.”
“Hillary Clinton is a victim of the feminist movement that claimed that being an accomplished women meant acting like a man,” she wrote. “The major message for women in today’s America is that they don’t have to choose one life over another [career vs. family]. They can have it all, just not at once” (emphasis in original).
She concludes, with regard to the feminist movement, that “feminism is not about a woman being the same as a man, but about a woman being able to be fully a woman.”
The book is a must read for anybody who truly believes we are a nation divided, as it effectively argues we are not. It is a warning to politicians on both sides. To the left, you are out of the mainstream, stop moving leftward. And, to the right, you are in the majority, don’t lost sight of this truth in your desire to be elected or your fear of being called a name.
Most importantly, Indivisible is a call to action for conservatives. The underlying message being: your views are right, you are in the majority, stop being bullied by the liberal media and start standing up for your morals and beliefs. After all, we are a “center-right country – historically, ideologically, and practically.”
Monique E. Stuart is Program Officer for the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute.
To view this article online click here.
