Elizabeth Harrington of Washington Free Beacon gets an award for the creepiest federal government story of the week.
It has shades of 1984, George Orwell's masterpiece about a totalitarian society. Three ministries control the government under the watchful eye of Big Brother. One of these is the Ministry of Truth. This outfit tirelessly works to create the government's narrative while ruthlessly annihilating dissenting voices, or even history. "We have always been at war with East Asia."
The Obama Administration gave a $1 million grant to a group led by an Organizing For America (Obama's old campaign organization that still exists for some reason) member. The group is creating a program designed to spot "misinformation" and "suspicious memes" in campaigns and public discourse.
They call it "truthy" after a Stephen Colbert bit. Referencing a comedian with a liberal agenda is hardly a good starting point.
Why is this problematic?
The New York Times recently called Obama and his minions the worst threat to press freedom in a generation. No president has worked so hard to control the narrative about his policies, using spying, coercion, and any other tactic possible. Few can compete with Obama and his team in the creating of "misinformation" and "suspicious memes."
Journalism school teaches about the marketplace of ideas. The public can decide which are beneficial and which are not. Certainly the federal government, as a player in that marketplace, cannot be trusted to referee.
Showing posts with label Washington Free Beacon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Washington Free Beacon. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Thursday, July 17, 2014
Speaking Of . . .
The issue of money keeps dogging Hillary Clinton and she seems unwilling to do much to escape the increased scrutiny from all sides.
This week, the Washington Free Beacon reported that Clinton received $275,000 for a one hour speech and very limited photo session at the University of Buffalo.
Although the media focuses on the money paid out, the real story may be tax law problems for non profit educational institutions. Most colleges and universities fall under the 501 (c) 3 category protecting them from paying taxes. That status can be jeopardized by overt support of a political party or a political candidate. Under Obama, the Internal Revenue Service has imposed significant burdens on conservative institutions applying for this coveted status. Political activity is often cited as a reason.
By not officially announcing herself as a candidate (although she has made frequent and coy allusions to it), Clinton has given cover to colleges and universities willing to fork over hundreds of thousands of dollars to be graced with her presence. Some would say purchase influence.
The Free Beacon report contained criticism from MSNBC's Chuck Todd that Clinton earned "presidential" level payments. In 2011, however, the Daily Beast covered criticism of former President George W. Bush's speaking fees, which typically run between $100,000 and $150,000.
Almost every time, Bush collected six figure payments from private sector institutions. The University of Buffalo is a public school.
Others who achieved Clinton's highest office, secretary of state, do not make as much for appearances. Condoleeza Rice was set to collect $35,000 from Rutgers before bowing out in the face of protests. This only outpaced reality star Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi by $3,000.
Clinton's pay days seem to have backfired. The MSNBC panel discussed how quickly Clinton's approval ratings fell after the sustained drip of money stories commenced. Most Americans do not begrudge money honestly made, but few want to hear about rich people crying poverty. Nor does it look good when public universities, in a time of outrageous tuition, pay out $275,000 for anyone to show up for an hour.
This week, the Washington Free Beacon reported that Clinton received $275,000 for a one hour speech and very limited photo session at the University of Buffalo.
Although the media focuses on the money paid out, the real story may be tax law problems for non profit educational institutions. Most colleges and universities fall under the 501 (c) 3 category protecting them from paying taxes. That status can be jeopardized by overt support of a political party or a political candidate. Under Obama, the Internal Revenue Service has imposed significant burdens on conservative institutions applying for this coveted status. Political activity is often cited as a reason.
By not officially announcing herself as a candidate (although she has made frequent and coy allusions to it), Clinton has given cover to colleges and universities willing to fork over hundreds of thousands of dollars to be graced with her presence. Some would say purchase influence.
The Free Beacon report contained criticism from MSNBC's Chuck Todd that Clinton earned "presidential" level payments. In 2011, however, the Daily Beast covered criticism of former President George W. Bush's speaking fees, which typically run between $100,000 and $150,000.
Almost every time, Bush collected six figure payments from private sector institutions. The University of Buffalo is a public school.
Others who achieved Clinton's highest office, secretary of state, do not make as much for appearances. Condoleeza Rice was set to collect $35,000 from Rutgers before bowing out in the face of protests. This only outpaced reality star Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi by $3,000.
Clinton's pay days seem to have backfired. The MSNBC panel discussed how quickly Clinton's approval ratings fell after the sustained drip of money stories commenced. Most Americans do not begrudge money honestly made, but few want to hear about rich people crying poverty. Nor does it look good when public universities, in a time of outrageous tuition, pay out $275,000 for anyone to show up for an hour.
Monday, February 3, 2014
Appeasing Iran Seen As a Step Towards More Mideast Nations Pushing For Nukes
Obama's lack of a foreign policy has so far resulted in a chaotic Libya, contributed to an unending Syrian civil war, discouraged Israel, and encouraged the terror linked Muslim Brotherhood. Instability and unpredictability mark not only the behavior of groups in the region, but also US policy.
Experts told the Washington Free Beacon that this could bring disastrous consequences. First, Iran aspires to Great Power status. Although it lags in productivity and capital, nuclear weapons would raise it above its neighbors. A state that once launched masses of its own citizens in suicide rushes at modern weapons cannot be trusted to be predictable with these weapons in hand.
Should Iran obtain them, other powers will as well. Saudi Arabia most certainly will develop its own.
Other countries will adapt. Turkey has already negotiated pacts with Iran. The NATO member, once an imperial power in the region, borders Iran. Fear of its growing influence will doubtless pull states into its orbit.
This is the predictable result of a weak and disoriented foreign policy on the part of the United States.
There may be no solution at this point.
Experts told the Washington Free Beacon that this could bring disastrous consequences. First, Iran aspires to Great Power status. Although it lags in productivity and capital, nuclear weapons would raise it above its neighbors. A state that once launched masses of its own citizens in suicide rushes at modern weapons cannot be trusted to be predictable with these weapons in hand.
Should Iran obtain them, other powers will as well. Saudi Arabia most certainly will develop its own.
Other countries will adapt. Turkey has already negotiated pacts with Iran. The NATO member, once an imperial power in the region, borders Iran. Fear of its growing influence will doubtless pull states into its orbit.
This is the predictable result of a weak and disoriented foreign policy on the part of the United States.
There may be no solution at this point.
Monday, October 7, 2013
Naturally Changing the World Balance of Power
America's "gas revolution," combined with stepped up domestic oil production could undermine a US foreign rival.
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia relied heavily on its natural gas production to rebuild its economy. By the ascension of Vladimir Putin to the presidency, Russian dominance in gas production helped to steady its economy while Europe, Japan, and the United States experienced uncertainty.
Gas revenues helped Russia to rebuild its state and military over the past decade, but the country's inability to diversify its economy could lead to disaster.
Europe for decades relied heavily on gas exports from first the USSR, then Russia, to help satisfy its energy needs. Now, as Washington Free Beacon reports, a sudden upwelling of gas exports from the United States has forced prices to drop worldwide. Russia feels the pinch as their gas revenues decline.
The IMf, according to the story, revised down its estimates for Russian economic growth in 2014. Though three percent still qualifies as fairly robust, it pales in comparison to the expected seven.
All this comes as the federal government considers dropping many of the remaining gas export restrictions. This could help to open the markets in South Central Asia as well as Europe, hurting Iranian exports as well as Russia.
A hundred years ago, President William Howard Taft pioneered "dollar diplomacy." He tried to use US economic power instead of force in pushing other states to act more in line with American interests. The US has been stung many times by energy diplomacy from Russia and the Middle East. Increasing output, raising exports, and becoming self-sufficient is the right call for US jobs and national security
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia relied heavily on its natural gas production to rebuild its economy. By the ascension of Vladimir Putin to the presidency, Russian dominance in gas production helped to steady its economy while Europe, Japan, and the United States experienced uncertainty.
Gas revenues helped Russia to rebuild its state and military over the past decade, but the country's inability to diversify its economy could lead to disaster.
Europe for decades relied heavily on gas exports from first the USSR, then Russia, to help satisfy its energy needs. Now, as Washington Free Beacon reports, a sudden upwelling of gas exports from the United States has forced prices to drop worldwide. Russia feels the pinch as their gas revenues decline.
The IMf, according to the story, revised down its estimates for Russian economic growth in 2014. Though three percent still qualifies as fairly robust, it pales in comparison to the expected seven.
All this comes as the federal government considers dropping many of the remaining gas export restrictions. This could help to open the markets in South Central Asia as well as Europe, hurting Iranian exports as well as Russia.
A hundred years ago, President William Howard Taft pioneered "dollar diplomacy." He tried to use US economic power instead of force in pushing other states to act more in line with American interests. The US has been stung many times by energy diplomacy from Russia and the Middle East. Increasing output, raising exports, and becoming self-sufficient is the right call for US jobs and national security
Monday, July 1, 2013
The Dangers of Meddling in Syria
Last month, experts testified to a House committee that inaction in Syria emboldened Iran. Not long after that, Senator John McCain predicted that "the entire Middle East is up for grabs, and our enemies are fully committed to winning." He urged Obama to lead.
The New York Times cited an estimate from the opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights that over 100,000 have died so far in the four year conflict. As in many such wars, civilians and their property take the brunt of the violence. Both sides seek to terrify the population into supporting its cause. Resources must be destroyed to deny their use to the enemy.
Such is the nature of "civil war." Even in the American Civil War, Union generals used artificial famine as a weapon in Georgia and the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia.
Because of the misery inflicted by this war, many have urged Obama to get directly involved. Some cite humanitarian issues. Others point to Russia's support of the Assad regime, a government which has historically acted out against American and Israeli interests.
Just because there is a "bad guy" does not mean that he is opposed by a "good guy." President Assad is an authoritarian tyrant and supporter of terrorism. But would he be replaced by anything better? Rebel murder of a Syrian Roman Catholic priest tells the Western world otherwise. He was decapitated with an ordinary kitchen knife as fanatics shriekingly chanted "God is great!"
Do we really want that to run a Middle Eastern nation state?
Syria occupies a keystone position in the Eastern Mediterranean. North is Turkey, grumbling against a somewhat Islamacist government. Nearby lies Egypt, seemingly ripe for a military coup. Bordering Syria is Lebanon, who suffered a horrific civil war of its own in the 1980s. Spillover from the war could be destructive. A jihadist regime replacing Assad could be even worse.
The correct U. S. response should be a pox on both your houses. Do not get sucked into a race with the Russians over arming sides. Leadership should take the part of cooperative quarantining of the war within the bounds of Syria.
Yes this is a particularly horrible war. But there is nothing that the United States can directly do that will not make it worse on Syrians and threaten the degenerating stability of the region.
The New York Times cited an estimate from the opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights that over 100,000 have died so far in the four year conflict. As in many such wars, civilians and their property take the brunt of the violence. Both sides seek to terrify the population into supporting its cause. Resources must be destroyed to deny their use to the enemy.
Such is the nature of "civil war." Even in the American Civil War, Union generals used artificial famine as a weapon in Georgia and the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia.
Because of the misery inflicted by this war, many have urged Obama to get directly involved. Some cite humanitarian issues. Others point to Russia's support of the Assad regime, a government which has historically acted out against American and Israeli interests.
Just because there is a "bad guy" does not mean that he is opposed by a "good guy." President Assad is an authoritarian tyrant and supporter of terrorism. But would he be replaced by anything better? Rebel murder of a Syrian Roman Catholic priest tells the Western world otherwise. He was decapitated with an ordinary kitchen knife as fanatics shriekingly chanted "God is great!"
Do we really want that to run a Middle Eastern nation state?
Syria occupies a keystone position in the Eastern Mediterranean. North is Turkey, grumbling against a somewhat Islamacist government. Nearby lies Egypt, seemingly ripe for a military coup. Bordering Syria is Lebanon, who suffered a horrific civil war of its own in the 1980s. Spillover from the war could be destructive. A jihadist regime replacing Assad could be even worse.
The correct U. S. response should be a pox on both your houses. Do not get sucked into a race with the Russians over arming sides. Leadership should take the part of cooperative quarantining of the war within the bounds of Syria.
Yes this is a particularly horrible war. But there is nothing that the United States can directly do that will not make it worse on Syrians and threaten the degenerating stability of the region.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)