Page 1


p o w e r f u l c o n s e r va t i v e v o i c e s T h e N at i o n a l C o n s e r vat i v e W e e k ly | ESta b l i s h e d 1 9 4 4 • wa s h i n g t o n , d . c . | w e e k o f M ay 2 1 , 2 0 1 2

No Apologies

As commander in chief, Mitt Romney wi ll reach back to Ronald Reagan as his model for foreign policy. Human Events goes inside the Romney camp for a first look at The Romney Doctrine. p. 16

special focus : defense and national security


Tea Party Members of Congress May Be Going Weak p. 8 The congressional class of 2010 voted similar to establishment colleagues.


Newt Gingrich Offers His 2012 GOP Platform p. 23 The former presidential candidate advocates selfreliance and innovation.

Inside this special focus issue: The Choice is Clear: A President Mitt Romney Will Keep Us Safer p. 12 From his ‘blame America first’ mentality to his kowtowing to the Russians, President Obama and his foreign policy blunders are too dangerous to continue.

Five Grave National Security Threats That U.S. Must Address With a Renaissance in Strategic Thinking, Action p. 14

By John Bolton

By James Carafano

By Sebastian L. v. Gorka

Technology Will Change Warfare, Bringing More Power, Lighter Weight, Lower Cost p. 18

Senators, pass the bipartisan Wyden-Snowe ‘Wireless Tax Fairness Act’ (S. 543). It’s a grand slam for wireless consumers, who already pay on average more than 16% of their monthly bill in taxes and fees, compared to 7% on other taxable goods and services. S. 543 is the perfect pitch to fix that. It would put a five-year freeze on new and discriminatory state and local wireless taxes and fees. The House has already put a man in scoring position by passing H.R. 1002. Now’s the time for the Senate to drive home the winning run for wireless consumers.

SENATORS, plAy bAll FOR WIRElESS CONSUMERS! Consumers should be “safe” from unfair wireless taxes and fees.

Pass the ‘Wireless Tax Fairness Act,’ S. 543. Paid for by


Week of May 21, 2012 |

Page Three n This week

in Congress: Senate eyes Secret Service

By Audrey Hudson Congress is winding down for the Memorial Day recess—the House is out this week—but the Senate will be hard at work with oversight hearings, beginning with the Secret Service prostitution scandal. Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) will hold that hearing Wednesday in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, called “Secret Service on the Line: Restoring Trust and Confidence.” Some 21 Secret Service agents and military personnel were involved with as many prostitutes last month in Cartagena, Columbia, for a night of drinking at a strip club and other activities, instead of preparing for President Barack Obama’s visit there to attend an international summit. Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan will be the key witness—this will be the first time he has spoken publicly about the scandal. Also testifying will be Charles Edwards, acting inspector general of Homeland Security, who is investigating the incident. Meanwhile, the full Senate will take up reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, which is set to expire later this year. The legislation collects fees from drug makers to fund the FDA’s work to approve new drugs. Wednesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee led by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) will hold a hearing on “The Law of the Sea Convention: The U.S. National Security and Strategic Imperatives for Ratification.” Witnesses include Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Tuesday, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will hold a hearing on the Energy Innovation Council’s report on “Catalyzing American Ingenuity: The Role of Government in Energy Innovation.”

▲ Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) speaks during a Republican Study Committee news conference, March 27. 


House Republicans Say Emails Link Green Energy Loans to White House Rep. Jordan says Solyndra was tip of the iceberg in a sea of taxpayer risk— hardly the “one bad apple” as characterized by the Obama administration. By Audrey Hudson


ouse Republicans investigating the collapse of Solyndra are now examining other green energy companies to determine if their government-backed loans were risky gambles that were granted because of political influence with the White House. “When taxpayers lost over a half-billion dollars on Solyndra, the Obama administration said that it was just one bad apple and that the rest of the portfolio was strong,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on regulatory affairs, stimulus oversight and government spending. “It is becoming increasingly clear that Solyndra was just the tip of the iceberg in a sea of taxpayer risk,” Jordan said during a hearing last week. The panel questioned executives from Abound, First Solar, Nevada Geothermal, and BrightSource, which were awarded a combined $5 billion in loan guarantees from the Energy Department—one-third of the entire loan guarantee portfolio. The executives said their loans were awarded on the merits of the project, not politics, but Jordan produced emails that he says show a direct link between the White House and BrightSource, which received $1.6 billion in loan guarantees. In one email, BrightSource CEO John Woolard, told a top Energy Department official there had been direct discussions with “Obama about the program’s challenges.”

“The Obama I think it is?” “Is the Obama in this sentence the Obama I think it is—the president of the United States of America?” Jordan asked. “So just a minute ago, you said there was no political influence, but in an email you reference the president of the United States of America who had a direct conversation with a guy who cares pretty deeply about this project getting approved?” One month after that email was sent, BrightSource received conditional approval of the loan. “If that’s not political influence, I don’t know what is,” Jordan said. In another email discussing the project, Woolard asked the Energy Department to proofread a letter from thenBrightSource Chairman John Bryson, who now serves as Obama’s Commerce secretary, to White House Chief of

Staff Bill Daley. “I believe everything we did was fully on its merits,” Woolard said. Despite Woolard’s assurances to the committee that Bryson’s letter was never sent to the White House, the panel will request that Bryson appear before them to explain what happened. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the full committee, said the emails are the first evidence the investigating panel has discovered that links any of the Energy Department loans directly to the White House. Additionally, Republicans asked Michael Ahearn, chairman of First Solar, about 700,000 stocks he sold just days after getting the loan approved by the government. The company has laid off 30 percent of its workforce. DOE’s “horrible decision” “The Department of Energy made a horrible decision and they continue to do that,” Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) said. “We’re pouring money down an open hole and the chief executive officer bailed out.” Ahearn told the panel that it is “very normal to sell stocks over time after the company is made public. That’s what happened here.” The panel also questioned a representative from Abound, which despite receiving a $400 million loan guarantee, let go 180 employees earlier this year. President Barack Obama’s 2009 stimulus package included $90 billion to fund green energy projects, which the administration said would aid in the country’s economic recovery. Obama pledged to “harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories,” but Republicans say that initiative is a gamble that has not paid off. One executive, James Nelson, who is CEO of Solar 3D, agreed, and told the panel that his company did not accept any government aid. “The loan guarantee program should be retired permanently. The path to commercialization requires brains, discipline and grit. It is rarely aided, and often impeded, by government involvement. Our government should trust the free market forces that have made America great,” Nelson said. Audrey Hudson is a senior reporter for Human Events covering Energy and Environment. She can be reached at AHudson@EaglePub.Com

4 | Week of May 21, 2012

CApiTAL BRiEFS transportation issues and, in contrast to most conservatives, favors earmarks and opposes turning the issue of transportation spending over to the states.



▲ Bill Shuster



WiLL BiLL ShUSTeR TAKe UP hiS FATheR’S GAveL oN TRANSPoRTATioN? That’s what it certainly seems is in the making if Republicans maintain control of the House this fall. With Rep. John Mica (R-fla.) termed out as chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, signs are pointing that his gavel will go to Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), son of former Pennsylvania Rep. Bud Shuster who chaired the same committee from 1994-2000. although 40-year Rep. Don young (R-alaska) is far senior to six-termer Shuster on the panel, the alaskan freely admits his chances are “pretty slim” at stopping what he called “young bucks” who want to be chairman, according to Politico. Like his “prince of pork” father, the younger Shuster (lifetime american Conservative Union rating: 75 percent) has focused almost exclusively on

With all the press attention given to conservative groups such as the Club for Growth targeting Republican officeholders they feel are less than conservative, it is important to point out that the left does the same within the Democratic Party—especially when it comes to the president’s health care law. Last week, oregon’s five-term State Rep. Mike Schaufler, who sided with Republicans in voting against creation of a state health care exchange (a key part of the law), was defeated for renomination by far-left opponent Jeff Reardon. and the Working families Party, both of which have been mobilizing support for the law’s implementation, worked hard for Reardon. So did the League of Conservation Voters, whose mailing singled out Schauffler’s vote against the health care exchange and juxtaposed the lawmaker’s face with that of Sarah Palin. a month earlier, Pennsylvania’s Democratic Reps. Jason altmire and Tim Holden, both of whom voted against the affordable Health Care act, were beaten for renomination by more liberal opponents with national left wing funding. Jonathan Weisman of the New york Times concluded that “Democratic voters and party activists see [health care reform] as a major achievement and are poised to punish Democrats who fought it,” predicting “health care

Human Events

THE NATIONAL CONSERVATIVE WEEKLY Established 1944 May 21, 2012 | Vol 68, No. 18 ©2012 by Human Events Publishing LLC Frank C. Hanighen (1899-1964) James L. Wick (1897-1964)

The Declaration of Independence begins: “When in the course of Human events …” In reporting the news, Human events is objective; it aims for accurate presentation of all the facts. But it is not impartial. It looks at events through eyes that favor limited constitutional government, local self-government, private enterprise and individual freedom. These were the principles that inspired the founders. We believe that today the same principles will preserve freedom in America. Human Events (ISSN 0018-7194) is published weekly, except 2/27/12, 4/9/12, 7/9/12, 8/6/12, 9/10/12, 11/26/12, 12/31/12 by Human Events, 1 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington D.C. 20001. Periodicals postage paid at Washington, D.C. and additional mailing offices. Single issue price $9.95. One year subscription, $129. Copyright 2012 Human Events.

▲ Marlin Stutzman


could be a major rallying cry if the Supreme Court overturns all or part of the law this summer.”



AMeRiCoRPS UNDeR FiRe Two decades after the Corporation for National Community Service was created and the concept of “paid volunteers” came about, Rep. Marlin Stutzman (RInd.) recently introduced legislation to shut down the government program best known as ameriCorps. officially titled the Volunteer freedom act (H.R. 3794), Stutzman’s bill would effectively shut down the CNCS. The program, funded at $1.075 billion for fy2011, is estimated to cost taxpayers more than $11.5 billion over the next decade. “and when the Census Bureau says 26 percent of americans over the age of 16 volunteered at something in 2010,” Stutzman told Human events, “but only 8 percent did it though the CNCS. Quite frankly, as a Hoosier who volunteered

HUMAN EVENTS gROUP VP, group Publisher Joseph Guerriero CONTENT Editor-in-Chief Emeritus Thomas S. Winter Editor Cathy Taylor Managing Editor Adam Tragone Senior Reporter, Economy & Budget David Harsanyi Senior Reporter, Energy & Environment Audrey Hudson Senior Reporter, Political Editor John Gizzi Reporter, Defense & National Security Hope Hodge Reporter, Technology & Freedom John Hayward Legal Affairs Correspondent Ann Coulter Web editor Karl Selzer Editor-at-Large Allan Ryskind Regular Contributors Jim Edwards, Steven Greenhut, Ken Hanner, Mark LaRochelle, John Seiler HUMAN EVENTS DIgITAL OPERATIONS Steve Miller, Todd Herman, Todd Van Etten, Jayson Manship, Patrick Klinetobe, Chris Pascuzzo, Tony Cane

to do chores and through my church and different groups, I find the term ‘paid volunteers’ offensive. So do a lot of other americans.”

iNhoFe PRoPoSeS CLAMP-DoWN oN ReGioNAL ePA ADMiNiSTRAToRS after years of dueling with administration-appointed regional heads of the environmental Protection agency, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-okla.) last week introduced legislation to make the agency’s administrators for all 10 regions in the U.S. subject to Senate confirmation. Under present legislation, the ePa administrator names all of the top regional officials, and their removal is extremely difficult. Under the legislation offered by ranking environment Committee Republican Inhofe (S.3053), the regional ePa heads would be subject

DESIgN Creative Director Amanda Larsen graphic Designers Amber Colleran, Stephanie Patience, Henry Pereira, Lisa Pulaski, Jason Sunde ADVERTISINg Senior Account Advertising Managers Melinda Beatty, Scott Fowler, Chris McIntyre, Cheri DeLand Advertising Operations Manager Patrick Klinetobe Marketing Director Elizabeth Setterlin Marketing Manager Jenna Geiger Advertising Marketing Manager Jake Berube Advertising Traffic Manager Linda Jenkins Sales Administrator Holly Berggren Distribution Jim Zerr Production Sean Munns

To Subscribe: 1 800-787-7557 To Advertise: 202 677-4462

EAgLE PUBLISHINg, INC. Chairman Thomas L. Phillips President Jeffrey J. Carneal CFO/VP Operations Jon A. Heimerman Regnery Publishing Marjory G. Ross Eagle Financial Publications Roger Michalski Eagle Wellness Chris Broussard All mail correspondence for Human Events or Eagle Publishing should be addressed to One Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, D.C. 20001. Human Events cannot be responsible for the return of unsolicited manuscripts, either by email or postal mail. Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of Human Events. Postmaster: Send address changes to Human Events, 1 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., 6th Floor, Washington, D.C.

To contact editorial 202 677-4518 202 216-0600 To Send a letter, op-eds

Because the Audit Bureau of Circulations audits the circulation of [name of publication], advertisers know that our audited information is accurate.

Because the Audit Bureau of Circulations audits the circulation of [name of publication], advertisers know that our audited information is accurate.

Because the Audit Bureau of Circulations audits the circulation of Human Events, advertisers know that our audited information is accurate.

Because the Audit Bureau of WE’RE PROUD TO Circulations audits the circulation of [name of publication], advertisers BE A MEMBER OFknow that our audited information is accurate. AUDIT BUREAU OF CIRCULATIONS

Because the Audit Bureau of Circulations audits the circulation of [name of publication], advertisers know that our audited information is accurate.


Week of May 21, 2012 |

News, views, opinions from washington

to the same procedure of advise and consent by the Senate as every Cabinet secretary and most of the assistant secretaries are. So far, the proposal has 22 co-sponsors.


Park Service Closes Beaches IN N. Carolina to Save Birds The federal government completely shut off Cape Point along North Carolina’s Outer Banks to the public last week after a nest containing eggs from the endangered piping plover hatched. The National Park Service said closing the beach this summer to pedestrians and vehicles for a three-mile area around the nest is necessary for the species survival. Human Events reported last month

(“Summertime Blues,” April 23, 2012) that the park service planned to restrict access to the popular beach if one of the birds nested in the sand. With the summer season still several weeks away, the park service has already closed 33 miles of the 64-mile seashore to pedestrians, and 47 miles have been closed to vehicle traffic. Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) has authored legislation to preserve beach access, but it has not reached the House floor for a vote.

White House

President Obama Tries to Calm Black Pastors Two hours after President Obama’s nationally televised interview in which he gave his blessings to same-sex mar-

riage, he was working the phones to calm major supporters who would most likely be upset by his decision: namely, African-American pastors. Mr. Obama’s conference call included, according to the New York Times, “at least one [Rev. Joel C. Hunter] of the five spiritual leaders he calls regularly for religious guidance, and his aides contacted other religious figures who have been supportive in the past.” Noting that Obama had not called him before the interview with ABC-TV’s Robin Roberts, mega church pastor Hunter said he wasn’t surprised because “I would have tried to talk him out of it.” Another participant on Obama’s call, Maryland pastor Delman Coates, told the Times: “[The pastors] were wrestling with their ability to get over his theological position.” USA Today surveyed black churches the Sunday after the president’s announcement and found mixed responses. Columbus, Ohio Bishop Timothy Clark, who heads the large First Church of God and its television ministry, said: “I believe the statement the president made, and his decision, was made in good faith. I am sure because the president is a good man. I know his decision was made after much thought and consideration and, I’m sure, even prayer.” But Clark quickly added he opposes same sex marriage and believes it is a religious issue for those who follow the Bible.

out that his position on the New York Federal Reserve Board bars him from publicly supporting candidates, Dimon said on Meet the Press, “I am a Democrat, yes” but he was growing “disturbed at some of the Democrats’ anti-business behavior, the attacks on work ethic and successful people. I think it’s very counterproductive.” But he quickly professed his allegiance to Democratic values, insisting, “I want jobs, I want a more equitable society. I don’t mind paying higher taxes … [B]ut I think that … attacking that which creates all things, is not the right way to go about it.”


Dimon ‘Barely a Democrat’ Now under increasing fire from the left as the poster child for his bank’s $2 billion loss, JP Morgan Chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon proclaimed himself “barely a Democrat” last week. Pointing

▲ Jamie Dimon




The eastern diamondback rattlesnake is being considered for the endangered species list. By Audrey Hudson

Luke Messer, Susan Brooks took top spots in Indiana House primary races; both are favored to win. By John Gizzi

California’s bad dream: budget deficit $16 billion, unemployment 11%, businesses exiting. What does the governor propose? A tax hike.

▲ Satellite picture of Cape Hatteras, N.C. Red line shows areas closed for resource protection.  google earth

This Week’s Must Reads Welcome to Human Events.

Foreign policy may not be the defining issue for voters in the presidential campaign—that distinction still goes to the economy—but they want to know how a candidate sees America’s role in the world. Our Hope Hodge delved into the Romney foreign policy brain trust, and came up with the fullest picture to date of what Romney-as-president might look like on a world stage. —Cathy Taylor






30 | Week of May 21, 2012

The Debunker

What did Obama prOmise? And, what actually happened during the nearly four years he has been in office? The answer is that America has fallen behind on the most pressing issues of the day. Maybe that explains why he is busy talking about Mitt Romney’s dog. labor force ParticiPation rate retail gasoline Price s

(seasonally adjusted)




Declining belief in global warming theories will lead Americans to reexamine other green policies. By Sen. James Inhofe

The Law of the Sea Treaty subverts American sovereignty to a global bureaucracy. It must be defeated. By Phyllis Schlafly

Comparing what President Obama promised to what actually happened shows the shortfalls. By Mark LaRochelle



66 $4.00

65 64

$3.50 1/09 5/09









Month Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Series LNS11300000


Median Weekly earnings full tiMe Workers


constant (1982-1984) dollar adjusted to cPi-u (seasonally adjusted) $2.00

345 340

$1.50 335 2010


Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Series LES1252881600


By Mark LaRochelle

udging by the focus of the President, his administration, re-election campaign, and party, the most pressing issues of 2012 are gay marriage, condoms for Catholics, and Mitt Romney’s dog.

Bunk The urgent issues this year, according to American voters, are the economy and jobs. Team Obama’s determination to focus on other things is understandable; the President’s disappointing performance on these issues makes a jarring contrast to the Messianism of 2008: Obama promised to cut the deficit in half in four years; instead, this year’s deficit ($1.3 trillion) will be five times the Congressional Budget Office’s projection ($264 billion, including the Bush bail-outs). He projected robust economic growth of 5.23 percent last year;


2011 2012

according to the Federal Reserve, actual growth was a dismal 1.61 percent. He trumpeted a report by the thenchairman of his Counsel of Economic Advisors projecting that the unemployment rate would be down to 6 percent by now; it’s actually 8.1 percent, even higher than the 7.8 percent during the recession, when Obama was sworn in. These unemployment figures don’t count those so discouraged that they have given up looking for work. Their numbers have been on the rise: the decline in “labor force participation” (the fraction of the working-age population who are employed or actively looking for work) that began during the recession has persisted throughout Obama’s “recovery.” Of those not in the labor force, 6.3 million “currently want a job.” Adding them to the 12.5 million the government counts as officially “unemployed” makes 18.8 million Americans without work. Adding




Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update, May 7, 2012

them to the 153-million-person labor force totals 173 million people, of whom more than 10 percent are involuntarily out of work. Obama promised in 2009 that his “stimulus” would “create or save 3.5 million jobs over the next two years”; in reality, it had a negligible impact: according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, after two years, more than 3 million fewer Americans were employed. Meanwhile, those fortunate enough to still have full-time jobs have seen median earnings rise a whopping $30 a week in current dollars, says the BLS. However, after adjusting for inflation, their real earnings have actually fallen by $10 a week under Obama. Actually, Obama’s policies are costing most Americans far more than the $10 per week reflected in the BLS numbers. For example, Obama suggested in 2008 that—thanks to his “green energy” subsidies—we wouldn’t be “talking about high

fuel prices next summer or the next summer after that or the summer after that”; in March he doubled down, adding that this boondoggle will save a typical family “about $8,000 a year” on gasoline. In reality, the average U.S. household spent more than $368 a month on gas last year, more than double what they were paying back when Obama took the oath of office. Obama’s economic failure has come at enormous human cost in suffering and misery. Contrary to his promise to “build a strong middle class,” the average household’s annual income has dropped by $4,300 during his administration. Contrary to his pledge to lift “2 million Americans from poverty,” 14.3 million more Americans are on Food Stamps than when Obama took office. If I had to run on that record, I’d talk about Mitt Romney’s dog, too. Mark LaRochelle was editor at the National Journalism Center and contributing editor at Consumers’ Research.

6 | Week of May 21, 2012

U.S. Senate

How Sarah Palin Helped Deb Fischer Win Upset Victory in Nebraska Primary State Sen. Fischer beat out Attorney General Jon Bruning by a margin of 41 to 36 percent. By John Gizzi

The Republican who had been considered the long shot in the race until the last few days clinched nomination for the U.S. Senate in Nebraska, due in large part to what many are calling the Palin effect. State Sen. Deb Fischer, fresh off her Facebook endorsement from former Gov. Sarah Palin, upset long-presumed front-runner and Republican establishment-backed Jon Bruning by a margin of 41 to 36 percent. The winner, no matter who he or she was, would be considered a sure bet in the fall to pick up the seat of retiring Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson, because polls showed the winner defeating

Democratic nominee and former Sen. Bob Kerrey, who has voted, paid taxes, and lived in Manhattan since retiring from the Senate in 2000. Although Fischer’s backing from Sarah Palin certainly drew notice, the 61-year-old legislator—while certainly a social conservative—was no tea partier. As the Daily Caller’s Matt Lewis noted, “I wonder if Palin realizes that in 2008, Fischer voted ‘yes’ on LB 959, which included a $14.5 million appropriation for road-building, funded by gas tax hike.” In spite of what Lewis may call an indiscretion, Palin’s post on Facebook recalled Fischer’s grassroots activism and conservative principles. Reading in part, “You will go to Washington to

Datebook Washington Sons of Italy Foundation holds its annual awards gala, Westminster Institute and Heritage Foundation co-host an event to discuss the ideologies that breed terrorism, Night of Heroes Gala to honor wounded service members.

congress House is out for the Memorial Day holiday, but the Senate is in. Senate committee hearings are noted.

Of Interest Rep. Paul Ryan speaks at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California, Egypt holds presidential elections and Wisconsin Gov. Walker debates challenger Tom Barrett.

campaign trail Arkansas and Kentucky hold GOP primary votes. President Obama and former Massachusetts Gov. Romney continue fundraising efforts across the country.

serve the people of Nebraska, protect our Constitution and work for common sense solutions to help restore America.” Bruning and Stenberg sling mud State Treasurer Don Stenberg hit Bruning, who had the backing of much of the state’s party establishment, hard on issues ranging from his vote to increase the state sales tax while a state senator, to kind words he had said about Attorney General Eric Holder. Backing Stenberg in his campaign were FreedomWorks, the Club for Growth, and Republican Sens. Mike Lee (Utah) and Jim DeMint (S.C.). But in the closing days of the campaign, it was Fischer who seemed to be

creeping up on Bruning. Along with Palin’s endorsement, she picked up support from the conservative ShePAC and former presidential candidate Herman Cain. Speaking to Human Events shortly after Fischer was called the winner, Hal Daub—who has been Omaha mayor, U.S. Representative and GOP national committeeman—concluded: “Club for Growth and other groups certainly succeeded in their attacks on Jon Bruning but these did not translate into votes for their favorite candidate, Don Stenberg. Rather, they went to the candidate who stayed positive and outside the fire—Deb Fischer.” John Gizzi is the political editor at Human Events. He can be reached at JGizzi@EaglePub.Com.

events, hearings, meetings Wednesday: Sons of Italy Foundation Annual National Education & Leadership Awards Gala, to honor outstanding Italian American scholars, business leaders, and humanitarians. 2012 honorees include Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace, among others. National Building Museum.

Thursday: “Fighting the Ideological War: Lessons from the United Kingdom and the United States” event, hosted by the Westminster Institute and Heritage Foundation, with Westminster Institute Chairman Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo. Heritage Foundation, 12 p.m.

Thursday: Night of Heroes Gala, honoring wounded military members and members of the medical community who provide care on the battlefield and the homefront. Ritz-Carlton, 22nd St.

Tuesday: Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on the Energy Innovation Council report on “Catalyzing American Ingenuity: The Role of Government in Energy Innovation,” and related issues. 366 Dirksen Senate Office Building, 10 a.m.

Thursday: Senate Armed Services Committee continues its closed door hearings on “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.” 222 Russell Senate Office Building, 2:30 p.m.

Friday: Senate breaks for Memorial Day State Work Period.

Tuesday: Republican Rep. Paul Ryan speaks at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Perspectives in Leadership Forum on “A Rendezvous with Reagan’s Legacy: Lessons for 2012.” Reagan Library, Simi Valley, Calif.

Wednesday-Thursday: Egypt ‘sinterim military government holds presidential elections to choose a successor to Hosni Mubarak, who was forced from office on Feb. 11, 2011.

Friday: Wisconsin gubernatorial candidate debate between Republican Gov. Scott Walker and Democrat Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett ahead of the June 5 recall election.

Tuesday: Arkansas and Kentucky hold Republican presidential primaries. Mitt Romney is expected to sweep both states with little to no practical opposition.

Wednesday: President Obama attends a 2012 presidential election fundraiser in the battleground state of Colorado, holding $7,000-perperson Obama Victory Fund 2012 reception with the Futuro Fund. Denver, Colo.

Thursday: 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney attends a “policy roundtable” fundraiser in Boston, Mass.


Week of May 21, 2012 |

RedState Morning Briefing—the most frequently cited ‘go-to political blog’ for conservatives featured on Time Magazine’s list of “40 under 40”, rising stars in American politics. Those who recognized RedState: Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, George P. Bush, Sean Duffy, Nick Ayers, and Mike Lee. Managing Editor Erick Erickson—one of the fastest-rising leaders in the conservative movement.

Mike Lee on RedState:

I have great respect for the site’s editor, Erick Erickson”

“ “

The #1 conservative to follow on Twitter”

Readers include Rush Limbaugh and just about everyone who matters in the Republican Party”


–The UK Telegraph

Erick’s impact was real in gubernatorial races. And not only was it real, it was positive” –Political Strategist & former RGA Executive Director, Nick Ayers

An influential tea party voice”

[Erickson knows] where things are headed politically long before the established news organizations” –Townhall columnist Matt Towery

–Politics Daily

Be a part of the Movement. FREE sign-up: For advertising inquiries: Joseph Guerriero | Vice President & Group Publisher | 202-677-4462 | |

8 | Week of May 21, 2012

Economy & Budget ■ NLRB power

move struck down by federal judge

Study Finds GOP Freshmen Are Not Living Up to the Hype

By David Harsanyi

If Teamsters President James P. Hoffa calls a court decision “another attack on workers and the American middle class” you can be sure that employees across the nation have won another battle for their privacy and freedom. In what may only be a temporary reprieve for workers, a federal judge last week struck down regulations governing union elections, ruling that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) did not follow proper procedure when it approved new rules that shortened union elections. Since Congress failed to pass the misleading “Employee Free Choice Act”—which, most infamously, would have allowed unions to use card check elections rather than secret ballots, removing “free choice”—the NLRB has tried to enact similar changes to long-standing rules of union elections through administrative channels. This isn’t surprising, given shrinking private sector union membership. In 1980, union members made up 20 percent of the private sector labor force and now has 6.7 percent. Unions have supported opening the ballot as well as speeding up the time period before the vote so they can conduct “ambush elections” before attracting debate with opposing viewpoints. Not only is the National Labor Relations Board attempting to institute changes that Congress could not pass, but U.S. District Judge James Boasberg found Democrats tried to do so without including the Republican member, ruling that the board did not have the needed quorum when it voted. “According to Woody Allen, eighty percent of life is just showing up,” Boasberg wrote. “When it comes to satisfying a quorum requirement, though, showing up is even more important than that.” The ruling had nothing to do with the merits of the rules and can be instituted once more when a new vote is taken.

▲ The freshmen class of House members of the 112th Congress, pose for a group photo. 

AP Images

When they ran on a tea party-inspired platform in 2010, the freshman class was ready to change Washington. However, that isn’t exactly what happened. By David Harsanyi


emocratic Party leaders like to lament the rise of the “radical” tea party within the GOP. A quick Google search of “Harry Reid,” “radical” and “tea party,” for instance, offers a reader thousands of results. The rebels have “taken over,” creating unprecedented gridlock and they’ve blown up the delicate bipartisanship of (revisionist) past. Or so we hear. Yes, the 2010 mid-term election—a referendum on both parties—was a historical sweep as 87 freshmen House Republicans came to Washington riding a wave of conservative populism. The freshman class might have been anti-establishment, but did it turn out to be as ideologically inflexible as mainstream media consistently claims? A new Club for Growth study, using methodology that weighs votes on economic freedom, might surprise voters. While veteran Republicans scored a 69 percent rating on their votes, the “radical” freshman class of 2010 scored only slightly higher at 71 percent. We’re talking about votes on ethanol subsidies, modest departmental cuts, the reining in of the National Labor Relations Board, and other supposedly non-negotiable items from the tea party agenda. “The purpose of report was to try and educate the public and mainstream media, that just because a Republican was

elected in 2010 it doesn’t make them a tea party conservative,” says Barney Keller, communications director for Club for Growth. “Overall, freshman Republicans are just like traditional ones … the rhetoric is hyped up but often it doesn’t match the voting record.” Perhaps the freshman class has moved the entire party to the right? If so, what accounts for the disparity within the tea party? There are a few possible answers. Maybe once you arrive in Washington, party leadership and political pressure convince you to take on a less ideological and more practical worldview. Or, maybe the freshman class was never as ardently conservative as voters were led to believe. Scoring Allen West Take Florida congressman Allen West, a name that has “tea party” tethered to it. Club for Growth scores West at 64 percent, and his record shows that he has repeatedly voted for the types of spending and energy subsidy bills that one assumes would be an automatic “no” for a tea party member. He’s not alone. Thirteen members of the freshman class scored 50 percent or lower in the Club for Growth rankings—some of them lower than those establishment RINOs—and nearly half of the freshman Republican class of 2010 voted under the 69 percent average of the veterans they

were supposed to set straight. “I have often said the race is on to change Washington before it changes us,” says Tim Huelskamp—who, along with Reps. Justin Amash of Michigan and Raul Labrador of Idaho, earned a perfect 100 score (there are others in the high 90s.) “In 2010, voters judged the freshman class by our promises. But in 2012, they will judge us by our records, particularly what has not been done. Where are the real, tangible cuts? Where is the progress toward preventing the most predictable fiscal crisis in history? By most conservative ratings, our class and this Congress have fallen far short of our conservative fiscal promises.” After listening to Republican Study Committee members’ impatient answers about leadership last week at a “Conversation with Conservatives” lunch, it is obvious that frustration over the debt-ceiling deal, the Export-Import Bank and a host of other issues, has many tea party members frustrated. Some of the frustrations, however, are not with leadership but with fellow freshmen who are less enthusiastic about the fight, because despite the general perception, the purist fiscal conservative ideologue has yet to overrun the party. David Harsanyi is a senior reporter covering the Economy and Budget for Human Events. He can be reached at DHarsanyi@EaglePub.Com


Week of May 21, 2012 |

Regnery Publishing G R E AT CO N S E RVAT I V E B O O K S • G R E AT CO N S E RVAT I V E AU T H O R S

IS THERE A MORAL CASE FOR CAPITALISM? “The link between economic liberty and public morality is not tenuous; it is clear and direct.” —The Rev. Robert Sircio


202-216-0600 | One Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001 |

10 | Week of May 21, 2012

energy & environment

Feds Considering Adding Poisonous Rattlesnake to Endangered Species List

■ Guns

OK’d for AZ public land By Audrey Hudson

▲ An eastern diamondback rattlesnake, shown at the Miami Science Museum, typically grows 4-5 feet long and weighs 4-5 pounds. Newscom

Environmentalists say snake is in danger of extinction due to “human persecution,” but listing will prompt a range of impacts, such as public land use restrictions. By Audrey Hudson


nvironmental groups have convinced the federal government to propose listing the poisonous eastern diamondback rattlesnake as an endangered species in order to protect the reptile from “human persecution.” “Survival of these snakes in large part depends on whether people continue to persecute them or instead choose to allow these amazing creatures to share the land with us,” Bill Matturro, spokesman for Protect All Living Species, said in welcoming the government’s decision, announced earlier this month. “In the Southeast, we are blessed with a rich natural heritage of animals and plants. All of these species—even the rattlesnakes— should be allowed to exist.” The Fish and Wildlife Service says they are taking comments on listing the snake because environmental groups presented “substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the eastern diamondback rattlesnake may be warranted.” The diamondback is the largest rattlesnake in North America, and the range of the eastern species encompasses the coastal plain of the southeastern U.S. from North Carolina to south Florida, and west to Mississippi and Louisiana. In addition to humans, environmentalists say the snake is at risk of extinc-

tion because its habitat, longleaf pine forests, are also disappearing. Federal officials estimate that 55 percent of this species can be found on private property. On public property where the remaining 45 percent are believed to be located, federal officials would have the authority to place restrictions on the use of that land if the reptile were listed as an endangered species. The federal government frowns on harassing or killing protected species, and has been known to impose some hefty fines. There is an exception to the rules if the person is defending lives or property, but the government has to first believe one’s life or property is in danger. Fined for defending herself In 1991, an underwater photographer was fined $10,000 for harassing pilot whales near Hawaii after his assistant Lisa Costello was nearly drowned by one of the creatures when it grabbed her leg and plunged her 40 feet beneath the sea. A rancher in Montana fought the government for seven years after he was fined $5,000 in 1989 for shooting a grizzly bear. An Interior Department review board finally concluded that the rancher, John Shuler, was in imminent danger and shot the bear in self-defense. The fine was dismissed. “The default position by the federal

government is to prosecute,” said Rob Gordon, a biologist and senior adviser for strategic outreach at the Heritage Foundation. “Government has a history of absurdly going after people who are attacked by federally protected species.” Such a listing would outlaw some popular southern festivals called “Rattlesnake Roundups,” wherein poisonous snakes are literally rounded up and killed, and rodeos, where the snakes are caught, used in races, and then released. Affecting religious practices What remains unclear is the effect such a listing would have on those southern religious organizations that celebrate their faith in Jesus Christ by taking up serpents, a practice also known as “snake handling.” Snakebites are uncommon, but because of their potent venom, rattlesnakes are responsible for the majority of fatalities from snakebites; eastern and western varieties of diamondback rattlesnakes account for almost 95 percent of these deaths, according to the American Family Physician, a peerreviewed journal. The government will take one year to receive comments and conduct studies on whether the snake should be listed as endangered. Audrey Hudson is a senior reporter for Human Events covering Energy and Environment. She can be reached at AHudson@EaglePub.Com

The Obama administration has abandoned a proposal to ban recreational shooting in the Arizona Sonoran Desert National Monument, prompting praise from a Republican lawmaker and a rebuke from environmental activists. “I’m pleased that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will allow recreational shooters to continue to engage in their sport on these public lands,” said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). “This is the right thing to do and the administration should do the same in the Ironwood Forest National Monument.” The BLM decided to allow hunters the continued right to engage in recreational shooting on the premises of the half-million acre monument despite pleas from the president’s liberal base that target shooting is harmful to the environment. “This plan isn’t safe, it isn’t scientific, and it isn’t sane,” said Greta Anderson, deputy director of the Western Watersheds Project. “The BLM has caved to political pressure once again.” Sandy Bahr, director for the Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon Chapter, argued that “irresponsible shooting” has already destroyed cactus and other native plants, damaged pictographs, and leaves a “mess on the landscape.” “BLM is abdicating its responsibility to these lands and to future generations by allowing damage to the monument resources to continue unabated,” she said. In a statement issued to the Arizona press, the BLM said “keeping the monument open to recreational target shooting will allow responsible sportsmen to continue enjoying this recreational opportunity in an appropriate manner.” The final plan for the management of the monument, which was created by President Bill Clinton during his final days in office, will be announced in late June.


Week of May 21, 2012 |

N e w s • i N d u s t r y • d e f e N s e • d e b at e • h i s to r y • w h i t e h o u s e • da i ly e v e N t s ® •

a l l e g i a N c e j o b s • c a p i to l h i l l • b i l l o f r i g h t s • c o m m e N ta r y • g ov e r N o r • c o N s e r vat i v e • m e d i a • p o l l s • s tat e o f t h e u N i o N • f r e e d o m • s e N at e • b r e a k i N g N e w s • r i g h t s • c a u c u s • f o u N d i N g fat h e r s • wa s h i N g to N • ag e N da • g u N s & pat r i ot s • a N N c o u lt e r l e t t e r • d e b t c e i l i N g • e N d o r s e m e N t • wa l l s t. • g o p • ta x e s • c o m m e N ta r y • N at i o N a l s e c u r i t y • m a i N s t. • va l u e s • g ov e r N m e N t • e c o N o m y • fa m i ly e v e N t s ® • u N i o N s • d o c u m e N t s • j u s t i c e • h e a lt h c a r e • t e c h N o lo g y • b e N e f i t s • r e s u lt s

• • e d u c at i o N • p r i m a r i e s

• r e d s tat e m o r N i N g b r i e f i N g • s c i e N c e • c o N s t i t u t i o N • f o r e i g N p o l i c y • public opiNioN • couNtry • small busiNess • life • the americaN people • N e w t g i N g r i c h l e t t e r • h o u s e o f r e p r e s e N tat i v e s • u N e m p loy m e N t • e l e c t i o N • m i l i ta r y • i m m i g r at i o N • c o N g r e s s • s u p r e m e c o u r t • l i b e r t y • N e w s • i N d u s t r y • d e f e N s e • d e b at e • h i s to r y • w h i t e h o u s e • da i ly e v e N t s ® • a l l e g i a N c e j o b s • c a p i to l h i l l • b i l l o f r i g h t s • c o m m e N ta r y • g ov e r N o r

News? Analysis? We’ve got you covered. For Free.

• c o N s e r vat i v e • m e d i a • p o l l s • s tat e o f t h e u N i o N • f r e e d o m • s e N at e • b r e a k i N g N e w s • r i g h t s • c a u c u s • f o u N d i N g fat h e r s • wa s h i N g to N • ag e N da • g u N s & pat r i ot s • a N N c o u lt e r l e t t e r • d e b t c e i l i N g • e N d o r s e m e N t • wa l l s t. • g o p • ta x e s • c o m m e N ta r y • N at i o N a l s e c u r i t y • m a i N s t. • va l u e s • g ov e r N m e N t • e c o N o m y • fa m i ly e v e N t s ® • u N i o N s • d o c u m e N t s • j u s t i c e • h e a lt h c a r e • t e c h N o lo gy • b e N e f i t s • r e s u lt s • e d u c at i o N • p r i m a r i e s • r e d s tat e m o r N i N g b r i e f i N g • s c i e N c e • c o N s t i t u t i o N • f o r e i g N p o l i c y • public opiNioN • couNtry • small busiNess • life • the americaN people • N e w t g i N g r i c h l e t t e r • h o u s e o f r e p r e s e N tat i v e s • u N e m p loy m e N t • ® e l e c t i o N • m i l i taDaily r y • iEvents m m i g r at N • coNg r e s s • sBriefing upreme court • liberty •i o RedState Morning

N e w s • i N d u s t r y • d e f e N s e • d e b at e • h i s to r y • w h i t e h o u s e • da i ly e v e N t s ® •

Guns & Patriots • Newt Gingrich Letter Ann Events med i a • Coulter p o l l s •Letter s tat e •oFamily f the u NioN • freedom

a l l e g i a N c e j o b s • c a p i to l h i l l • b i l l o f r i g h t s • c o m m e N ta r y • g ov e r N o r • c o N s e r vat i v e •


• s e N at e •

b r e a k i N g N e w s • r i g h t s • c a u c u s • f o u N d i N g fat h e r s • wa s h i N g to N • ag e N da • g u N s & pat r i ot s • a N N c o u lt e r l e t t e r • d e b t c e i l i N g • e N d o r s e m e N t • wa l l s t. • g o p • ta x e s • c o m m e N ta r y • N at i o N a l s e c u r i t y • m a i N s t. • va l u e s • g ov e r N m e N t • e c o N o m y • fa m i ly e v e N t s ® • u N i o N s • d o c u m e N t s • j u s t i c e • h e a lt h c a r e • t e c h N o lo gy • b e N e f i t s • r e s u lt s • e d u c at i o N • p r i m a r i e s • r e d s tat e m o r N i N g b r i e f i N g • s c i e N c e • c o N s t i t u t i o N • f o r e i g N p o l i c y • public opiNioN • couNtry • small busiNess • life • the americaN people • N e w t g i N g r i c h l e t t e r • h o u s e o f r e p r e s e N tat i v e s • u N e m p loy m e N t • e l e c t i o N • m i l i ta r y • i m m i g r at i o N • c o N g r e s s • s u p r e m e c o u r t • l i b e r t y • N e w s • i N d u s t r y • d e f e N s e • d e b at e • h i s to r y • w h i t e h o u s e • da i ly e v e N t s ® • a l l e g i a N c e j o b s • c a p i to l h i l l • b i l l o f r i g h t s • c o m m e N ta r y • g ov e r N o r • c o N s e r vat i v e • m e d i a • p o l l s • s tat e o f t h e u N i o N • f r e e d o m • s e N at e • b r e a k i N g N e w s • r i g h t s • c a u c u s • f o u N d i N g fat h e r s • wa s h i N g to N • ag e N da

To sign up for our FREE e-letters, visit: For advertising inquiries: Joseph Guerriero | Vice President & Group Publisher | 202-677-4462 | |

12 Special Focus: Defense and National Security | WEEK OF MAY 21, 2012

the Choice is Clear: Romney Will keep Us Safer EXCLUSIVE JOHN BOLTON: From his ‘blame America first’ mentality to his kowtowing to the Russians, President Obama and his foreign policy blunders can’t continue.

▲ Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney speaks to a crowd during a campaign event, in warwick, R.I., April 11. By John Bolton


arack Obama’s presidency has had profoundly negative consequences for our national security. From debilitating cuts in defense budgets, to gutting national missile defense efforts, to his unwillingness to acknowledge a continuing war against terrorism, to his inability to stem the nuclear proliferation threats posed by North Korea and Iran, to his echo of George McGovern’s 1972 refrain, “come home, America,” the picture is bleak. Underlying these and many other foreign and defense policy mistakes is a common theme. Obama consistently rejects the ancient doctrine si vis pacem, para bellum: if you want peace, prepare for war. George Washington said almost exactly that in his first annual message to Congress in 1790: “To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.” By contrast, Obama acts as though U.S. strength is provocative, and that our military forces, especially our

nuclear “umbrella,” exceed our legitimate needs, and are therefore worthy of reduction. He bases this conclusion not on strategic analysis, but on ideology, the knee-jerk belief that America’s size and global influence somehow induce the misbehavior of others. ‘Blame america first’ Jeane Kirkpatrick assailed “the San Francisco Democrats,” site of their 1984 nominating convention, by saying “they always blame America first.” Fortunately, neither Walter Mondale nor successive ideological clones were elected, but Obama was. He has spent his first term doing exactly what Kirkpatrick warned us about. The president either does not understand or does not care that America’s strong international presence is critical and often decisive in maintaining whatever stability and security exists around the world. The United States and its alliance partners provide this international stability not out of altruism, but out of self-interest. For all of Obama’s obses-


sion with domestic affairs, often to the exclusion of national security priorities, it is ironic he has not made the most elementary connection, namely that U.S. politico-military resoluteness internationally is critical to sustained economic growth at home. If international trade, investment, finance, and communications were to be imperiled by growing global anarchy or the belligerence of regional powers, our economy would suffer, and so would many others. The inextricable linkage between a strong America abroad and a strong America at home is one that Obama ignores at our collective peril. Contrary to Obama’s worldview, challenges to our national security, economic and political, are not provoked by U.S. strength but by U.S. weakness. Enemies and potential adversaries today see a White House most benignly be described as inattentive to world affairs, which does not view the world as terribly threatening or challenging to American interests, and which is not prepared to confront incipient threats to our interests before they metastasize.

Our opponents now understand Obama, and they are now continually recalibrating their strategies to take account of both his indifference and his weakness. And with Obama’s measure having been taken, a second term will doubtless mean that the scope and the pace of global challenges to our security will broaden and accelerate. It is his fundamental ideological blunder—combined with inexperience, incompetence and naiveté—that explains so much of Obama’s national security strategy. Unfortunately, while restoring a proper philosophical basis for U.S. policy would be relatively easy under a new President Romney, correcting the real-world consequences of Obama’s mistakes will be far more difficult and costly. Some problems have inevitably gotten irretrievably worse, such as the Iranian and North Korean nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs, which made four years of essentially undisturbed progress on Obama’s watch. We can only hope that neither Pyongyang nor Tehran take steps in the eight months before January 20, 2013, that will so worsen the situation that President Romney would be confronted with a fundamentally more dangerous proliferation environment. Similarly, Russia and China continue to become more adversarial. Despite a three-year effort to press the “reset” button with Moscow, Russia has pocketed one Obama concession after another, on missile defense, arms control, and proliferation. Now, top Russian defense officials are threatening preemptive military strikes against U.S. missile-defense facilities in Europe. If this is what we get for bending the knee to Moscow, one can hardly conjure what “bad” relations with Russia would mean. Similarly, Beijing is building up its conventional and nuclear forces, conducting widespread cyber-warfare against both the U.S. government and our private sector, and making vast, and utterly unjustifiable, territorial claims in its region, with essentially no response from the White House. Elections, as political analysts say, are about choices. On national security, it is hard to imagine a starker choice than the one we will make this November. And the budget deficits created by Obama will make for extraordinarily hard choices as we try to restore America’s international presence. But as Ronald Reagan once said: “yes, the cost is high, but the price of neglect would be infinitely higher.” John bolton is former u.S. ambassador to the united nations.

inside this Special Focus issue: PaGE 12 Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton says that when it comes to national security issues, voters will have a stark choice between candidates this November.

PaGE 14 Dr. Sebastian L. v. Gorka asserts that the U.S. needs a renaissance in strategic thinking and action. He identifies five serious national security threats.

PaGE 16 Mitt Romney and some of his advisers outline the presumptive nominee’s foreign policy vision for America and contrast his approach with that of President Barack Obama. By Hope Hodge of Human events.

PaGE 18 New technology is rapidly changing how the U.S. goes to war. James Carafano of The Heritage Foundation presents the latest developments.

Week of May 21, 2012 |


14 Special Focus: Defense and National Security | Week of May 21, 2012

Five Grave National Security Threats That U.S. Must Address Strategically EXCLUSIVE: America can no longer afford to “wing it” in expending blood and treasure; instead, U.S. needs a renaissance in strategic thinking, strategic action. By Sebastian L. v. Gorka


n spite of the shock of the Sept. 11th attacks, the United States hasn’t faced a conventional existential threat since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. As a result, our defense planning documents, from our National Security Strategy to the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review, reflect a veritable laundry list of objectives— some as essential as securing our borders, and others as aspirational as stopping climate change. I have a unique perspective on our national security, as I spend my days instructing some of our finest Special Forces officers, and counterterrorism agents and just a few days ago, I had the privilege of swearing an oath of allegiance that at last made me a proud citizen of the United States. The ceremony gave me occasion to reflect on the non-negotiable characteristics of our nation—the things that makes us who we are. These are most clearly identified in the founding documents that established the Republic: the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Together, as Paul Nitze famously wrote in NSC-68, the declassified memo that guided us through the Cold War, these provide the “purpose of the nation.” The five greatest threats to our country, and the government these documents define, are mass-casualty terrorism, subversion of the Constitution, the unsustainable growth in entitlement spending, the constriction of U.S. economic growth and global mobility, and our own lack of strategic vision. 1. Mass-casuality terrorism On mass-casualty terrorism, little more need be said: al-Qaeda killed more people in 102 minutes on September 11th than the Irish Republican Army killed in 30 years. Few doubt that if al-Qaeda and its fellow travelers could acquire weapons of mass destruction, they would do far worse, and that remains the primary short-term threat to the United States. (WMD use by religious extremists is primarily an al-Qaeda issue, but the apocalyptic designs of

▲ U.S. Army Pfc. Ryan Genaw observes a hill for a possible enemy threat in Kandarou, Afghanistan in this 2009 photo. 

Tehran link that country to this category of threat). 2. Unsustainable entitlement growth On entitlements, America’s political elites—left and right alike—have led us to the brink of national bankruptcy. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the bank bailouts, and the president’s health care law are all consequences of an environment in which leaders know they’ll never be held to account for the debts they incur in our names. This represents a very serious longterm threat to the nation. 3. Subversion of the Constitution By now, the Arab Spring has made clear that fundamentalist zealots can rise to power by the ballot as well as the bullet. The Muslim Brotherhood and its fundamentalist Salafist allies now hold over 70 percent of the seats in the post-Mubarak parliament, and their sister organizations are faring similarly all across the Middle East and North Africa. More importantly, the Brotherhood has spent decades establishing front organizations here

in the U.S., dedicated to chipping away at the founding principles upon which our Republic was built. The list of these organizations was revealed in 2007, in the federal Holy Land Foundation trial, the biggest terrorist financing case in U.S. history. Today these organizations daily undermine U.S. national security, be it by making it impossible for the NYPD to gather information relevant to stopping the next 9/11, or convincing the White House to politically censor federal counterterrorism training. We remain a military power without peer, but we continue to understand war as a kinetic activity rather than something much broader: accomplishing our objectives through coercion and information warfare. 4. Constriction of U.S. growth China is not a direct kinetic threat to America—does anyone foresee Chinese tanks rolling down U.S. interstates?—but if current trends continue, China will increasingly dominate the natural resources the U.S. needs to maintain its economic growth.

Panetta puts limits on new F-22 after pilot problems By Hope Hodge


ollowing public allegations from Air Force pilots that the new F-22 raptor is unsafe to fly, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced this week that the fighters’ flights would be limited to regions and locations in which it would be easy to land quickly.

Problems with the F-22 date back to 2008, when pilots first reported symptoms of oxygen deficiency while flying. Though the Air Force cleared the fleet to fly last September after a temporary grounding, pilots and flight surgeons have come forward in recent weeks to express new fears. Two pilots appeared on 60 Minutes

earlier this month to say they would no longer fly the F-22; the program reported there had been 11 new cases of hypoxia since September. Though unit cost rose to $412 million per plane this year, making it the nation’s most expensive jet, conservatives have rigorously defended the F-22, calling it the world’s most

Spc. Evan Marcy

(The most glaring example that will affect us soon is Chinese control of over 90 percent of African rare-earth minerals). 5. Lack of strategic vision This last threat is not a country or non-state actor, but a weakness in ourselves: We can’t seem to think or act strategically. The future of Mexico is far more important to the United States than the future of Afghanistan, for instance, but you wouldn’t know it by the actions of our government. If we refuse to think strategically, we will continue to run into trouble, and condemn our nation to second-class status sooner rather than later. Responding to these five threats will require a renaissance in strategic thinking and strategic action. America can no longer afford to “wing it,” expending blood and treasure with wild abandon. Dr. Sebastian L. v. Gorka is director of the National Security Fellowship Program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He teaches strategy and irregular warfare at Georgetown University, National Defense University, U.S. Army Special Operations Command and SOCOM. He can be reached at: Gorka@DefendDemocracy.Org.

advanced fighter and an answer to global technology developments. After Panetta’s announcement Tuesday, Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger (Ill.) reaffirmed his support of the F-22, but said he would fight to protect Air Force whistleblowers make sure the service was working to make the aircraft safer. Hope Hodge is a reporter covering Defense and National Security for Human Events. She can be reached at HHodge@EaglePub.Com

Week of May 21, 2012 |

The Bradley Prizes will be presented on Thursday, June 7 at The Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, DC. The Bradley Prizes recognize outstanding achievements that are consistent with the Foundation’s mission statement. Founded in 1985, The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation is devoted to strengthening American democratic capitalism and the institutions, principles and values that sustain and nurture it. Its programs support limited, competent government; a dynamic marketplace for economic, cultural activity; and a vigorous defense, at home and abroad, of American ideas and institutions. Learn more at


16 Special Focus: Defense and National Security | Week of May 21, 2012

No Apolo

EXCLUSIVE: As commander in chief, Mit to Ronald Reagan as his model for foreign pol the Romney camp for a first look at T By Hope Hodge


itt Romney’s inner circle eschews politico labels when discussing his foreign policy stance: neoconservative, paleo-conservative, realist. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee and his team have tried to move beyond the jargon, talking instead about a return to a view of America as exceptional—a rightful world leader, a strong and true ally, and a fierce foe, with the will and wherewithal to meet threats with decisive military action when required. Jamie Fly, executive director for the Foreign Policy Initiative, told Human Events he saw the Romney outlook as one that would embody the conservative tradition of peace through strength that dates back to Ronald Reagan, and would abandon attempts to assimilate or shoulder a supporting role on the world stage. Romney himself said that freedom would be a casualty if America became weak and conciliatory, in a speech at The Citadel last October. “As President of the United States, I will devote myself to an American Century,” he said. “And I will never, ever apologize for America.” If you do need a metaphor to differentiate his perspective from that of incumbent Barack Obama, the Romney camp would be happy to have you picture Reagan versus Jimmy Carter. The Gipper is invoked serially during a conference call with two senior Romney foreign policy advisers last week, which was conducted on the condition that the advisers not be named. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee, they say, embraces the Reaganite idea of American exceptionalism, a nation that benefits all others by remaining at the top and in the lead. Romney emulates Reagan in shoring up military power and authority as a credible deterrent to other nations that might otherwise pose a military threat. And like Reagan, Romney courts diversity in his brain trust, they said, welcoming debate and using a variety of inputs to make informed decisions.

▲ Mitt Romney speaks to Citadel cadets and supporters during a campaign speech inside Mark Clark Hall on The Citadel campus in Charleston, S.C., Oc

The comparison of Obama to Carter as a similarly weak leader on the world stage is on its way to becoming a standby in the Romney camp as well. The former Massachusetts governor himself deployed the comparison with great success at the end of April, when Obama asserted Romney would not have ordered the raid to take out Osama bin Laden if he had been president instead. “Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order,” Romney scoffed. In an editorial for Foreign Policy from the same week, Romney campaign special adviser Rich Williamson characterized Obama’s failed attempts at negotiation with a volatile and irresponsible North Korea and amorphous plan for action regarding a Syria in revolt against the dictator Assad (“one part bluster, one part incoherence, and one part paralysis”) as his own “Jimmy Carter moment.” Romney front-loaded his foreign policy and security positions last fall, publishing a white paper authored by special adviser Eliot Cohen in October 2011 laying out a vision for American leadership secured by stronger alliances with friendly nations and more credible threats to those that represent international menace. He followed up with a

speech echoing those themes at the Citadel in South Carolina the same month, promising to stop Obama defense cuts and bolster the nation’s economy to make the country stronger from without and within. Critics have called Romney’s way forward in foreign policy unclear and untested; in April, Vice President Joe Biden attacked his position as “a foreign policy that would have America go it alone.” Obama’s ‘toothless engagement’ Romney’s advisers say this merely deflects from an insistence by Obama on “leading from behind” and presiding willingly over a “managed decline” of the nation, while watching other world powers come to the fore. In Iran, for example, the Romney team sees a president who promised to halt the Iranian nuclear threat, but opted for toothless engagement rather than credible threats of force. Romney wants a negotiated solution in Iran and has promised to continue use of harsh economic sanctions as a tool--a strategy for which he actually gave Obama credit in his October white paper--but has said that unlike the president, he would not shy away from military action if necessary to prevent Iran

from becoming nuclear. What constitutes reason to carry out such a threat? You know it when you see it, said a Romney adviser. The advisers did not mention concrete criteria such as the Powell-Weinberger Doctrine, which guided George H.W. Bush in the first Gulf War and derived its name from Reagan’s Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger. Romney has also stayed away from specifics, saying in a Republican debate last fall that military action in Iran should be pursued if all other options fail. The roster of 22 foreign policy and security advisers is conspicuously full of officials who served in the George W. Bush administration, and contains about a half-dozen former members and contributors to the now-defunct Project for a New American Century, a group of mostly hawkish conservatives that coalesced in the late 1990s to promote “a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity.” But the list also includes former elected officials, leading scholars from a spectrum of think tanks including the left-leaning Brookings Institution, the right-leaning Heritage Foundation, the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute, and others, and people who

Special Focus: Defense and National Security 17

Week of May 21, 2012 |


n Meet

the team

tt Romney will reach back licy. Human Events goes inside The Romney Doctrine

ct. 7, 2011. 

worked with Romney while he was governor of Massachusetts. Romney’s senior policy advisers who spoke with Human Events expressed little concern about a recent New York Times op-ed anonymously citing various Romney foreign policy advisers saying their views didn’t line up with some of the candidate’s public statements. That was the strength of Romney as a businessman, one adviser said: he courted debate, listening to many voices, and making informed decisions based on their input. The common thread uniting the foreign policy and security team that Romney has assembled is that all are experienced professionals, respected in their field, Romney advisers said. “The one thing about Governor Romney is he likes people to test their ideas,” said Alex Wong, Foreign Policy Director for the campaign. “He’s not afraid of ideas. He’s not afraid of disagreement. This is the way he’s always governed and always ran his businesses.” Can he beat the president who killed bin Laden? At the end of the day, Romney must face off on foreign policy and national security against an incumbent who claims to have single-handedly elim-


inated Osama bin Laden. Are his ideas robust enough to win the issue? Veteran Republican campaign strategist Karl Rove said the Obama administration’s attacks on Romney’s inexperience were a red herring to direct attention away from the president’s own failures. “Obama’s reset with the Middle Eastern dictators didn’t work too well... wherever he’s succeeded is basically because he’s done more to follow in the steps of his predecessor and has basically ignored his own campaign promises,” Rove told Human Events. “The president is seen as a weak leader internationally, and that’s not good for our country.” Jamie Fly, executive director of the Foreign Policy Initiative, said Romney’s positions were stronger than the president’s, even though he faced some natural disadvantages as the challenger in the race. “I think any challenger to an incumbent president faces an uphill battle in terms of convincing the electorate that he can be commander in chief,” Fly said. He noted that President Obama has some tactical pyrotechnics at his disposal that Romney does not. For example, a last minute, surprise trip to Kabul, Afghanistan at the beginning

of the month to give a speech that dominated the news cycle for days. But the president’s showmanship, he said, might not be enough to camouflage his failures. “I think that Governor Romney, if you look at his speech in the Citadel, he’s laid out a case for strong leadership in the world, for reinvigorating our alliances,” Fly said. “The administration really has nothing they can point to in terms of successes in these areas.” Romney should also make hay, he said, of President Obama’s utter disregard for his senior military leadership in setting a rigid deadline for pulling out of Afghanistan that was much earlier than they advised. “I think what Governor Romney and his campaign have highlighted is at key moments over the last three years, President Obama has shown a hesitance to fully back the recommendations of his commanders,” Fly said. “My guess is a Romney administration would consult more closely with military commanders and respect their advice.” A point of consensus among experts who spoke with Human Events was that elections are rarely won on the strength of a foreign policy platform, and this one is likely to be no different. Heather Hurlburt, the executive director of National Security Network, said the vote on security and defense would come down to a “gut issue” for many voters. “Once you get to the general election, what the voters want it a presidential candidate who grasps the idea of keeping Americans safe and who will do a reasonable job at it,” she said. But Fly said failure on the part of the voters to consider adequately the president’s role in security and foreign policy may have helped to elect a leader seen as weak on the world stage. “We had a situation in 2008 where I do not think President Obama was elected because of his national security positions, he was elected because of the economy,” Fly said. “(The voters) need to remember that when they elect a president, they are electing a commander-in-chief. It’s important to have a comprehensive discussion about U.S. national security policy.” Hope Hodge is a reporter covering Defense and National Security for Human Events. She can be reached at HHodge@EaglePub.Com

Mitt Romney released a list last fall of 22 special advisers in foreign policy and national security, and additional counsel as chairs of specialfocus working groups. We spoke with a number of them for this article, on and off the record. The roster includes George W. Bush administration veterans, independent experts, and figures from Romney’s own past, such as his former Massachusetts lieutenant governor, Kerry Healey. Other names on the list include Cofer Black, director of the CIA’s counterterrorism center from 1999-2002, known for his hard line on global terrorism and groundwork following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, Dan Senor, a former spokesman for the Coalition Provision Authority in Iraq and Fox News contributor; and Mitchell Reiss, a veteran diplomat who served as Romney’s national security adviser during his 2008 bid for the presidency. Among the alumni of previous administrations are Dov Zakheim, a former deputy undersecretary and undersecretary of defense for Reagan and Bush 43; Richard Williamson, who served as assistant secretary of state for International Organization Affairs under Reagan and Bush 41 and was succeeded by John Bolton; Meghan O’Sullivan, who advised Bush 43 on Iraq and Afghanistan; John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy under Reagan; John Danilovich, an ambassador to Brazil under Bush 43; and Eliot Cohen, counselor to the department of state from 2007 to 2009. Romney has also culled from a span of the prominent think tanks, enlisting former U.S. Senator Jim Talent from the Heritage Foundation, Robert Kagan from the Brookings Institution, Republican Jewish Coalition adviser Norm Coleman, and Robert Joseph of the National Institute for Public Policy, among others. Sources tell Human Events that scholars with the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute, Paul Wolfowitz and Gary Schmitt, are also advising the campaign, though Romney’s staff would not confirm that.

18 Special Focus: Defense and National Security | WEEK OF MAY 21, 2012

technology Will Change Warfare, Bringing more Power, Lighter Weight, Lower Cost The most critical technology investments should be for 5th generation fighters, replacement ships, missile defense and a next generation nuclear arsenal. One big trend is very small—nanotechnology—and will address what the military wants: equipment that is almost weightless, powered by almost nothing, cost pennies. By James Jay Carafano


ar is a people business. It’s not started, ended or won by technology. But innovation can certainly be a game-changer, like shifting from a Selectric to a Mac. New technologies will likely change the character of future war. If the United States is to remain secure, it must at least keep pace with the competition in the quest to master emerging technologies. But America faces two daunting challenges in this quest. The first is financial. After two decades of underinvesting in replacing and updating major systems from satellites to nuclear weapons to new combat vehicles, the U.S. is in danger of losing its advantage in high-tech conventional and strategic forces. The second is procedural. Government R&D no longer drives the innovation most likely to impact future national security. So how will cutting edge technology make its way onto the battlefield of the future? Technology requires investment Dealing with the first problem will require real political leadership—not faux profiles in courage such as that projected recently by Michele Flournoy. The former Undersecretary of Defense applauded the president’s decision to gut the defense budget, then recited a list of “must dos”–like “maintain the world’s finest military”—that simply can’t be done on Obama’s anemic budgets. To maintain a technological advantage in defense requires adequate investment. Period. What are the most critical tech investments? Topping the short list would be 5th generation fighters. The Pentagon needs to speed up the F-35 buy and restart the F-22 line. These aircraft replace about a dozen planes in the current fleet and are essential to air supremacy for the next half-century. Also on the list: amped up shipbuilding for the Navy and Coast Guard. Much of today’s Coast Guard equipment would qualify for Social Security. Replacement ships, such as the National Security Cutter, could and should incorporate the latest maritime technologies, making them far superior to the older class of cutters in their prime. The last two items on the list are missile defense and a next-generation nuclear arsenal with delivery systems that will constitute a real deterrent to hostile regimes. If the U.S. does not ramp-up investments in these key advanced capabilities, then the sword of the republic will become little more than rusty old pocket-knife in the back

▲ The U.S. Navy variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35C, conducts a test flight over the Chesapeake Bay, Feb. 11, 2011.

pocket of a second-tier power. non-traditional tools Beyond these investments, next-generation security will also require more non-traditional tools, ranging from cyber-systems to directed-energy weapons to space platforms. Technological transformation in these areas will be led by the very small. Breakthroughs in nanotechnologies, biotechnology, and neural-science will lead the way, affecting everything from material science to the cognitive capacity of combat leaders. Innovation in the world of the small has the potential to solve the military’s biggest problems. When the armed forces want to go anywhere—from cyberspace to outer space, from the expanse of the Sahel to dense urban centers—what they need to take with them always raises the same challenges: power, weight and cost. These problems pop up over and over again, regardless of the task. Armed forces want equipment that is almost weightless, can be powered by almost nothing, costs pennies, and works reliably anywhere in the world. Oh, and it also helps if they’re invulnerable to bombs and bullets, computer bugs and real bugs, germs and

other diseases. Nanotechnologies promise to address a lot of these issues. “Nano” refers to scale. It means building materials and systems that are really small—on the molecular and atomic level. On a nanoscale, a nano-Earth would be the size of a marble. Nanotechnology has almost infinite military applications from lightweight, super-strong materials to miniature machines that can think. Biological innovation will offer a whole new range of capabilities from countering risks to enhancing the capacity of military performance. In some cases innovation in biotechnology and nanotechnology will team up. There are already innovations to create tiny nano-machines that can target the delivery of medication to specific cells. neuroscience Also on the horizon are advancements in neuroscience with vast military applications. Some innovations will help address the scourges of today’s battlefields—such as the effects of traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress syndrome. Other advances will improve cognitive performance, enhance learning and reduce stress.


Neuroscience, biotechnology, and nanotechnologies will be combined to create new capabilities—like a helmet that gives a soldier “eyes in the back of his head”—that seemed impossible just a decade ago. Mastering innovation in the world of the small won’t be easy for the Pentagon, if only because most of these discoveries will be pioneered in the private sector—not under federal contract. Private research and development already outstrips government efforts in terms of the level of spending. That imbalance will likely increase. From areas like information technology to space science, the Pentagon increasingly will find itself scrambling to figure out how to adopt commercial off-the-shelf technology to military applications. Cutting-edge national security technology will come online, whether the U.S. is prepared to exploit it or not. If America truly wants “the world’s finest military,” it will need to bring both a checkbook and wise leadership determined to master the wave of change that is coming. James Jay Carafano is director of the Allison Center for foreign Policy Studies at the Heritage foundation (


Week of May 21, 2012 |

How to Move the Movers and Shake the Shakers. Take The Hill and Beyond. Human Events, America’s first conservative weekly, is the voice that’s heard in every corridor of power. And now, we’re adding even more muscle to this powerful voice. A new editor, a dynamic redesign, new content, and more distribution on the Hill than any other conservative publication.

Class + Mass = Conservative Clout >> Class. We deliver. Reach influential Human Events readers like Steve Forbes, Grover Norquist, Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal. With their resources and connections, they make things happen, from policy direction to brand preferences.


Mass. We deliver. Reach hundreds of thousands of passionate, engaged conservatives through our breakout digital offerings—,, and six targeted e-letters, including RedState Morning Briefing and Daily Events.

Combine these powerful audiences—that’s Conservative Clout. Contact us about advertising with The Human Events Group.

Joseph Guerriero | Vice President & Group Publisher | 202-677-4462 | |

20 | Week of May 21, 2012

across america

Changing the World, One City at a Time

▲ Concerned citizens chant during a demonstration to protest the death of Kelly Thomas, Aug. 13, 2011 in Fullerton, Calif.

Furthermore, the three council members opposed the release of the video to the public. They backed the department. McKinley, a former police chief who hired the officers involved in the beating, wanted to keep the officers on the street. These three didn’t seriously question the police department, which allowed the officers to watch the video and get their stories straight before giving their testimony to investigators. Jones referred to the peaceful citizens of his city who were protesting the Thomas death as the equivalent of a “lynch mob.” “The community was crying out in anger,” said Bushala. “They wanted leadership. Not only did Mayor Jones and Councilmen Bankhead and McKinley fail to lead, but they joined with those who downplayed this horror. They tried to cover it up and circle the wagons. Their actions were cowardly.”


The reaction to a senseless killing of a homeless man by police brutality shows that Americans can accomplish far more than they think if they focus locally and act locally. by Steven Greenhut


ACRAMENTO — Given the nation’s deep fiscal problems, many Americans on the right and left are so frustrated about the political process that they are jumping on tea party buses and occupying city parks. But efforts to reform Washington, D.C., or Sacramento are hopeless, despite those “change” slogans advanced by a president committed mainly to the status quo. If you want to change the world, you need to start in your city. A great example of what agitated citizens can accomplish is taking place in the southern California city of Fullerton. Three council members are the targets of a recall election on June 5. The effort has gained steam after the Orange County district attorney recently released a horrific 33-minute video of the city’s police officers beating a frail homeless man named Kelly Thomas last July. Thomas later died in a hospital. Fullerton is a long-time Republican bastion. It’s hardly lefty Oakland, where protests against police brutality are expected. But the Thomas beating death and the craven response from police and the council majority were so disturbing that it sparked a city-

wide revolt led by a local businessman named Tony Bushala, whose blog was a lightning rod for debate. He is leading the recall election. The brouhaha is remarkably nonpartisan. The three-targeted council members—Dick Jones, Don Bankhead and Pat McKinley—are establishment Republicans. The two council members who escaped its wrath come from opposite ends of the political spectrum, conservative Republican Bruce Whitaker and liberal Democrat Sharon Quirk. Those two called for openness and accountability, but were overruled by the majority. But it’s hard to hide from the incident now that the video has gone viral. Caught on camera The surveillance tape caught the horrifying confrontation in vivid detail. We see a large officer named Manuel Ramos approach the scraggly Thomas, who is suspected of breaking into some cars. Thomas gives him some lip, but doesn’t act in a threatening way. Ramos then puts on what the district attorney calls a “show” as he slowly slips on latex gloves, twirls his baton and then says, “(S)ee my fists ... these fists are going to f—- you up.” Another officer comes in and starts

swinging a baton at Thomas, who cries out in pain. Yet another officer, Jay Cicinelli, used a stun gun on Thomas and, as the DA explained, hammered Thomas in the face with the blunt end of it. Thomas called out for his dad as the officers worked him over. Ramos is being charged with second-degree murder and Cicinelli with involuntary manslaughter. Ramos, the DA added, “turned a routine encounter into a brutal beating death.” After the beating, and Fullerton residents were consumed by anger and demanded answers, their leaders failed them. The now-departed police chief took vacation and then went on disability leave. That left the council to take charge. But the council majority dissembled. It was bad enough that the Fullerton Police Department released false information (i.e., claiming that officers suffered broken bones after a supposedly brutal fight with Thomas), but here’s what Mayor Jones said, which is as insensitive as it is idiotic: “I’ve seen far worse injuries that are survivable. I don’t know why he died.” Thomas was fine, then he was beaten into a pulp— something now undeniable, thanks to the video—and these city “leaders” couldn’t figure out what killed him.

Plagued by scandals Fullerton’s police department has been plagued by scandals, including officers accused of theft, illegal drug use and even having sex in a squad car. Apparently, Fullerton residents had enough of this and the Thomas death was the spark for a mini-revolt. Residents protested and—this is key—kept up the pressure on city hall even as the investigation dragged on. Another key was having a local businessman willing to pay for the recall election, which has kept the fires of anger and real change alive in the ensuing months. Recall advocates have focused on other legitimate issues also, ones that are broad enough to hold onto that non-partisan coalition. For instance, Jones, Bankhead and McKinley have been advocates for eminent-domain-abusing, taxsquandering redevelopment projects throughout the city’s downtown. They have failed to rein in pension costs. McKinley is himself a pension-abuse poster child, a double dipper who receives $215,000 a year. All three defended a water tax that has been ruled illegal, with McKinley complaining about “knee jerk” efforts to return the money to the public. Furthermore, the replacement candidates come from across the political spectrum, thus keeping this from becoming a Republican vs. Democrat grudge match. A news story reported that “legal experts caution that the footage doesn’t tell the entire story.” But anyone who has watched the videotape and looked at the response from those three city leaders has seen enough. We’ll see what happens in June, but the Fullerton reaction shows that Americans can accomplish far more than they think if they think locally and act locally. Steven Greenhut is vice president of journalism for the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. Write to him at Steven.Greenhut@ FranklinCenterHQ.Org.


WEEK OF MAY 21, 2012 |

acroSS america

JO Hn Gi ZZi On POLi t i CS

messer and Brooks Cruise in indiana


ith so much national and international attention focused on the resounding defeat of six-term Sen. Richard Lugar by State Treasurer Richard Mourdock, relatively little attention was paid to the GOP primaries in the Hoosier State’s two open U.S. House districts. In the Sixth District, former State Rep. and conservative stalwart Luke Messer defeated three opponents to become the Republican nominee for the seat Rep. Mike Pence is giving up to run for governor. Two years ago, Messer, who also served as executive director of the state Republican Party, narrowly lost a crowded race against veteran Rep. Dan Burton in the neighboring 5th District. When redistricting moved his home into the 6th District, Messer chose to run for there after Pence opted for the gubernatorial race. After 30 years in Congress, a nearbrush with defeat last time, unfavorable redistricting, and the prospect of facing a spirited primary challenge again, Burton (lifetime ACU rating: 97.06 percent) decided against running again. Much of the Washington talk and money said that former Rep. David McIntosh, who had represented the neighboring Sixth District from 19942000, would be the GOP nominee. But that was the problem. As one

▲ Luke Messer

GOP consultant from Indianapolis told Human Events, “David had roots here but he had not watered them.” After losing a race for governor in 2000, McIntosh lived and worked in the Washington D.C. area until decid-


▲ Susan Brooks

ing to challenge Burton last year. In a surprise to friends and supporters in the Washington area, McIntosh lost the primary by about 700 votes to former U.S. Attorney Susan Brooks. The wife of a well-known jurist, Brooks,


like McIntosh, is a strong conservative. She repeatedly hit the former congressman on the residency issue. Both Brooks and Messer are considered sure things to win their races in the fall.”

Fighting the machine, nassau County Style “To me it looks like [Nassau County Republican Chairman Joe] Mondello decided some time in late spring that [Democratic Rep.] Carolyn McCarthy might get beaten and that he didn’t want the winner to be someone like [Frank] Scaturro who didn’t owe him anything. Whether [Francis] Becker would be a weaker candidate than Scaturro is unclear, but his late entry suggests he wasn’t strongly motivated to run. Would big government Chairman Mondello rather lose the election than have an anti-big government Republican win? Kinda looks like that.” That’s how Michael Barone, nationally syndicated columnist and founder of the Almanac of American Politics, succinctly characterized the Republican political climate in New York’s Nassau County two years ago. It hasn’t changed much in 2012—except that this time, conservative reform candidate Scaturro may well defeat the machine-backed Becker in the June 26 primary and go on to face eight-termer McCarthy in the fall. “I’ve spent most of my life recently, and most of my savings, quite honestly, to bring conservative representation to Congress from the 4th [U.S. House] dis-

trict,” the 39-year-old Scaturro, former visiting law professor at Hofstra University and staffer on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told me last week, “and the political bosses clearly don’t want me. But this will change, as the tea parties here, and people disgusted with patronage politics, say ‘enough.’” Having so far raised more than $110,000 and mobilized an eager cadre of young conservative volunteers, Scaturro again faces his 2010 primary opponent. The grandson of the late conservative Rep. (1952-64) Frank Becker (R-N.Y.), County Legislator Fran Becker has been a reliable soldier in GOP Chairman Mondello’s organization. With votes over the years for tax increases and outsized budgets, Becker has, in Scaturro’s words, “really gone in the wrong direction as Nassau County was headed for a fiscal train wreck. My opponent was just one of many Republicans here who denounced having a fiscal control board after the county went underwater.” Becker has also received the endorsement of the state Conservative Party. Scaturro was referring to Nassau County avoiding bankruptcy in 2011 when the state put in place a board to

▲ Frank Scaturro


make the decisions on spending and spending cuts rather than the county government. Among those on the panel is much-respected conservative George Marlin, former head of the New York Port Authority and 1993 Conservative Party nominee for mayor of New York. Becker, recalled Scaturro, “cast votes with [former Democratic County Executive] Thomas Suozzi that helped create this situation and then denounced the venue to make hard decisions and get us out of it. In so doing, he and other Republicans here missed an oppor-

tunity to identify themselves and the party with smaller government and less spending.” As he underscores the differences between himself and the machinebacked Becker, Scaturro notes that he is seen as an outsider because “I’m not beholden to the party bosses. I got involved in the Republican club here in New Hyde Park when I was sixteen and have volunteered for Republican campaigns since—including that for Greg Becker, Fran’s younger brother, when he was the Republican nominee for Congress here in 1998 and 2000. It’s been twenty years since the bosses picked a winning candidate for this seat. It’s time to let the people decide.” Whoever wins the GOP nomination will have what could be quite the political prize in the Empire State. For all the carving up U.S. House districts by a federal district court, the 4th District actually went from one with a 6 percent Democratic edge to a 3 percent Democratic edge. McCarthy is considered as vulnerable as she has ever been. John Gizzi is the political editor at Human Events. He can be reached at JGizzi@EaglePub.Com.

22 | Week of May 21, 2012


California’s Bad Dream: Budget Deficit Hits $16B, Unemployment 11%, Businesses Exit The state’s economy has suffered from years of progressive policies and anti-business regulations. Governor Jerry Brown’s solution? The governor last week suggested raising the top tax rate to 13.3 percent, in other words, squeeze the taxpayers. Let’s see what voters say to that initiative in November. doesn’t suffer from tax rates that are too low, but too high. It also has the most anti-business regulatory climate in the country. To cite but one example, then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. It mandated a reduction in state greenhouse gases by 25 percent by 2020. A 2009 study by California State University, Sacramento estimated that AB 32 would over time kill 1 million jobs statewide. They’re already dying.

▲ Gov. Jerry Brown releases details of his revised budget plan, May 14, for the coming fiscal year. 


hat happened to the California of John Wayne and Ronald Reagan? Where’s the Golden State, where young men and women flocked to pursue the California Dream—a variation of the American Dream but with better weather? It still thrives in Silicon Valley, as this week’s expected Facebook IPO demonstrates. By some estimates, Facebook, which was founded in a Harvard dorm room but moved West, now is worth $100 billion. Otherwise, the dream has become something of a nightmare. Even Hollywood is eager to move movie production to Michigan, Louisiana and New Zealand. As recently as a decade ago, California was attracting hundreds of thousands of migrants from other states every year, along with hundreds of thousands of immigrants, legal and illegal,

from foreign countries. No more. According to the 2012 edition of the “Rich States, Poor States” survey by the American Legislative Exchange Council, “California suffered a net loss in domestic migration of 1.5 million people from 2001 to 2010, as well as a 2.5 percent non-farm employment loss. Unfortunately for the Golden State, economic decline is unlikely to stop anytime soon.” Even immigrants from Mexico have started returning home, despite the horrible violence in that country, because the economy South of the Border is growing faster than California’s. Unemployment rises to 11 percent Bucking national trends, California’s unemployment rose in March to 11 percent. That’s almost 3 percentage points above the national 8.2 percent rate. As recently as the mid2000s, California’s rate was only 1 percentage point higher. The last time the state’s unemployment rate

AP Images

was below double digits was in 2008. And California vies with Illinois as the state with the worst credit rating on the bond markets. State finances in shock As a result, the state’s finances are in shock. Last week, Gov. Jerry Brown announced that the state’s budget deficit, according to Department of Finance estimates, had soared to $16 billion from the $9.2 billion predicted in January. So the deficit rose by 74 percent in just four months. Brown is using the budget gap as a boogeyman to scare voters into passing a $9 billion tax increase initiative on Nov. 8. The initiative would increase the top income tax rate 3 percentage points, making it the highest in the nation at 13.3 percent. And it would boost the state sales tax a quarter-percent, to 7.5 percent. Many cities add more sales taxes on top of that. The problem is clear: The state

Businesses head for Texas Joseph Vranich, a business consultant in Irvine who tracks business movements, estimated that 254 companies fled California in 2011, landing in such pro-business states as Texas. “I see nothing that would slow departures because the state maintains harsh attitudes toward businesses,” he told us of the California business climate in 2012. “One example is that the legislature again failed to pass reforms to California’s burdensome overtime law,” which mandates that overtime must be paid for hours worked above eight hours a day, rather than above 40 hours a week in more sensible states, a practice allows for worker and workplace scheduling flexibility. “I don’t know of a single business owner or corporate executive saying that things are getting better because of any action by the state,” he said. Brown’s proposed higher taxes? “Every time I compare taxes here versus other states, the numbers for California are almost always the worst,” Vranich said. “Additional taxes will only reinforce our inferior position.” So, California’s loss is other states’ gain—for now. Joel Kotkin, a fellow at Chapman University in Orange, Calif. recently warned that President Barack Obama’s “domestic policies have been shaped by California’s progressive creed” including “Energy Secretary Steve Chu—an open advocate of high energy prices” and the $550 million blown on subsidies for since-bankrupt Solyndra. As California approaches bankruptcy, four more years of President Obama would mean California’s progressive policies creeping further across the country. Now that’s scary.


Week of May 21, 2012 |


Newt Gingrich: 2012 GOP Platform Must Aim to Restore American Innovation EXCLUSIVE: The former speaker and presidential candidate advocates self-reliance, not government dependence


By Newt Gingrich

obs and work must be at the heart of the Republican platform in 2012, just as they’re at the heart of what makes America exceptional. After three years of President Obama, we’re in danger of losing these important values. The current economy has been so bad for so long that it is undermining the very fabric of American life. The prolonged economic downturn and destruction of jobs by high taxes, massive overregulation, and class warfare has forced more and more Americans into dependence on government. President Obama’s policies, ostensibly solutions to these problems, have in truth focused on making people even more dependent on an even larger government. Under the Obama model, for instance, unemployment benefits and food stamps are satisfactory compensation for the president’s own job-killing policies. Similarly, the president’s health care law is praised for providing young people the chance to remain on their parents’ health insurance until they are 26—a dependency made necessary only by the fact that so many young people are unable to get jobs in the Obama economy. These changes are in accordance with the left’s vision for America, in which dependence on the government is a legitimate lifestyle— even desirable. A fundamentally different sense Conservatives have a fundamentally different sense of the importance of independence, work, and jobs. It is up to us point out these moral and cultural failures of the left, and to respond with a platform for a dynamic, job creating, and prosperous economy. As conservatives, we believe a free society must be built on selfreliant individuals and their families, working together in a free economy. The centrality of work to that vision is one of the values that has always defined Americans. At the very beginning, in 1608 at the Jamestown colony, aristocrats told their leader, Captain John Smith, that their contract provided for maintenance without effort. They argued their payment to come to the New World exempted them from any work requirement. Faced with this legal argument, Captain Smith resorted to first principles and objective reality. In

▲ Newt Gingrich

effect he told them there were too few resources to have freeloaders. He warned, “If you don’t work, you don’t eat.” In asserting this principle of the necessity of work, John Smith cited Biblical precedent—specifically, a letter from Paul, Silas, and Timothy (Second Thessalonians 3:10) in which they assert, “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” More than 250 years later, this centrality of effort in a free society was captured in our Declaration of Independence when the founding fathers wrote that “we are endowed by our Creator” with “the right to pursue happiness.” They did not suggest that we had a guarantee of happiness. They did not suggest that there should be an equal distribution of happiness. They did not propose a new right to be happy. They suggested Americans had a right to “pursue” the possibility of happiness. It is this connection of big dreams with hard work that has made the American experience unique. Here, everyone has a chance. Everyone can dream of being a first generation millionaire, a movie star, a president. Strong work ethic As conservatives, we want every American make the best of their Godgiven rights to pursue happiness. The pursuit of happiness requires a strong work ethic. A strong work ethic requires work. Work is one of the most important components of the liberty we enjoy in America. With a job comes a paycheck. With a paycheck comes the freedom to make moral choices about what to buy, what to save, and what kind of lifestyle to follow. Those are big choices, and it’s the job that makes them possible. Without them—with an unemployed, passive, dependent America—we are inherently less free.


The fact is a person who is working has far more control over their life and their choices than someone who is unemployed, relying on food stamps and maybe living in public housing. Dependence is destructive This is why the very basic framework of a healthy society relies on work and jobs. And conservatives understand that this means jobs are not merely an economic issue, but also a social issue and a key building block of the American constitutional experience. We want strong families in America. They’re a central pillar of our society. But for families to remain strong, for people to be able take care of their families and themselves, they have to have jobs. Families require incomes to be stable. Today, economic stress is a major factor in all too many marriages. And if we want strong families, our policies have to favor a full employment society. President Reagan saw this clearly, and asserted over and over “the best social program is a job.” Because when families have solid incomes they can plan for the future and sustain the present. The conservative belief in the power of work and independence to liberate people was at the heart of the 1996 welfare reform. By then, Americans had reached the conclusion that giving people money to do nothing was actually destructive. The long debate had begun 30 years earlier, in 1966, when Ronald Reagan—then a candidate for governor—proposed dramatic reform in the very principle of welfare. Later, Charles Murray’s brilliant book “Losing Ground” proved that dependence was destructive. Marvin Olasky’s insightful “The Tragedy of American Compassion” outlined with compelling clarity that 19th century reformers would have been appalled and dismayed by the modern welfare state. The genuine

reformers who devoted their lives to saving the poor had hated rich people who visited the slums to give unearned money to the poor. In the reformers’ analysis, unearned money simply increased dependency, weakened personal initiative and subsidized addiction. In effect, the welfare state had systematized and vastly expanded the redistribution of wealth to the poor. And that transfer had led to precisely the dependency on government and the decay of moral fiber the 19th century reformers would have predicted. So in 1996, welfare reforms shifted the system from teaching dependence to teaching self-reliance. It shifted from subsidizing indolence to rewarding effort. When two out of every three people on welfare left for a job or training, it was clear the new conservative reform was working. But the entire focus of the welfare reform program was to allow people to succeed for themselves in a full employment economy. Government is just as destructive when its job-killing policies make it impossible for people to get jobs. Conservatives promise a future of lower taxes, more innovation, and full employment, in which you can have a job so you can provide for your family and for civil society. President Obama believes this vision—one the founding fathers’ shared with us—is obsolete. He instead promises a future in which government will take from someone else to give to you. He believes his borrowed vision of massive government financed with massive debt and punishing the successful by taking their money to “redistribute” it is the wave of the future. But Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s classic critique of socialism—“You run out of other people’s money to spend”—gets to the heart of why the president’s policies will inevitably fail. His model is a tsunami of debt, bureaucracy, corruption, and incompetence doomed to crash. These are the sharp moral and practical distinctions the Republican platform must draw out. The choice between an America of work and independence and an America of unemployment and dependence is the defining fight of our time. It is politically, historically, and morally the right centerpiece for the 2012 election. Newt Gingrich is the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives

24 | Week of May 21, 2012

2ND Opinion

Global Warming Alarmism, Anyone? The Public is Cooling to the Rhetoric EXCLUSIVE: Sen. James Inhofe says the American public has caught on to the global warming alarmist agenda and rejected it. Next, he predicts they will reject President Obama’s far left environmental policies. By Sen. James Inhofe


resident Barack Obama recently told Rolling Stone that he plans to make global warming a key part of his re-election campaign, but since American families pay more at the gas pump and more for energy in their homes because of this administration’s policies, we have our doubts. To be sure, President Obama has many major green “accomplishments” to tout. By imposing backdoor global warming regulations through the EPA, he is fulfilling his 2008 campaign promise that energy prices would “necessarily skyrocket.” By vetoing the Keystone pipeline, he gave the far left what one of his supporters called the “biggest global warming victory in years.” By finalizing the most expensive EPA rule in history, he is making good on his campaign promise that if anybody wants to build a coal-fired power plant they can—“it’s just that it will bankrupt them.” And, he succeeded in throwing hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars out the window on companies like Solyndra, which he said would lead us to a “brighter and more prosperous future.” The irony, of course, is that through all of these great green “triumphs,” President Obama has presided over the collapse of the global warming alarmist movement. Long gone are the days of the hysteria from the left. When is the last time he or anyone has heard from Al Gore? Alarmists jump ship Furthermore, global warming alarmists continue to jump ship. Shortly after Al Gore’s science fiction movie, I started to document the number of scientists deserting the alarmist camp. Today, Marc Morano of keeps tabs on the latest count, with well over 1,000 scientists disputing climate alarmism. And the list keeps growing. Last month, British environmentalist James Lovelock admitted that, “The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books—mine included— because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened.” The prominent environmentalist told MSNBC, “The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed

▲ Former Vice President Al Gore talks to reporters before speaking on climate change at Athens Concert Hall in 2007. 

to be halfway toward a frying world now.” He is not alone either. German physicist and meteorologist KlausEckart Puls told Swiss Factum Magazine that, “Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data—first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.” This dramatic shift has not gone unnoticed on Capitol Hill. In fact, at no time has a global warming bill reached the Senate Floor during President Obama’s presidency. Even when the Democrats had a filibusterproof majority, they never dared to bring a global warming bill to the Senate Floor. The president’s record President Obama understands just how unpopular his global warming agenda has become, so with reelection on his mind, he has launched a dramatic effort to hide his far-left environmental record. Just last

month, President Obama travelled to my home state of Oklahoma in an effort to explain to the American public that he is actually for an “all of the above” approach to energy. He then tried to brag about how oil and gas production has risen under his administration. Of course, no one is buying this rhetoric. Even The Washington Post called out Obama for misleading the public, calling some of his statements “just simply wrong.” One of Obama’s favorite lines is that the United States has only 2 percent of the world’s oil supply. Yet the United States Geological Survey just issued a report saying that America’s technically recoverable conventional oil resources are 26 percent of the world’s supply. Moreover, it shows that the United States holds almost 30 percent of the world’s technically recoverable conventional natural gas resources, without including our massive supply of shale gas. War on affordable energy Yet, perhaps the most telling of the Obama administration war on affordable energy came from a Regional EPA administrator back in the Oklahoma-Texas Region. Al Armendariz—who recently resigned—explained at a town hall in


Texas in 2010 that the EPA’s philosophy is to “crucify” American energy companies. That’s right: the EPA administrator who oversees the part of the country that leads the way in domestic oil and gas production had it out for energy producers. Here is what he said: “I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting but I’ll go ahead and tell you what I said. It was kind of like how the Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them. And then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years. And so you make examples out of people who are, in this case, not compliant with the law.” The bottom line is that the American public has caught on to the global warming alarmist agenda and rejected it. Look for the public now to reject the far left environmental policies of President Obama this fall— no matter how hard he tries to run from them. Sen. Inhofe is a Republican representing Oklahoma and is the ranking member on the Environment & Public Works Committee.

Week of May 21, 2012 |


26 | Week of May 21, 2012


It’s Time to Defeat the Law of the Sea Treaty—Again

lanes and punish piracy. Big Oil supports LOST because of its provision to extend jurisdiction over the continental shelf beyond the current 200-mile limit. But LOST would require a royalty of 1 to 7 percent on the value of oil and minerals produced from those waters to be paid to the International Seabed Authority based in Kingston, Jamaica. There’s no need for a 181-nation organization to regulate offshore and deep-sea production everywhere in the world, mostly financed by American capital, and then allow it to be taxed for the benefit of foreign freeloaders. The riches of the Arctic, for example, can be resolved by negotiation among the five nations that border the Arctic. Environmentalists, the third leg of the unholy coalition to ratify LOST, are salivating over its legal system of dispute resolution, which culminates in a 21-member International Tribunal based in Hamburg, Germany. The tribunal’s judgments could be enforced against Americans and cannot be appealed to any U.S. court.

The main problem with the treaty is that it subordinates U.S. sovereignty to a global management bureaucracy. It is not in America’s best interest.

▲ Secretary Leon Panetta speaks May 9, with Joint Chiefs Chair Martin Dempsey, about the U.S. having not ratified LOST. By Phyllis Schlafly


he stunning repudiation of Sen. Richard Lugar’s (R-Ind.) bid for a seventh term has sent shock waves through Washington’s internationalist lobby. A former Rhodes scholar, Lugar has spent his career promoting a globalist agenda ever since he succeeded the late Jesse Helms as the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. One day after Indiana Republicans handed Lugar his walking papers, an outfit called the Atlantic Council held a forum to promote the discredited Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). As former Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel and John Warner beamed their approval, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta declared, “the time has come” for the Senate to ratify the treaty. Hagel, Warner, and Lugar share an internationalist mindset: All three

senators supported “comprehensive immigration reform” (a.k.a. amnesty) bills that failed to pass Congress in 2006 and 2007. In support of LOST, they are joined by former Republican Sen. Trent Lott, who is now a highpriced lobbyist that longer answers to his former Mississippi constituents. Americans today are in no mood for subordinating U.S. sovereignty, plus seven-tenths of the world’s surface area, to another entangling global bureaucracy. Advocates, therefore, are using Orwellian talking points to pretend that LOST would do the opposite. Panetta’s statement is over the top: “Not since we acquired the lands of the American West and Alaska have we had such an opportunity to expand U.S. sovereignty.” Unusual coalition The coalition for ratification includes three groups whose interests are


rarely on the same side: the U.S. Navy, the big multinational oil companies led by Shell, and the radical environmentalist lawyers. That peculiar alliance should make you very suspicious. The Navy says we need LOST to preserve our freedom of transit in dangerous waters such as the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has threatened to block, and the South China Sea, where China wants to be the dominant naval power. Panetta said, “How can we argue that other nations must abide by international rules when we haven’t officially accepted those rules?” In fact, freedom of navigation is recognized by centuries of international law, effectively policed by the British Navy for 400 years, and by our U.S. Navy since 1775. The United Nations has no navy of its own, so American sailors will still be expected to protect the world’s sea

Powerful international tribunal This tribunal, known as ITLOS (International Tribunal of LOST), has jurisdiction over “maritime disputes,” which suggests it will merely deal with ships accidentally bumping each other in the night. But radical environmental lawyers have big plans to make that sleepy tribunal the engine of all disputes about global warming, with power to issue binding rules on climate change, in effect superseding the discredited Kyoto Protocol, which the U.S. properly declined to ratify. Former UN Ambassador John Bolton warns us that the Law of the Sea Treaty is even more dangerous now than when President Ronald Reagan rejected it: “With China emerging as a major power, ratifying the treaty now would encourage Sino-American strife, constrain U.S. naval activities, and do nothing to resolve China’s expansive maritime territorial claims.” Bolton warns that LOST will give China the excuse to deny U.S. access to what China claims is its “Exclusive Economic Zone” extending 200 miles out into international waters. The whole concept of putting the United States in the noose of another global organization, in which the U.S. has only the same one vote as Cuba, is offensive to Americans. LOST must be defeated. Phyllis Schlafly is a lawyer, conservative political analyst and author of 20 books.

Columnist Ann Coulter writes online this week at Ann argues that the real class warfare in this country is not about rich vs. poor; it really centers on government employees vs. we, the taxpayers, who pay their salaries.

Week of May 21, 2012 |


28 | Week of May 21, 2012

Conservative spotlight

National Federation of Republican Women By Terrance Williams


or over 75 years, the National Federation of Republican Women has been around the country fighting for the political rights, freedoms, and voices of conservative women everywhere. Originally a branch of the National Republican Committee, the organization changed its name from the National Federation of Women’s Republican Clubs of America (NFWRC) in 1953. However their history of activism starts even before their founding in 1938. As early as the late 1800’s, Republican women’s groups were beginning to form around the country. By the 1930’s, Indiana alone had over 140 Republican women’s clubs. It wasn’t until 1938, when Marion Martin called a meeting in Chicago, that these groups would meld together into a national organization, and elect Joyce Arneill as the first president of the Federation. Since that time, the NFRW’s network has grown to include over 75,000 women all working at the grassroots level to help Republicans

win in America. With a staff of only 10 full time employees, NFRW relies on its local chapters to provide some of the help and volunteers necessary for candidates to be successful in all 50 states. According to Rae Chornenky, current president of the Federation, that includes grassroots organizing at the lowest level, fundraisers, and door-to-door petitions for candidates trying to get on the ballet and other basic work. After a primary however, they all “unite behind a candidate and do everything politically possible to get that candidate elected,” Chornenky said. All of their work is not strictly centered on candidates, however. NFRW also does work to ensure that candidates and voters have the facts about how government policies are affecting women today. “Republican women are facing the same issues

that everyone is facing,” Chornenky said. “The poverty rate among women has risen to percentages which make it the highest in 17 years. More than 40 percent of single mothers live in poverty, and many households are headed by women (single mothers). Extreme poverty rate affects them directly.” Additionally, the unemployment rate for women has risen from 7 to 8.1 percent since the beginning of the Obama administration. Even more appalling, Chornenky states that salary data from within the White House shows that women are making 18 percent less than their male counterparts. “Obviously this is not an administration for women,” she said. Currently, the focus of the NFRW is get-out-the-vote (GOTV) efforts, and getting people to the polls. When Congress is in session however, they have a slightly different aim. “While

Congress is in session, we plan to go to Capitol Hill and re-establish ties with all Republican leaders and offer support. Based on what leaders need, we will formulate plans for what needs to be done, be it specific legislation or getting out their message to the people.” Chornenky further stated that even though they boast nearly 80,000 members, recruitment is an ongoing process. “Traditionally, Republican women haven’t divided up women in the country. Republicans empower and embolden women across the board. NFRW tries not to categorize. [We] recruit every woman we come across,” she said. As Election Day draws nearer and getting out the candidates message becomes more and more important, women everywhere, and Republican women especially, can rest assured that with their network of nearly 80,000 strong and growing, the National Federation of Republican Women is fighting to ensure that their voice is heard on Capitol Hill as well as across the nation. Terrance Williams is an intern at Human Events and is a student at Howard University in Washington D.C.

Political Quiz of the Week 1. When was the first year a major political party in the U.S. included a call for a Zionist state in its national platform? 2. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) was defeated for renomination recently. How many Republican senators lost renomination in 2010? 3. Lugar lost after six terms or 36 years in the Senate. Who was the only other senator in history to have been denied renomination after serving as long? 4. What is the only other defeat Lugar has suffered in his long political career? 5. Two current senators lost renomination in primaries but went on to win re-election in November. Can you name them?

This Week in History May 25, 1787

With George Washington presiding, the Constitutional Convention formally convenes on this day in 1787. The convention faced a daunting task: the peaceful overthrow of the new American government as it had been defined by the Articles of Confederation.

1. 1944, in the Republican Party platform. 2. Two. Sens. Robert F. Bennett of Utah and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska (who went on to win re-election as a write in candidate in November). 3. Sen. Kenneth McKellar of Tennessee, who was in office 36 years when he ran again in 1952 but lost the Democratic primary to Rep. Albert Gore, Sr. 4. He lost his first race for the Senate against Democratic incumbent Birch Bayh in 1974. 5. Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut in 2006, who lost the primary but won in November as an independent, and Republican Lisa Murkowski in 2010, beaten in the primary but re-elected as a write-in candidate.



WEEK OF MAY 21, 2012 |

hUman evenTS ToP 10/cloakroom

top 10 Reasons President Obama Won’t Be Reelected


Don’t fret: Come November, President Obama will be sent packing, back to Chicago, Harvard, Hawaii, Kenya or maybe Occidental College. If you have any doubts, then cast your eyes at this list of reasons Barack Obama will be a one-term president.


Jobs, jobs, jobs

2 4

Dismal economy

With the Supreme Court readying its decision on the president’s signature initiative, the Affordable Care Act will be front and center right as the campaign is heating up. No matter how the court rules, the nation will be reminded of the highly unpopular health care overhaul that was enacted with legislative bribes, using arcane congressional rules, and without a shred of bipartisanship.

The economy is not doing well. The nation is in the midst of the weakest recovery on record and even that is petering out. With so-called Taxmageddon— when a host of tax hikes are automatically scheduled to take effect—looming after the election, an Obama victory would ensure a continued weak economy because he will gladly allow them to be enacted.


Base depressed

The “hope and change” enthusiasm from 2008 is long gone as voter registration is lagging among the young and minorities. Without a fired-up base, Obama will be hardpressed to match the turnout he enjoyed four years ago. Millions of voters expected this president to deliver more than high unemployment, a weak economy, and lackluster job creation.


misguided energy policy

Obama canceled the Keystone XL pipeline, has kept vast amounts of U.S. energy resources off-limits for development. Through the Environmental Protection Agency, the administration is regulating the coal industry into oblivion. His energy policy is devoted to a misguided global warming alarmism cult. No wonder gas prices have soared since he took office.



The summer heat is creeping into Washington already, but Speaker of the House John Boehner may be adding to it by bucking President Obama’s calls for higher taxes, no spending cuts and an increase in the debt limit. At a White House lunch, Boehner said, “As long as I’m around here, I’m not going to allow a debt ceiling increase without doing something serious about the debt.” The U.S. is expected to hit its $16.394 trillion borrowing limit sometime before the end of the year.

The ladies of “The View” scored their 4th interview with President Barack Obama last week, which alone should have made them this week’s hot pick. However, the ladies chose to use their time with the leader of the free world to discuss gay marriage, Kim Kardashian, and erotic literature. The ladies including Barbara Walters, Whoopi Goldberg, Sherri Shepherd, Joy Behar and Elisabeth Hasselbeck showed bad judgment and even worse taste.



Nebraska’s State Sen. Deb Fischer has been called the “accidental nominee” after upsetting two better-known contenders in the state’s Republican Senate primary. Many experts warned the GOP had hurt their prospects of re-taking the Senate, as Fischer was unvetted and unknown. Well, a new Rasmussen poll of the race, conducted soon after the primary, finds that Fischer is leading Democratic nominee, former senator, Bob Kerrey, by a wide margin—56 percent to 38 percent. So much for conventional wisdom.

Attorney General Eric Holder has refused to turn over documents to the House panel investigating “Fast and Furious,” prompting key Republicans to consider contempt charges against the nation’s leading law enforcement officer. Congressional Republicans want to know what Holder knew about the failed sting that resulted in the death of one federal law officer, and when did he know it? For blocking the investigation, Holder tops the “not hot” list.

JOhn BOEhnEr

While the official unemployment rate has inched down to close to 8 percent, that number would be much higher if all the discouraged job hunters who stopped looking for work were included. Obama’s record as a job creator is dismal, because the basic tenets of his economic ideology are woefully misguided. Government doesn’t create jobs, it just gets in the way of companies that can.

health care showdown



Immigration showdown


Big government run amok

The high court will also be issuing its decision on Arizona’s immigration law, SB 1070, which allows local police to check a person’s immigration status. With polls showing a strong majority of Americans favoring the legislation, Obama’s suit against the state is highly unpopular.


From Obama’s fictional “Julia,” who can’t get through life without a raft of government programs, to his failed stimulus package, this president is all about crafting a big government solution to every problem. The American people are onto the community organizer spreading the wealth around. They would rather have economic freedom than a government handout.



gOp on fire

Despite a hard-fought primary, conservatives are beginning to coalesce behind Romney, knowing that the real issue is the defeat of Obama’s big government agenda. Because turnout is always the key in an election, the fact that conservatives will be fired up to remove Obama from office will make the difference.

Foreign policy misadventures

Obama is making a mess with his haphazard foreign policy, angering allies like Israel, resetting relations with Russia in the wrong direction, while doing nothing about Iran’s and North Korea’s growing nuclear ambitions. Obama has apologized for the country’s actions and handed over decision-making to international bodies. Where America was once respected around the world, it is increasingly being seen as a paper tiger.


Scandalized administration

From the Fast and Furious gunrunning debacle to the General Services Administration’s lavish Las Vegas conferences, from Secret Services officials’ romp with Colombian prostitutes to the politically driven decision to dump taxpayer’s money on green energy companies like the now-bankrupt Solyndra, this administration is increasingly taking on the look of a scandal-plagued enterprise.


30 | Week of May 21, 2012

The Debunker

What did Obama promise? And, what actually happened during the nearly four years he has been in office? The answer is that America has fallen behind on the most pressing issues of the day. Maybe that explains why he is busy talking about Mitt Romney’s dog. Labor Force Participation Rate

Retail gasoline prices

(Seasonally adjusted) 66 $4.00

65 64

$3.50 1/09 5/09 9/09 1/10 5/10 9/10 1/11 5/11 9/11 1/12

Month Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Series LNS11300000


Median Weekly earnings full time workers


constant (1982-1984) dollar adjusted to CPI-U (Seasonally adjusted) $2.00

345 340

$1.50 335 2010


Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Series LES1252881600

By Mark LaRochelle


udging by the focus of the President, his administration, re-election campaign, and party, the most pressing issues of 2012 are gay marriage, condoms for Catholics, and Mitt Romney’s dog. Bunk The urgent issues this year, according to American voters, are the economy and jobs. Team Obama’s determination to focus on other issues is understandable as the President’s disappointing performance makes a jarring contrast to the Messianism of 2008. Obama promised to cut the deficit in half in four years; instead, this year’s deficit ($1.3 trillion) will be five times the Congressional Budget Office’s projection ($264 billion, including the Bush bail-outs). He projected robust economic growth of 5.23 percent last year, yet according to the Federal Reserve,

1/19/09 1/19/10 1/19/11 1/19/12

2011 2012

actual growth was a dismal 1.61 percent. He trumpeted a report by the thenchairman of his Counsel of Economic Advisors projecting that the unemployment rate would be down to 6 percent by now—it’s actually 8.1 percent, even higher than the 7.8 percent during the recession, when Obama was sworn in. These unemployment figures don’t count those so discouraged that they have given up looking for work. Their numbers have been on the rise. The decline in “labor force participation” (the fraction of the working-age population who are employed or actively looking for work) that began during the recession has persisted throughout Obama’s “recovery.” Of those not in the labor force, 6.3 million “currently want a job.” Adding them to the 12.5 million the government counts as officially “unemployed” makes 18.8 million Americans without work. Adding

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update, May 7, 2012

them to the 153-million-person labor force totals 173 million people, of whom more than 10 percent are involuntarily out of work. Obama promised in 2009 that his “stimulus” would “create or save 3.5 million jobs over the next two years,” yet in reality, it had a negligible impact. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, after two years, more than 3 million fewer Americans were employed. Meanwhile, those fortunate enough to still have full-time jobs have seen median earnings rise a whopping $30 a week in current dollars, says the BLS. After adjusting for inflation, their real earnings have actually fallen by $10 a week under Obama. According to BLS numbers, Obama’s policies are costing most Americans far more than $10 per week. For example, Obama suggested in 2008 that—thanks to his “green energy” subsidies—we wouldn’t be “talking about high

fuel prices next summer or the next summer after that or the summer after that.” In March, he doubled down, adding that this boondoggle will save a typical family “about $8,000 a year” on gasoline. In reality, the average U.S. household spent more than $368 a month on gas last year, more than double what they were paying back when Obama took the oath of office. Obama’s economic failure has come at enormous human cost in suffering and misery. Contrary to his promise to “build a strong middle class,” the average household’s annual income has dropped by $4,300 during his administration. Contrary to his pledge to lift “2 million Americans from poverty,” 14.3 million more Americans are on Food Stamps than when Obama took office. If I had to run on that record, I’d talk about Mitt Romney’s dog, too. Mark LaRochelle was editor at the National Journalism Center and contributing editor at Consumers’ Research.

ReadersVote VotersRead

If you’re looking to connect with voters... 84% of Democratic, 83% of Republican and 81% of Independent voters regularly read newspapers in print or online. Impressive online response! 51% of voters rate newspaper websites as reliable, accurate and in-depth for local political/civic issues. That’s more than all other websites. Now, as mobile usage emerges, 58% of voters who use mobile devices for political information use newspaper sources for that news. Seniority counts! The most reliable voting bloc, seniors, are frequent and regular newspaper readers - a whopping 84%. Surprise! 79% of young voters, 18-34, read a newspaper in print or online at least once a week. Even on mobile devices, young voters turn to newspaper sources first for campaign and election news. When it comes to reliable, accurate and in-depth information about local politics, newspapers - print and online - rank #1. Source: Moore Information (January 2012), American Voter Media Use

... no other medium outperforms newspaper media. Newspaper Association of America 4401 Wilson Blvd., Suite 900, Arlington, VA 22203 571.366.1000

Human Events 5-21 issue  

The new Human Events