News

Fireside reading
2006 10 30

By Ben Shapiro
Saturday, October 28, 2006

As the temperatures cool off and autumn turns to winter, there are more and more opportunities to curl up with a good book in front of a fireplace. Here are the most recently published political books I’ve been reading in rainy Cambridge – at least when I’m not being forced at hemp-point to read aloud from Lenin’s Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism:

Bankrupt, David Limbaugh: Limbaugh’s Bankrupt is the finest summary of recent liberal outrages. He covers everything from the Democrats’ attempts to undermine the war on terror to their insistence that the federal judiciary remain a political tool of liberal utopianism. Every conservative needs to read this book before even considering sitting out Election Day.

Godless, Ann Coulter: Coulter’s latest book is perhaps her best. All the liberal ire surrounding her characterization of the Jersey Girls was an attempt to obscure Godless’ central thesis: liberalism is a cult-like religion reliant on flimsy slogans, bad science, and ridiculous airs of moral superiority. One of Coulter’s main points – that liberals consistently trot out victims as spokespeople to shield their arguments from attack – is fresher now than when she wrote it (see Fox, Michael J.).

Unhinged, Michelle Malkin: The American left isn’t merely wrong – it’s gone mad, Malkin argues persuasively in her newest book. Leftists claim that they’re the political viewpoint of peace and equanimity, but Malkin hilariously documents the leftist moonbattery that has plagued America since the election of George W. Bush.

The Politics of Disaster, Marvin Olasky: Olasky’s Politics is a well-reasoned analysis of just what went wrong in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Olasky reminds us why religion and the private sector are vital elements in any response to future disaster.

The Beast of the East River,Nathan Tabor: Tabor’s Beast is a heated and well-researched volume on the burgeoning usurpation of American sovereignty by the United Nations. Is the goal of the U.N. world government? Tabor argues that it is, and does so with gusto.

Musclehead Revolution,Kevin McCullough: The Musclehead Revolution, McCullough explains, is a movement of commonsensical, traditional values, freedom oriented Americans tired of watching their country torn apart by the forces of immorality. MR is an excellent primer for those entering the stormy world of politics and a useful reminder for those involved in its day-to-day battles.

Standing with Israel,David Brog: This book is a must-read for Jews in particular. Brog explains the sources for Christian support for Jews and the state of Israel, demonstrating that Christian love for the Jewish state is truly about love, gratitude, and Biblical dictates, not veiled Armageddon theology.

Diplomatic Divorce,Tom Kilgannon: Kilgannon’s book is a thorough, articulate and damning indictment of the U.N. His particular emphasis on how the U.N. undermines American national security is must-reading.

Size Matters, Joel Miller: Size Matters is a witty, irreverent and cutting take on the intrusion of government into our daily lives. It’s chock full of telling tidbits, and it gives an entertaining history of how our government turned from a carefully circumscribed guardian of liberty into a voracious leviathan responsible for hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations restricting our pursuit of happiness.

Do-Gooders,Mona Charen: Do-Gooders achieves precisely what it sets out to achieve: it demonstrates that liberals do indeed hurt those they seek to help and unmasks liberalism as a deeply-flawed ideology that cares more about the self-esteem of its members than the ramifications of its policies.

Winning the Future, Newt Gingrich: This book may play a major role in the 2008 election. Gingrich, the dark horse candidate for the 2008 Republican nomination, reminds us why he was once the power behind the Republican Revolution of 1994 and offers new solutions to America’s most pressing problems. If you don’t think Gingrich should run, read this and reconsider.

To view this article online click here.

North Korea: Is the UN Up to the Task?
2006 10 10

by Thomas P. Kilgannon
Posted Oct 10, 2006

The North Korean test of a nuclear weapon requires President Bush to do more than just punt the issue to the UN Security Council.

The North Korean regime holds no fear of the UN Security Council, and has defied the United Nations again and again. North Korea has kicked out nuclear inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it has withdrawn from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and it has most recently defied Security Council Resolution 1695 passed in July in response to its brazen test-firing of missiles.

The President must first determine if the North Korean nuclear test threatens the American people—and he has concluded that it does. North Korea has the ability to sell nuclear technology to terrorist organizations or anti-American regimes. The regime also poses a direct threat to U.S. allies in the region.

Because this affects the American public so directly, Bush should call the Congress of the United States back into session. Extensive consultations should be held with congressional leaders of both parties. If the United Nations opts to impose meaningful sanctions, that could very well include the use of the U.S. military to conduct inspections of shipments in and out of North Korea.

President Bush should immediately ask Congress for two things:

A strong, bipartisan condemnation of North Korea’s nuclear test. Republicans and Democrats must come to together and speak with one voice and not allow Kim Jong-Il to take advantage of the election season in the United States.

Immediate confirmation by the Senate of UN Ambassador John Bolton. Confirming Bolton as permanent representative to the United Nations will only strengthen his hand in the difficult negotiations that will take place in the days and weeks ahead. The time for partisan rancor and petty politics over Bolton’s nomination are over.
How the U.S. responds to the North Korea nuclear test will impact the response of the Iranian regime as well. Not only will a unified President and Congress be a stronger diplomatic card than a divided Security Council, but before the American people vote in November, they should see how their members of Congress respond to such international threats.

To view this article online click here.

South Korean Appears Poised to Lead UN
2006 10 03

by Thomas P. Kilgannon
Posted Oct 02, 2006

After the straw vote in the UN Security Council last Thursday, it looks as though South Korea’s Ban-Ki Moon may be on his way to the 38th floor of the UN building in New York to preside over the international body of anti-American misfits. Ban, who has now won three straw polls, is rumored to have the support of the United States, which would explain John Bolton’s desire to see the selection process come to a quick finish.

But Ban shouldn’t fumigate Kofi’s office just yet. The South Korean foreign minister has received one “discourage” vote in each of the straw polls—a fact that could doom his candidacy if that no confidence ballot belongs to one of the five permanent members of the Security Council. UN watchers are wondering if Russian ambassador Vitaly Churkin is trying to flex his muscle in the Security Council. After the latest vote, Churkin commented that Russia “in principle” favors an Asian to take the top UN post, but quickly added that “we have a number of strong Asian candidates.”

And while Ban’s overall support remains strong, he did slip a notch in the cumbersome voting process from 14 “encourage” votes during the last contest to 13 “encourage” votes on the most recent ballot. That was still far ahead of the second place candidate – UN communications chief Shashi Tharoor – who received only eight “encourage” votes and whose support has dropped significantly enough to consign his campaign to a footnote in Indian history books. One candidate to watch is Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga who finished a respectable third place having only entered the race in the last two weeks.

One more straw vote is slated for today in the Security Council, and in that process the five permanent members will use special ballots to determine if the “discourage” vote for Ban amounts to a veto.

For all the talk of UN reform, the selection of the next secretary-general has largely been carried out in secret. Private meetings and brokered deals dominate the process. Unlike presidential candidates in the United States who begin their campaigns years ahead of time, the candidates for the top UN post are known to only a handful of people.

Ban Ki-Moon, the leading candidate, has remained silent. He has given very few interviews and declined to answer candidate questionnaires from non-governmental organizations and media outlets. But the South Korean government is working hard to get Ban elected and has dramatically increased its foreign assistance in order to promote his candidacy. James Bone of The Times of London reports that South Korea’s aid to Africa has tripled since Ban announced his candidacy in February, including an $18 million pledge of assistance to Tanzania which holds a seat on the Security Council.

Such reports fly in the face of Ban’s observation that “the most serious issue facing the UN is the credibility gap.” But Ban himself has made no effort to set a new tone. He could begin that process by releasing to the Security Council, and the public, a full disclosure of his personal finances and require those who will serve with him in the top level of the Secretariat to do the same. Such disclosures are routine for American pols at all levels of government.

It is also clear that rooting our corruption, bringing more transparency to the organization, and making the UN more accountable are tasks that Ban Ki-Moon will not tackle himself, but leave to others. “I intend,” Ban explained, “to be more visibly engaged as secretary-general in addressing regional conflict issues while trying to delegate a significant portion of my day-to-day management duties to the deputy secretary-general.”

This is a new twist to the role of secretary-general that Kofi Annan took to new heights. According to Article 97 of the UN Charter, the Secretary-General is the “chief administrative officer” of the Organization. But Kofi Annan views himself as a diplomat uber alles and obviously Ban Ki-Moon sees himself in the same light—as more general than secretary, as the saying goes.

This trend that makes the secretary-general an independent contractor of global policy only undermines member governments and strips individual citizens in democratic nations of the ability to influence or hold accountable their governments on foreign policy decisions.

For those who are expecting the UN to improve under a new Secretary-General, I can only hope that you enjoy that fantasy while it lasts. The United Nations cannot be reformed and it should not be saved. Ten years ago, after Boutros-Boutros-Ghali’s embarrassing tenure, the United States put its faith in a guy named Kofi Annan. What did that get us?

I’ll make you a bet: put Ban Ki-Moon in charge of the organization and one year from now the United Nations will still be the same inefficient, corrupt, anti-American institution that it is today. Any takers?

Mr. Kilgannon is the president of Freedom Alliance, an educational foundation dedicated to the preservation of American sovereignty. He is the author of “Diplomatic Divorce: Why America Should End Its Love Affair With the United Nations.”

To view this article online click here.