Most U.S. citizens who wish they could do something to combat terrorism do not enlist in the military, or leave their jobs to join intelligence and law enforcement agencies engaged in the War on Terror. What can the average American do to help eradicate global terrorism, or at least make it increasingly difficult for terrorists to obtain weaponry or travel? One easy and effective tactic available to any American owning stocks or shares in mutual funds is to make sure your hard earned money is not being invested in companies who are known to do business with foreign states identified by the U.S. State Department as state sponsors of terrorism.
In an article published in yesterday’s edition of the Wall Street Journal, Missouri State Treasurer Sarah Steelman brilliantly explained the work of an independent research firm, Conflict Securites Advisory Group (CSAG), that has identified 485 publicly traded companies doing business with four governments designated by the State Department as state sponsors of terrorism. Those four terrorist sponsors are Iran, Sudan, North Korea, and Syria. These companies offer a wide variety of services to these regimes, and the lucrative contracts provide these governments with the ability to fund terrorist activities, develop WMD programs, and supply weapons and logistical support to the insurgency in Iraq that is killing American soldiers. Steelman rightly advised that by cutting off investments in these companies, CEOs will be pressured to change business practices and choose clients not affiliated with terrorists. When share prices and dividends decline, CEOs are jettisoned as excess baggage. In the interest of self preservation, these CEOs will adopt the terror-free business practices they should already have been following.
Steelman’s insightful article also described how as Missouri State Treasurer, she helped her state develop and launch the nation’s first “terror-free investment fund,” and is rolling out Missouri’s 529 College Savings Advisor Plan in 2007 that will offer the Roosevelt Anti-Terror Multi-Cap Fund (RATF). This fund will exclude companies doing business with designated state sponsors of terrorism. This concept will allow Missourians to do the right thing twice with one investment: save for a child’s college tuition; and combat global terrorism by keeping money out of the hands of terrorists and regimes seeking WMD development.
Other investment firms have begun to follow suit, such as Nationwide Financial, and according to market research performed by Steelman’s office and CSAG, the transition to terror-free investing within mutual funds has been very successful. In fact, the funds are significantly outperforming existing indexes. If there is any question that money talks, we should consider, as Steelman reminded, that South Africa is free of Apartheid because of financial pressures created by shareholders in companies doing business with the South African government. Apartheid-free investing worked, and every indication is that terror-free investing is also effective.
It is not often that the average American is presented with a direct opportunity to fight terrorism. The operatives who struck us on 9/11 needed funds to train, travel here, find housing, feed themselves, enroll in flight schools, rent cars, purchase airline tickets to perform dry runs, and finally to purchase those fateful one-way tickets for the 9/11 flights. If you could keep money from flowing to such operatives preparing for future attacks, would you? Learn more about terror-free investing through the links above, and ask your financial planner or 401k manager to exclude any company identified by CSAG as doing business with terror sponsors. American intelligence and law enforcement agencies are limited by available funding for our efforts to combat terrorism, and terrorists also rely on funding to recruit, train, and act. Without funds, their efforts are significantly hampered.
If Americans can boycott Disney over moral issues or Wal-Mart over clothes production in sweatshops, we can rise to this occasion and withhold funds from those who have already killed thousands of Americans and are preparing to do so again. Is your money being invested in one of the 485 companies identified by CSAG? With a few clicks of your mouse, you can find out and fight terrorism from your desk.
CSAG Missouri Terror-Free Investing Sarah Steelman War On Terror Wall Street Journal Conflict Securities Advisory Group State Department
Friday, December 15, 2006
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Clinton Spokesman: Conservative Media Ruined Bill's Presidency
Bill Clinton’s former spokesman, Mike McCurry, has been busy on the collegiate lecture circuit offering revisionist history to students at Princeton University. In an address to students yesterday, McCurry attempted to rewrite history by depicting his former boss (McCurry was White House Press Secretary from 1995 to 1998) as the victim of a media conspiracy that hobbled all efforts by Clinton to grapple with “more substantive topics.”
As reported by the Daily Princetonian, McCurry’s explanation for former President Clinton’s political failures included a casual dismissal of Clinton’s penchant for personal scandal. McCurry jokingly stated Clinton’s political legacy would forever be a “stain,” in clear reference to his messy relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Were it not for Clinton’s lack of discipline, McCurry opined, Clinton could have risen much higher in his political skills and accomplishments. At first that might seem to be a candid and objective assessment from someone who worked so closely with the former president. Then McCurry proceeded to offer an incredibly deceptive argument for the reason Clinton’s legacy will be a “stain.”
Though McCurry never used the term “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” to label the forces that in his opinion made certain Bill Clinton could focus on nothing other than his personal scandals, he did not have to. When setting out to enumerate the three factors that most influenced the Clinton presidency, McCurry decried the growth of the Internet and “partisan media networks” that focused only on Clinton’s scandals. It is easy to sympathize with McCurry, who must have found it difficult to try and steer media inquiries away from scandal after scandal to more important matters, like Clinton’s failed efforts to respond to the first World Trade Center bombing, the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, the missed opportunity to capture or kill Bin Laden . . . . On second thought, Mr. McCurry, perhaps it worked out better for you that the focus was NOT on the administration’s performance record. Hiding behind the skirts of the Monica scandal permitted you to market your boss as a victim of a vicious media assault, a figure to pity, not to impeach.
Shall we begin with the “blame the partisan media networks” defense? When a former Clinton spokesman uses the term “partisan media networks,” to what networks and web sites is he referring? The author of the Daily Princetonian story specifically mentioned the Drudge Report as an example of electronic media that McCurry noted would not look beyond scandals including gays in the military, "White House sleepovers," Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky and the impeachment proceedings. McCurry was quoted as saying, "This was the press' focus day after day. There was an inability to change to more substantive topics." Perhaps McCurry should consider that personal character, self-restraint, and honesty ARE substantive topics, especially when the man holding the most powerful position in the world clearly lacked all three.
What McCurry failed to include in his “expert” assessment of the rise of alternative media, such as talk radio and the Internet, was the context in which they began to flourish. McCurry railed on “partisan media networks” while omitting the obvious: the existing major media networks were then and continue to be blatantly partisan, made up almost entirely of liberal-leaning journalists who intentionally select story titles that mislead and use terms that evoke memories rather than reality (quagmire, anyone?). One need look no further than recent exposures of New York Times reporters’ story fabrications or the CBS News Bush National Guard episode during the 2004 campaign to know which party members of the media personally prefer in power. I will never forget standing at a major political event on election night in 2000 and seeing the unmistakable glee on the faces of CNN’s live news team when they initially called Florida for Gore. That memory is contrasted so clearly with the palpable gloom I observed in the same crew when that fictitious result was retracted and Florida went to Bush instead. There are numerous books and columns exposing the liberal leanings of the traditional media, but none of these address it as effectively as Hugh Hewitt’s revealing interview with ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin. Halperin seemed to believe he was completely impartial, but note his descriptions of his own staff at ABC News. Halperin clearly saw that the vast majority of employees at major media outlets were liberal Democrats and that media bosses like himself needed to correct this imbalance because it was harmful to objective reporting. I find it impossible to accept that McCurry, a former White House Press Secretary, could innocently omit this truth while telling Princeton students the new conservative media networks were responsible for stalling Clinton’s presidency.
Mr. McCurry, here is a novel idea: stop rewriting history by asserting that alternative conservative media introduced media conflict and an unhealthy focus on scandals. There were no conservative “partisan media networks” in existence during Watergate, Iran-Contra, or other “scandals” during Republican administrations. The media, liberal or conservative, have always sought scandal (apparently this former press secretary is not acquainted with the historical term Muckrakers) because we as a society seem to crave it and seek after it for entertainment. The talk radio and Internet phenomenon, including the blogosphere, sprouted because the majority of Americans grew weary of hearing and reading only the liberal interpretation of the news. Fox News, which is often attacked by liberals for being too conservative, was a breath of fresh air ten years ago because it presented stories from the novel perspective that there were in fact two sides and each was worthy of being reported. With all the major network and cable news channels marching in liberal lockstep, they were forced to compete with each other for shocking news, since they all shared the same opinions and thus none of their reporting was original. With conservative media now presenting its side of the political debate, all networks, liberal or conservative, will be more inclined to focus on a return to issues rather than muckraking.
The most discouraging aspect of McCurry’s defense of Clinton through media blame is the subtle attempt to remove personal character from the qualifications required for a president. Rather than complain about the media coverage of Clinton’s scandals, McCurry should have told Princeton students that if we would elect leaders with character and integrity, the media muckrakers would be reporting on “more substantive topics” out of an absence of scandal. Ironically, the very voices McCurry and Clinton want to blame for Clinton’s failed political legacy may never have risen to prominence had Clinton not stained his own presidency. History will show that the Clinton years brought more balance of opinion into the media than existed for several decades previously, not through liberals embracing conservative viewpoints in liberal newspapers or news programs, but through conservatives embracing new forms of media to take their media-repressed views directly to a thirsting audience.
Bill Clinton Mike McCurry Hugh Hewitt Monica Lewinsky Rush Limbaugh conservative media Princeton
As reported by the Daily Princetonian, McCurry’s explanation for former President Clinton’s political failures included a casual dismissal of Clinton’s penchant for personal scandal. McCurry jokingly stated Clinton’s political legacy would forever be a “stain,” in clear reference to his messy relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Were it not for Clinton’s lack of discipline, McCurry opined, Clinton could have risen much higher in his political skills and accomplishments. At first that might seem to be a candid and objective assessment from someone who worked so closely with the former president. Then McCurry proceeded to offer an incredibly deceptive argument for the reason Clinton’s legacy will be a “stain.”
Though McCurry never used the term “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” to label the forces that in his opinion made certain Bill Clinton could focus on nothing other than his personal scandals, he did not have to. When setting out to enumerate the three factors that most influenced the Clinton presidency, McCurry decried the growth of the Internet and “partisan media networks” that focused only on Clinton’s scandals. It is easy to sympathize with McCurry, who must have found it difficult to try and steer media inquiries away from scandal after scandal to more important matters, like Clinton’s failed efforts to respond to the first World Trade Center bombing, the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, the missed opportunity to capture or kill Bin Laden . . . . On second thought, Mr. McCurry, perhaps it worked out better for you that the focus was NOT on the administration’s performance record. Hiding behind the skirts of the Monica scandal permitted you to market your boss as a victim of a vicious media assault, a figure to pity, not to impeach.
Shall we begin with the “blame the partisan media networks” defense? When a former Clinton spokesman uses the term “partisan media networks,” to what networks and web sites is he referring? The author of the Daily Princetonian story specifically mentioned the Drudge Report as an example of electronic media that McCurry noted would not look beyond scandals including gays in the military, "White House sleepovers," Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky and the impeachment proceedings. McCurry was quoted as saying, "This was the press' focus day after day. There was an inability to change to more substantive topics." Perhaps McCurry should consider that personal character, self-restraint, and honesty ARE substantive topics, especially when the man holding the most powerful position in the world clearly lacked all three.
What McCurry failed to include in his “expert” assessment of the rise of alternative media, such as talk radio and the Internet, was the context in which they began to flourish. McCurry railed on “partisan media networks” while omitting the obvious: the existing major media networks were then and continue to be blatantly partisan, made up almost entirely of liberal-leaning journalists who intentionally select story titles that mislead and use terms that evoke memories rather than reality (quagmire, anyone?). One need look no further than recent exposures of New York Times reporters’ story fabrications or the CBS News Bush National Guard episode during the 2004 campaign to know which party members of the media personally prefer in power. I will never forget standing at a major political event on election night in 2000 and seeing the unmistakable glee on the faces of CNN’s live news team when they initially called Florida for Gore. That memory is contrasted so clearly with the palpable gloom I observed in the same crew when that fictitious result was retracted and Florida went to Bush instead. There are numerous books and columns exposing the liberal leanings of the traditional media, but none of these address it as effectively as Hugh Hewitt’s revealing interview with ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin. Halperin seemed to believe he was completely impartial, but note his descriptions of his own staff at ABC News. Halperin clearly saw that the vast majority of employees at major media outlets were liberal Democrats and that media bosses like himself needed to correct this imbalance because it was harmful to objective reporting. I find it impossible to accept that McCurry, a former White House Press Secretary, could innocently omit this truth while telling Princeton students the new conservative media networks were responsible for stalling Clinton’s presidency.
Mr. McCurry, here is a novel idea: stop rewriting history by asserting that alternative conservative media introduced media conflict and an unhealthy focus on scandals. There were no conservative “partisan media networks” in existence during Watergate, Iran-Contra, or other “scandals” during Republican administrations. The media, liberal or conservative, have always sought scandal (apparently this former press secretary is not acquainted with the historical term Muckrakers) because we as a society seem to crave it and seek after it for entertainment. The talk radio and Internet phenomenon, including the blogosphere, sprouted because the majority of Americans grew weary of hearing and reading only the liberal interpretation of the news. Fox News, which is often attacked by liberals for being too conservative, was a breath of fresh air ten years ago because it presented stories from the novel perspective that there were in fact two sides and each was worthy of being reported. With all the major network and cable news channels marching in liberal lockstep, they were forced to compete with each other for shocking news, since they all shared the same opinions and thus none of their reporting was original. With conservative media now presenting its side of the political debate, all networks, liberal or conservative, will be more inclined to focus on a return to issues rather than muckraking.
The most discouraging aspect of McCurry’s defense of Clinton through media blame is the subtle attempt to remove personal character from the qualifications required for a president. Rather than complain about the media coverage of Clinton’s scandals, McCurry should have told Princeton students that if we would elect leaders with character and integrity, the media muckrakers would be reporting on “more substantive topics” out of an absence of scandal. Ironically, the very voices McCurry and Clinton want to blame for Clinton’s failed political legacy may never have risen to prominence had Clinton not stained his own presidency. History will show that the Clinton years brought more balance of opinion into the media than existed for several decades previously, not through liberals embracing conservative viewpoints in liberal newspapers or news programs, but through conservatives embracing new forms of media to take their media-repressed views directly to a thirsting audience.
Bill Clinton Mike McCurry Hugh Hewitt Monica Lewinsky Rush Limbaugh conservative media Princeton
Monday, December 11, 2006
You Say Sunni, I say Shiite, Let's Call the Whole Thing Off!
After 5 terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) has been selected as the new Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. This man bravely served in Vietnam as a helicopter crew chief, and has sat on the Intelligence and Armed Services Committees. Yet despite these credentials, this man, like most of his colleagues on the House Intelligence Committee, has no grasp of even the basic beliefs and motivations of the various sects warring with each other in Iraq.
During a recent interview with Jeff Stein of Congressional Quarterly, Reyes did not know whether Al Qaeda was Sunni or Shiite, nor did he understand the difference between the two factions. Reyes likewise demonstrated an equally appalling lack of knowledge when asked about Hezbollah. Stein’s descriptions of the interview and his conversations with other members of the Intelligence Committee (Democrats and Republicans) serve as an expected, yet still chilling, illustration of the consequences of the American penchant for selecting shallow, ambitious leaders lacking judgment and character, which I wrote about recently. Ambition is time-consuming. Having been closely involved in a professional capacity with a few campaign cycles, one thing has been obvious to me: our elected officials spend far more time working to get elected and remain in office than they do conducting the business of our government.
It should surprise no one that members of a House Intelligence Committee have not studied any of the issues before the Committee. Sadly, that is what staffers are for. Congressman and Senators simply do not have time to become educated on such trivial matters as Al Qaeda, Sunnis, Shiites, and Hezbollah, because studying issues interferes with fundraising and campaigning. Our elected officials, at best, receive briefings which consist of sound-bite length snippets spoon fed by staffers who are not experts in military, terrorism, or intelligence matters. There is no more potentially dangerous example of “the blind leading the blind” than how the House and Senate handle intelligence.
Of course, it would be helpful if candidates could be found who bring some level of experience (military, intelligence, counter-terrorism, etc) into office, but this should not be a requirement. Rather, it should be required that once elected and selected for any committee, the Representative or Senator must become conversant in the topics of that committee. Yet this is all too often how government committees are formed, not by qualification but instead by name recognition and/or seniority. The Iraq Study Group is a perfect illustration. Sandra Day O’Connor, Vernon Jordan, and Leon Panetta had no background in military or intelligence matters, yet they were selected to analyze the situation in Iraq and determine what military and intelligence tactics and strategies should be implemented to improve the situation. Jordan and Panetta were Adviser and Chief of Staff to Former President Clinton, with no known credibility within the military or intelligence communities.
Not surprisingly, in the anti-war hysteria of the 2006 mid-term elections, the ISG was forced to conclude the only solution was a 79 point plan to pull out of Iraq and let the new democratic Iraqi government be crushed in a sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites. How narcissistically ironic that a group consisting of 7 former attorneys came to the conclusion that talking (to Iran and Syria, both of which are funding and training, and arming our enemies in Iraq) was the best way to handle terrorists. Lawyers seem convinced they can talk their way into or out of anything including radical Islam’s hatred for infidels. They could find no strategy for victory because they know nothing about military strategy or the situation in Iraq.
Stein’s interview with Reyes should alarm every American. If our “intelligence” committees do not understand the root causes of conflict and who the various players are on the stage of world terrorism, how will they make decisions about funding our intelligence agencies and what tactics or technologies should or should not be utilized? We should not be blinded or awed by office holders with extensive credentials on government committees. Committees meet infrequently, and that merely makes running for office the only full time job that has our leaders’ full attention. Perhaps our televised debates should include questions that actually test a candidate’s knowledge rather than his skill for eloquently stating nothing of substance.
Would Reyes be serving a 5th term in the House if he had been asked in a debate, “is Al Qaeda Sunni or Shiite, and what’s the difference”? Unfortunately our elections and debates are not a screening process for qualified applicants; they are pathetic pageants for shallow contestants. In Reyes’s case, he appears to have been a potentially valuable addition to Congress when first elected, but chose instead to remain shallow, at least in his knowledge of the most important issue of our time: protecting America from those who want to destroy it and its allies. We should and must demand better.
elections Al Qaeda Silvestre Reyes Iraq Study Group House Intelligence Committee Sunni Shiite
During a recent interview with Jeff Stein of Congressional Quarterly, Reyes did not know whether Al Qaeda was Sunni or Shiite, nor did he understand the difference between the two factions. Reyes likewise demonstrated an equally appalling lack of knowledge when asked about Hezbollah. Stein’s descriptions of the interview and his conversations with other members of the Intelligence Committee (Democrats and Republicans) serve as an expected, yet still chilling, illustration of the consequences of the American penchant for selecting shallow, ambitious leaders lacking judgment and character, which I wrote about recently. Ambition is time-consuming. Having been closely involved in a professional capacity with a few campaign cycles, one thing has been obvious to me: our elected officials spend far more time working to get elected and remain in office than they do conducting the business of our government.
It should surprise no one that members of a House Intelligence Committee have not studied any of the issues before the Committee. Sadly, that is what staffers are for. Congressman and Senators simply do not have time to become educated on such trivial matters as Al Qaeda, Sunnis, Shiites, and Hezbollah, because studying issues interferes with fundraising and campaigning. Our elected officials, at best, receive briefings which consist of sound-bite length snippets spoon fed by staffers who are not experts in military, terrorism, or intelligence matters. There is no more potentially dangerous example of “the blind leading the blind” than how the House and Senate handle intelligence.
Of course, it would be helpful if candidates could be found who bring some level of experience (military, intelligence, counter-terrorism, etc) into office, but this should not be a requirement. Rather, it should be required that once elected and selected for any committee, the Representative or Senator must become conversant in the topics of that committee. Yet this is all too often how government committees are formed, not by qualification but instead by name recognition and/or seniority. The Iraq Study Group is a perfect illustration. Sandra Day O’Connor, Vernon Jordan, and Leon Panetta had no background in military or intelligence matters, yet they were selected to analyze the situation in Iraq and determine what military and intelligence tactics and strategies should be implemented to improve the situation. Jordan and Panetta were Adviser and Chief of Staff to Former President Clinton, with no known credibility within the military or intelligence communities.
Not surprisingly, in the anti-war hysteria of the 2006 mid-term elections, the ISG was forced to conclude the only solution was a 79 point plan to pull out of Iraq and let the new democratic Iraqi government be crushed in a sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites. How narcissistically ironic that a group consisting of 7 former attorneys came to the conclusion that talking (to Iran and Syria, both of which are funding and training, and arming our enemies in Iraq) was the best way to handle terrorists. Lawyers seem convinced they can talk their way into or out of anything including radical Islam’s hatred for infidels. They could find no strategy for victory because they know nothing about military strategy or the situation in Iraq.
Stein’s interview with Reyes should alarm every American. If our “intelligence” committees do not understand the root causes of conflict and who the various players are on the stage of world terrorism, how will they make decisions about funding our intelligence agencies and what tactics or technologies should or should not be utilized? We should not be blinded or awed by office holders with extensive credentials on government committees. Committees meet infrequently, and that merely makes running for office the only full time job that has our leaders’ full attention. Perhaps our televised debates should include questions that actually test a candidate’s knowledge rather than his skill for eloquently stating nothing of substance.
Would Reyes be serving a 5th term in the House if he had been asked in a debate, “is Al Qaeda Sunni or Shiite, and what’s the difference”? Unfortunately our elections and debates are not a screening process for qualified applicants; they are pathetic pageants for shallow contestants. In Reyes’s case, he appears to have been a potentially valuable addition to Congress when first elected, but chose instead to remain shallow, at least in his knowledge of the most important issue of our time: protecting America from those who want to destroy it and its allies. We should and must demand better.
elections Al Qaeda Silvestre Reyes Iraq Study Group House Intelligence Committee Sunni Shiite
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)