There is an epidemic of murders in this nation. You won’t find them in the FBI statistics and there are no detectives or investigations. These are virtual murders—character assignations. And staying with the metaphor, the New York Times is a serial killer of historic proportions.
There is an MO that can help you identify and maybe even prevent a murder. A reporter or a columnist thinks they have a story—usually a deep, dark, insidious plot that must be revealed to protect the American public—and they are sure it is true. But they do not have facts or proof, they cannot corroborate their theory through confirmed sources, not even through sources who wish to remain anonymous because they fear retribution. The writer could contact the victim directly and get their side of the story, but that would likely dispel the mythical plot and exonerate the villain. Left with no place else to go and a faint twinge of commitment to the journalist’s code of ethics—they go where they can say what they want about anything or anybody without fear of libel suit or being bound by any sense of honor—they go to the Op Ed page. The murder in the form of character assassination is committed in the office, with the pen, by the journalist.
I have witnessed two attempted murders recently by Maureen Dowd. And her intended victim, who she has been trying to kill for years, is Vice President Cheney.
In the first recent attempt, Ms. Dowd claims to have obtained a copy of the Top Secret testimony of Dick Cheney before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Then she proceeds to fabricate the most outlandish concoction of the Vice President’s testimony about torture and the war on terrorism. But, it is not enough just to write a fictional piece; Ms. Dowd uses quotation marks to add an air of authenticity to her diatribe of lies.
The second attempt was the omni-present Maureen Dowd listening in on a private conversation between Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfield at a Georgetown café. Again, she uses quotation marks to suggest that this was a factual report of an actual meeting of the former VP and Secretary of Defense. And, if it was not bad enough that she completely made up the conversation she “listened” in on, consider her moral outrage at the trampling of her Constitutional “rights” if it had been the omni-present NSA listening in of her private conversation at a public place.
Ms. Dowd does such a great job of building these fantasies about Dick Cheney that I even found myself wondering if they could be true. I suspect that 90% of the readers were left wondering the same thing. The difference for this reader is that I know Dick Cheney. I worked for him for four years when he represented Wyoming in the US Congress and I have remained a personal friend through the years. Suddenly, I snapped to full consciousness and realized I had witnessed two attempted virtual murders.
Moreover, I have had personal experience with the media’s new penchant for character assassinations, fabrications, slander, and manipulation of their readers through the unethical perversion of the Opinion Editorial. At least three lead editorials in the NY Times have impugned my character, my professional qualifications, and outright lied about an action I had taken as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior. The NY Times never consulted with Interior or me about the veracity of their fabrication. In fact, they twice refused to even print a 150-word letter to the editor correcting the record. And if it is not enough to be the subject of lies and even likened to the devil himself in a major national newspaper, the story gets reprinted in thousands of smaller papers across the country.
You see the real danger here is that once it has made it to newspaper print, then in the eyes of every journalist out there, the fabrication is now incontrovertible fact. This happens even though the original piece is printed on the Op Ed page, where journalistic license allows the authors a certain degree of factual latitude when expressing their “opinion.” But, the follow up stories are not printed on the Op Ed page; they are now news and that is how they get reported.
I feel sorry for the “Maureen Dowds” of the journalistic world. She just can’t get over the fact that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were elected twice. She can’t get over the fact that Dick Cheney is still making news about issues for which his qualifications are undisputed. To my knowledge, no journalist has suggested Al Gore “shut up” about global warming even though several reputable scientists have caught him in his own fabrications on the issue. I haven’t heard anyone suggest Jimmy Carter go away and stop his interloping, dare I say, cowboy brand of diplomacy.
Two things will continue to frustrate Maureen Dowd. The first is that Chaney is right and polls show that the American people know he is right. Second, she is frustrated that her multiple murder attempts, each more deadly than the previous, have failed to kill Dick Cheney’s credibility. By now she should know that, if you want to kill a cowboy, you can’t just cut off his head; you have to hide it from him.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
If Fiction Works for the Left, Why Can’t We Use It Too?
While conservationists make a difference by cooperatively working to improve habitat, the environmental industry employs stables of lawyers who march across the nation and advance bad policies through litigation. Our economy is being strangled, the bureaucracy is entangled, and lives are destroyed. In the meantime—thanks in part to the entertainment industry—America is happily “going green.”
Why—even though our environment has improved—do millions of Americans believe our world is teetering on the brink of destruction? Environmentalists are influencing people through the entertainment industry.
It all started with the 1975 novel, The Monkey Wrench Gang. Over time, this work of fiction became a manifesto for radical environmentalism and it paved the way for thousands of other novels that depict mankind as an eco scourge.
You can count on your fingers the number of times that fiction has been used to expose the dark side of environmentalism. Michael Crichton’s novel, State of Fear, and L. P. Hoffman’s new release, The Canaan Creed, are among them.
The response to The Canaan Creed has been overwhelmingly favorable, but the mainstream media won’t carry this message. I need your help. Together we can penetrate the entertainment market and reach millions of Americans with the truth—radical environmentalism does not work, conservation does!
Why—even though our environment has improved—do millions of Americans believe our world is teetering on the brink of destruction? Environmentalists are influencing people through the entertainment industry.
It all started with the 1975 novel, The Monkey Wrench Gang. Over time, this work of fiction became a manifesto for radical environmentalism and it paved the way for thousands of other novels that depict mankind as an eco scourge.
You can count on your fingers the number of times that fiction has been used to expose the dark side of environmentalism. Michael Crichton’s novel, State of Fear, and L. P. Hoffman’s new release, The Canaan Creed, are among them.
The response to The Canaan Creed has been overwhelmingly favorable, but the mainstream media won’t carry this message. I need your help. Together we can penetrate the entertainment market and reach millions of Americans with the truth—radical environmentalism does not work, conservation does!
Saturday, May 9, 2009
From the Politics of “Hope” and “Change” to a Culture of “Fear”
Remember the rhetoric of the 2008 Presidential campaign? Barack Obama was all about “Hope” and “Change,” something or someone you can “Believe” in. And Obama’s opposition was not so much John McCain as it was about no more George W. Bush. But Barack Obama will forget the past; he is all about the future. He would bring a fresh perspective to Washington, no more bitter partisan wrangling.
My how soon we forget our campaign promises and rhetoric. Even before Obama took the Oath of Office, he was telling Congressional Republicans that he had “won” the election and wasn’t going to take “no” for an answer. And he has taken this same approach several times since taking office. His Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, was even more direct telling Republicans they could go you-know-what themselves. Yes, we were warned, and now it has come true; we do indeed have Chicago-style politicians running the country. So much for the promise of “Hope” and “Change.”
Our first serving of Obama “Hope” was an endless diatribe about the economic catastrophe this country would face if Congress did not pass the stimulus bill, the contents of which no one knew. A bill that in fact today is still full of discoveries.
Another promise in the 2008 campaign of “Hope” was that our government would be more transparent. Obama said the American people would be given 48 hours to review the content of every piece of enacted legislation before President Obama would sign it into law. We are left still hoping for any opportunity to review any enacted legislation!
Throughout the campaign and after his election was secured, Obama talked about moving the country forward and not dwelling on the past. At least, until he decided to selectively release memorandums with the express purpose of impugning the Bush/Cheney Administration. What about the “high road” you ask? Well I guess they missed that fork in the road that would lead to “Change” and took the path more easily traveled.
Despite all the rhetoric of “Hope” and “Change,” what Obama knows all too well is that “Hope” doesn’t sell and “Change” is hard. But, “Fear” is a commodity that enables extraordinary things to happen and provides the opportunity to foist a tired old socialist agenda on an unsuspecting population. Jamie Whitten, long time Democrat Chair of the House Appropriations Committee, was known for having said (and I paraphrase), Every disaster presents an opportunity. In essence, if you want to make sweeping change or spend inordinate amounts of money on things nobody would normally support, then you need a disaster, preferably a natural disaster, and an emergency aid bill.
Despite all the fearful rhetoric and doom and gloom, the current “Recession” does not even begin to compare to the Great Depression. In fact, it doesn’t even measure up to several recessions experienced by the US since the seventies. And when the banking industry is on the verge of recovering and wants to pay back the US Treasury, then the Administration whips up a Stress Test, tells Americans their banks are still too weak to survive on their own, and quickly tries to convert the non-voting government stock to common stock. I can hardly wait to hear the dower view from on high when the White House reacts to the fact that many experts believe the housing market may have bottomed out and could be on the upswing. But, if you want to hood wink the American people and Congress into passing a record breaking deficit spending packages of unknown content and make policy changes under the cover of darkness, “Fear” wins over “Hope” and “Change” every time.
And when you can’t whip up enough economic frenzy, then shift the attention back on the evil Bush/Cheney Administration. Or throw in a pandemic influenza virus, or hope for some spring flooding, or a really extreme tornado season. And don’t forget, hurricane season is right around the bend.
In matters not that we never have seen the “Annual” Katrina event the global warmists predicted disturbingly after the 2005 hurricane season. And, even though most Americans don’t believe in global warming, or if it exists that humans are the cause of climate change, the Obama Administration is working overtime to build up the “Fear” of global warming, or climate change which conveniently gives the alarmists an opportunity to blame any weather anomaly or disaster on mankind.
All of these man-made crises, whether the economy, the climate, or global conflict, present ripe opportunities for mischievous, even devastatingly bad policy and law. But, when one has an agenda to dramatically expand the roll of government and move the country closer to socialism, “Hope” and “Change” won’t get the job done. So I guess FDR was right, maybe even prophetic, when he said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Be afraid, very afraid. And “Hope” the young people who voted for “Change” in 2008 will see through the charade and have an equal appetite for real “Hope” and “Change” in the 2010 and 2012 elections.
My how soon we forget our campaign promises and rhetoric. Even before Obama took the Oath of Office, he was telling Congressional Republicans that he had “won” the election and wasn’t going to take “no” for an answer. And he has taken this same approach several times since taking office. His Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, was even more direct telling Republicans they could go you-know-what themselves. Yes, we were warned, and now it has come true; we do indeed have Chicago-style politicians running the country. So much for the promise of “Hope” and “Change.”
Our first serving of Obama “Hope” was an endless diatribe about the economic catastrophe this country would face if Congress did not pass the stimulus bill, the contents of which no one knew. A bill that in fact today is still full of discoveries.
Another promise in the 2008 campaign of “Hope” was that our government would be more transparent. Obama said the American people would be given 48 hours to review the content of every piece of enacted legislation before President Obama would sign it into law. We are left still hoping for any opportunity to review any enacted legislation!
Throughout the campaign and after his election was secured, Obama talked about moving the country forward and not dwelling on the past. At least, until he decided to selectively release memorandums with the express purpose of impugning the Bush/Cheney Administration. What about the “high road” you ask? Well I guess they missed that fork in the road that would lead to “Change” and took the path more easily traveled.
Despite all the rhetoric of “Hope” and “Change,” what Obama knows all too well is that “Hope” doesn’t sell and “Change” is hard. But, “Fear” is a commodity that enables extraordinary things to happen and provides the opportunity to foist a tired old socialist agenda on an unsuspecting population. Jamie Whitten, long time Democrat Chair of the House Appropriations Committee, was known for having said (and I paraphrase), Every disaster presents an opportunity. In essence, if you want to make sweeping change or spend inordinate amounts of money on things nobody would normally support, then you need a disaster, preferably a natural disaster, and an emergency aid bill.
Despite all the fearful rhetoric and doom and gloom, the current “Recession” does not even begin to compare to the Great Depression. In fact, it doesn’t even measure up to several recessions experienced by the US since the seventies. And when the banking industry is on the verge of recovering and wants to pay back the US Treasury, then the Administration whips up a Stress Test, tells Americans their banks are still too weak to survive on their own, and quickly tries to convert the non-voting government stock to common stock. I can hardly wait to hear the dower view from on high when the White House reacts to the fact that many experts believe the housing market may have bottomed out and could be on the upswing. But, if you want to hood wink the American people and Congress into passing a record breaking deficit spending packages of unknown content and make policy changes under the cover of darkness, “Fear” wins over “Hope” and “Change” every time.
And when you can’t whip up enough economic frenzy, then shift the attention back on the evil Bush/Cheney Administration. Or throw in a pandemic influenza virus, or hope for some spring flooding, or a really extreme tornado season. And don’t forget, hurricane season is right around the bend.
In matters not that we never have seen the “Annual” Katrina event the global warmists predicted disturbingly after the 2005 hurricane season. And, even though most Americans don’t believe in global warming, or if it exists that humans are the cause of climate change, the Obama Administration is working overtime to build up the “Fear” of global warming, or climate change which conveniently gives the alarmists an opportunity to blame any weather anomaly or disaster on mankind.
All of these man-made crises, whether the economy, the climate, or global conflict, present ripe opportunities for mischievous, even devastatingly bad policy and law. But, when one has an agenda to dramatically expand the roll of government and move the country closer to socialism, “Hope” and “Change” won’t get the job done. So I guess FDR was right, maybe even prophetic, when he said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Be afraid, very afraid. And “Hope” the young people who voted for “Change” in 2008 will see through the charade and have an equal appetite for real “Hope” and “Change” in the 2010 and 2012 elections.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Forget Torture, This Debate is about Who Sets Policy
The release of the torture memos has raised many issues and a lot of speculation. It appears that, at a minimum, that President Obama is taking steps to appease the far left of the Democratic Party, and at the extreme, he may be laying the ground work for criminal prosecution of career Federal employees and former Bush Administration officials.
The debate to date has focused mainly on two issues: what constitutes torture and was gathering intelligence that saved American lives justification for the actions taken. On the latter, I say absolutely, but the question of what is torture is much too subjective. For me, it is torture to watch the evening news; others clearly have the stomach for it and even enjoy it.
The real debate here is who sets policy and what is the difference between policy making, the Code of Federal Regulations, legislation, and case law.
I am a recovering policy wonk. When I served as a Deputy Assistant Secretary at the Department of the Interior, I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and comply with all laws and rules thereunder and I swore to fulfill the duties of the office. One of the principal duties was to help formulate and set policy. In other words, President Bush was elected President and accordingly he was to govern and my job was to help the Administration achieve its policy goals with respect to the Department of the Interior.
Here is how it works under the three branches of government established in the Constitution. Congress, the Legislative Branch, drafts ands passes legislation which becomes the law of the land. In so doing, Congress sets the direction and establishes the overarching policy direction of the United States. However, in nearly all circumstances, Congress does not provide enough detail for the law to be implemented, complied with, or enforced. Because the Executive Branch is responsible for implementing and enforcing the law, the appropriate agency promulgates regulations or rules for the implementation and enforcement of the law thus providing additional detail deemed necessary for the proper implementation and enforcement of the law enacted by Congress. Even though reading the detailed rules and regulations in the Federal Register is a guaranteed cure for any form of insomnia, these rules quite often leave a lot of discretion to Federal employees to interpret the rule under certain circumstances or facts and apply it differently. This wiggle room, if you will—this latitude left to the Executive Branch employee—is intentional. This is the realm of policy making. All rule making must be within the legal framework established by Congress, and subsequently, policy making must be consistent and the finer filter of the regulatory framework. If there are questions about whether a rule or regulation is consistent with the law, or whether a policy goes outside the legal or regulatory framework, then the Judicial Branch weighs in to make that judgment. Often times in the course of determining if a regulation or policy is legal, a Federal Judge will in their decision clarify or interpret what Congress intended when they passed the law. This results in what is called case law and it is yet another filter the Federal employee of the Executive Branch must apply when implementing or enforcing the law.
So applying all that to the question of torture, what we have here is a case of Federal employees acting under the appropriate direction of the elected President and his appointed policy makers. The experts in the field and the lawyers reviewed the law, the regulations, the case law, past practices (policies) during four previous wars, and they developed a policy that was in the end determined to be consistent with all the available frameworks. Then that policy was briefed the Chairs of the Congressional Committees of jurisdiction and received their approval.
It is the prerogative of any Administration to disagree with and change any policy; it is called governing. The spoils go to the victors, and in our case, the victors get to and should govern. The job of career Federal employees is to inform policy makers about the law, regulations, the successes and failures of past practices, and to assist the current Administration achieve their lawful policy goals. I have often said that bureaucracy is the keel that keeps the ship of state moving forward. Policy makers are a small rudder and are considered highly successful if the can alter the course of the ship of state by 10 degrees to the right or the left.
Theodore Roosevelt, before he became President, helped to establish the current system of civil service in order to protect Federal employees from whims of elected or appointed leaders and provide that important keel to the ship of state. It appears that it is the goal of the Obama Administration is to make career Federal employees or elected and appointed officials subject to prosecution because disagrees with the previously established policy. If successful in this endeavor, then the ship of state will become a ship without either a keel or a rudder, the Obama Administration will have consigned the United States to an inevitable ship wreck in the rough and turbulent seas of the world today.
The debate to date has focused mainly on two issues: what constitutes torture and was gathering intelligence that saved American lives justification for the actions taken. On the latter, I say absolutely, but the question of what is torture is much too subjective. For me, it is torture to watch the evening news; others clearly have the stomach for it and even enjoy it.
The real debate here is who sets policy and what is the difference between policy making, the Code of Federal Regulations, legislation, and case law.
I am a recovering policy wonk. When I served as a Deputy Assistant Secretary at the Department of the Interior, I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and comply with all laws and rules thereunder and I swore to fulfill the duties of the office. One of the principal duties was to help formulate and set policy. In other words, President Bush was elected President and accordingly he was to govern and my job was to help the Administration achieve its policy goals with respect to the Department of the Interior.
Here is how it works under the three branches of government established in the Constitution. Congress, the Legislative Branch, drafts ands passes legislation which becomes the law of the land. In so doing, Congress sets the direction and establishes the overarching policy direction of the United States. However, in nearly all circumstances, Congress does not provide enough detail for the law to be implemented, complied with, or enforced. Because the Executive Branch is responsible for implementing and enforcing the law, the appropriate agency promulgates regulations or rules for the implementation and enforcement of the law thus providing additional detail deemed necessary for the proper implementation and enforcement of the law enacted by Congress. Even though reading the detailed rules and regulations in the Federal Register is a guaranteed cure for any form of insomnia, these rules quite often leave a lot of discretion to Federal employees to interpret the rule under certain circumstances or facts and apply it differently. This wiggle room, if you will—this latitude left to the Executive Branch employee—is intentional. This is the realm of policy making. All rule making must be within the legal framework established by Congress, and subsequently, policy making must be consistent and the finer filter of the regulatory framework. If there are questions about whether a rule or regulation is consistent with the law, or whether a policy goes outside the legal or regulatory framework, then the Judicial Branch weighs in to make that judgment. Often times in the course of determining if a regulation or policy is legal, a Federal Judge will in their decision clarify or interpret what Congress intended when they passed the law. This results in what is called case law and it is yet another filter the Federal employee of the Executive Branch must apply when implementing or enforcing the law.
So applying all that to the question of torture, what we have here is a case of Federal employees acting under the appropriate direction of the elected President and his appointed policy makers. The experts in the field and the lawyers reviewed the law, the regulations, the case law, past practices (policies) during four previous wars, and they developed a policy that was in the end determined to be consistent with all the available frameworks. Then that policy was briefed the Chairs of the Congressional Committees of jurisdiction and received their approval.
It is the prerogative of any Administration to disagree with and change any policy; it is called governing. The spoils go to the victors, and in our case, the victors get to and should govern. The job of career Federal employees is to inform policy makers about the law, regulations, the successes and failures of past practices, and to assist the current Administration achieve their lawful policy goals. I have often said that bureaucracy is the keel that keeps the ship of state moving forward. Policy makers are a small rudder and are considered highly successful if the can alter the course of the ship of state by 10 degrees to the right or the left.
Theodore Roosevelt, before he became President, helped to establish the current system of civil service in order to protect Federal employees from whims of elected or appointed leaders and provide that important keel to the ship of state. It appears that it is the goal of the Obama Administration is to make career Federal employees or elected and appointed officials subject to prosecution because disagrees with the previously established policy. If successful in this endeavor, then the ship of state will become a ship without either a keel or a rudder, the Obama Administration will have consigned the United States to an inevitable ship wreck in the rough and turbulent seas of the world today.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Support Concealed Weapon Carry in National Park and Wildlife Refuges
I support and urge you to tell Congress that you support legalized concealed weapon carry by lawfully permitted people in National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges. A recent Federal Regulation that allowed concealed weapons to be carried by people with permits in States where concealed weapon carry is legal was overturned by a Federal Judge in Washington, D.C. Now, two bills have been introduced in Congress to make it lawful for people with concealed weapon permits to carry their guns, just like you can on other public lands.
Virginia and other States allow concealed carry in State Parks and crime and/or shooting incidents has not increased and visitors are not threatened or scared.
Concealed Weapon Permit holders subject themselves to investigations and hold themselves to a higher standard of the law--they are not the problem, criminals are the problem.
The argument that Parks are safe places cannot be substantiated by the National Park Service and is wishful thinking. Parks have drugs, drug dealers, criminals on the lamb, domestic violence, and robberies--all the same crimes you find outside Parks. If Parks are so safe why are there so many armed Rangers, why are there robberies on the National Mall, and why does the NPS need to operate their own jails in some National Parks?
Law-abiding citizens have the Constitutional right to self defense and prohibiting concealed carry only in these limited areas, especially on National Parkways and Park roads that are regular commuter thoroughfares, makes it a "Gotcha" regulation for law-abiding citizens that is unfair and unconstitutional.
And don't be fooled into thinking criminals are not carrying weapons in Parks and Refuges. There are armed and dangerous criminals in nearly every Park and Refuge almost every day.
I urge you to contact your Senators and Congressperson and tell them to support S. 816 or H.R. 1684 and ask to hear their position on these bills. You are welcome to use any or all of this post in your correspondence.
Virginia and other States allow concealed carry in State Parks and crime and/or shooting incidents has not increased and visitors are not threatened or scared.
Concealed Weapon Permit holders subject themselves to investigations and hold themselves to a higher standard of the law--they are not the problem, criminals are the problem.
The argument that Parks are safe places cannot be substantiated by the National Park Service and is wishful thinking. Parks have drugs, drug dealers, criminals on the lamb, domestic violence, and robberies--all the same crimes you find outside Parks. If Parks are so safe why are there so many armed Rangers, why are there robberies on the National Mall, and why does the NPS need to operate their own jails in some National Parks?
Law-abiding citizens have the Constitutional right to self defense and prohibiting concealed carry only in these limited areas, especially on National Parkways and Park roads that are regular commuter thoroughfares, makes it a "Gotcha" regulation for law-abiding citizens that is unfair and unconstitutional.
And don't be fooled into thinking criminals are not carrying weapons in Parks and Refuges. There are armed and dangerous criminals in nearly every Park and Refuge almost every day.
I urge you to contact your Senators and Congressperson and tell them to support S. 816 or H.R. 1684 and ask to hear their position on these bills. You are welcome to use any or all of this post in your correspondence.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
World Heritage Sites are not under UN control
In her Op Ed piece on March 30, 2009, in the San Francisco Examiner, Cheryl K. Chumley asserted that the “UN is taking control of U.S. land in the name of conservation.” She goes on to state so many other factual errors about the World Heritage Convention that I am compelled to respond and set the record straight.
Ms. Chumley is alluding to the announcement by the US Department of the Interior that the United States of America has revised its list of sites that may be nominated by the USA to be considered for inclusion on the List of World Heritage.
I was a Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior from 2002 to 2008, and in that capacity, I had the distinct privilege of leading the USA Delegation to the meetings of the World Heritage Committee for five years, getting the USA elected to the Committee, and I am well versed in the World Heritage Convention, the Operating Guidelines, and the Rules of Procedure. The Convention, which the USA helped author and was the first signatory, is administered through the United Nations Education, Science, and Culture Organization (UNESCO) by the 21 State Party Members of the World Heritage Committee. The USA remained active in and on the World Heritage Committee even during its 20 year hiatus from UNESCO. When under President Bush’s leadership the USA rejoined UNESCO, I worked closely with UNESCO Ambassador Louise Oliver on matters related to World Heritage.
I led the effort to have the Committee remove Yellowstone National Park from the List of World Heritage in Danger and I paved the way for the eventual removal of the Everglades National Park from the same list. I was involved in the rewrite of the Operating Guidelines where the USA and its allies made a strong case for the sovereignty of State Parties as articulated in the Convention.
Inscription of a site on the List of World Heritage does not in any way, shape, or form transfer ownership or control of the site to the United Nations or UNESCO. It is an acknowledgment of three things. To be inscribed, a site must have 1) Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), 2) it must have an established legal structure to conserve or protect the resources, and 3) the site must have an established management plan. “Outstanding Universal Value means cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity. As such, the permanent protection of this heritage is of the highest importance to the international community as a whole. The Committee defines the criteria for the inscription of properties on the World Heritage List.” (Operational Guidelines, IIA, Paragraph 49)
The only way that the Committee can exert any pressure on a State Party regarding conservation or management of a site is to do one of two things. First, the Committee may vote to put a site on the List of World Heritage in Danger which makes international assistance and money available to the site owner in order to remedy the issues identified by the Committee, or secondly, the Committee may vote to remove the site from the List of World Heritage if it has been determined that the site has lost its OUV.
I also initiated and led the multi-year effort to develop the new USA Tentative List to which Ms. Chumley refers. This is the list of sites that the USA considers to have Outstanding Universal Value and that may be nominated by the USA for inscription on the List of World Heritage. A Tentative List is required by the Convention and the previous USA Tentative List had over seventy sites. Our goal was to substantially reduce the number of sites on the list and confine those properties listed to sites that had the support of the owners, the local community, and local leaders. These sites were not put forth by the United Nations or UNESCO. The sites were submitted by the owners, underwent a rigorous review process, required written documentation of local support, and were publicly vetted.
While the World Heritage Committee and certain of its members have from time to time tried to exert excessive influence on the management of sites and have even tried to impose “buffer zones” around sites, the fact remains that all World Heritage Sites remain exclusively under the control of the property owners and the laws of the nation in which the site is located. I am a strong proponent of private property rights and I have worked to ensure that these rights are protected throughout my tenure at Interior. For the USA, most World Heritage Sites are Federally-owned properties, but there are today a few State-owned, Tribal-owned, and privately-owned World Heritage Sites in the USA. The owners of those properties remain in control of the site and there has never been a documented sighting of blue-helmeted soldiers or black-helicopter operations at any World Heritage Site in the USA.
Ms. Chumley is alluding to the announcement by the US Department of the Interior that the United States of America has revised its list of sites that may be nominated by the USA to be considered for inclusion on the List of World Heritage.
I was a Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior from 2002 to 2008, and in that capacity, I had the distinct privilege of leading the USA Delegation to the meetings of the World Heritage Committee for five years, getting the USA elected to the Committee, and I am well versed in the World Heritage Convention, the Operating Guidelines, and the Rules of Procedure. The Convention, which the USA helped author and was the first signatory, is administered through the United Nations Education, Science, and Culture Organization (UNESCO) by the 21 State Party Members of the World Heritage Committee. The USA remained active in and on the World Heritage Committee even during its 20 year hiatus from UNESCO. When under President Bush’s leadership the USA rejoined UNESCO, I worked closely with UNESCO Ambassador Louise Oliver on matters related to World Heritage.
I led the effort to have the Committee remove Yellowstone National Park from the List of World Heritage in Danger and I paved the way for the eventual removal of the Everglades National Park from the same list. I was involved in the rewrite of the Operating Guidelines where the USA and its allies made a strong case for the sovereignty of State Parties as articulated in the Convention.
Inscription of a site on the List of World Heritage does not in any way, shape, or form transfer ownership or control of the site to the United Nations or UNESCO. It is an acknowledgment of three things. To be inscribed, a site must have 1) Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), 2) it must have an established legal structure to conserve or protect the resources, and 3) the site must have an established management plan. “Outstanding Universal Value means cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity. As such, the permanent protection of this heritage is of the highest importance to the international community as a whole. The Committee defines the criteria for the inscription of properties on the World Heritage List.” (Operational Guidelines, IIA, Paragraph 49)
The only way that the Committee can exert any pressure on a State Party regarding conservation or management of a site is to do one of two things. First, the Committee may vote to put a site on the List of World Heritage in Danger which makes international assistance and money available to the site owner in order to remedy the issues identified by the Committee, or secondly, the Committee may vote to remove the site from the List of World Heritage if it has been determined that the site has lost its OUV.
I also initiated and led the multi-year effort to develop the new USA Tentative List to which Ms. Chumley refers. This is the list of sites that the USA considers to have Outstanding Universal Value and that may be nominated by the USA for inscription on the List of World Heritage. A Tentative List is required by the Convention and the previous USA Tentative List had over seventy sites. Our goal was to substantially reduce the number of sites on the list and confine those properties listed to sites that had the support of the owners, the local community, and local leaders. These sites were not put forth by the United Nations or UNESCO. The sites were submitted by the owners, underwent a rigorous review process, required written documentation of local support, and were publicly vetted.
While the World Heritage Committee and certain of its members have from time to time tried to exert excessive influence on the management of sites and have even tried to impose “buffer zones” around sites, the fact remains that all World Heritage Sites remain exclusively under the control of the property owners and the laws of the nation in which the site is located. I am a strong proponent of private property rights and I have worked to ensure that these rights are protected throughout my tenure at Interior. For the USA, most World Heritage Sites are Federally-owned properties, but there are today a few State-owned, Tribal-owned, and privately-owned World Heritage Sites in the USA. The owners of those properties remain in control of the site and there has never been a documented sighting of blue-helmeted soldiers or black-helicopter operations at any World Heritage Site in the USA.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Let’s Get Real about the Economy
Let’s get real about the underlying causes of and the way to cure our economic woes.
“It’s the economy stupid.” That is the line that sunk George H. W. Bush’s reelection hopes in 1992 and ushered in eight years of Bill Clinton. In 2008, a similar refrain dashed John McCain’s hope to be the come-back kid once again. Barack Obama won the Oval Office on a campaign of platitudes—hope, change, and a chicken in every pot.
Yes, Obama inherited this economic crisis, but not from George W. Bush. This problem is not the result of greed on Wall Street. Greed on Wall Street is not new; heck, Wall Street is greed incarnate. I am not a big proponent of greed and excess, but if you can’t be greedy on Wall Street, then where can you? Let’s get real about Wall Street. All of us pay those folks on Wall Street to use their greed skills to make us all money. And I mean all of us, not just the so-called rich fat cats. If you have an IRA, an employee stock plan, a 401 K, a public school retirement fund, a firefighter’s retirement fund, or any retirement of any kind, then you are likely invested in mutual funds that are managed or traded on Wall Street. In fact, horror of horrors, your mutual fund is probably invested in oil companies, coal mines, and even banks and brokerage firms! But, I digress.
Back to the origins of this economic crisis, in a rather prophetic article published in the New York Times on September 30, 1999, Steven A. Holmes identifies the cause of the subprime mortgage meltdown of 2008. Here are a few of the telling facts Holmes articulates in that article.
“Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.”
“’Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990’s by reducing down payment requirements,’ said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chairman and chief executive officer. ‘Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.’”
“In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.”
There you have it. The current economic crisis can be directly traced back to the social engineering policies of the Clinton Administration. And now in an attempt to revive the economy, President Obama is proposing even more ill-advised social engineering programs.
Presidents Jefferson and Lincoln admonished America to never forget that you do not benefit the poor by taking from the wealthy (read Obama’s income redistribution plans) and you do not strengthen an economy by punishing those who create jobs (read Obama’s ideas about tax equity).
Whether it is greed or just plain old business sense, Wall Street knows that the most recent bailout legislation won’t begin to address the problem. And the Obama Administration’s propensity for obfuscation and platitudes without details is just like rubbing salt in the economic wound.
President Obama would be wise to understand that “It is the economy stupid.” And if you want to stimulate the economy, reduce tax rates, especially on capital gains, and restore investment tax credits. Do not start a trade war because, as the largest exporting nation in the world, the U.S.A. has the most to lose in that war. And decrease the regulatory burden on domestic businesses if you want to create jobs in America. In pursuing these real economic stimulus policies, the President would be unleashing the awesome and magnificent power of free enterprise, the American economy would once again lead the world in improving the people’s lot in life, and, yes, tax revenues would increase.
“It’s the economy stupid.” That is the line that sunk George H. W. Bush’s reelection hopes in 1992 and ushered in eight years of Bill Clinton. In 2008, a similar refrain dashed John McCain’s hope to be the come-back kid once again. Barack Obama won the Oval Office on a campaign of platitudes—hope, change, and a chicken in every pot.
Yes, Obama inherited this economic crisis, but not from George W. Bush. This problem is not the result of greed on Wall Street. Greed on Wall Street is not new; heck, Wall Street is greed incarnate. I am not a big proponent of greed and excess, but if you can’t be greedy on Wall Street, then where can you? Let’s get real about Wall Street. All of us pay those folks on Wall Street to use their greed skills to make us all money. And I mean all of us, not just the so-called rich fat cats. If you have an IRA, an employee stock plan, a 401 K, a public school retirement fund, a firefighter’s retirement fund, or any retirement of any kind, then you are likely invested in mutual funds that are managed or traded on Wall Street. In fact, horror of horrors, your mutual fund is probably invested in oil companies, coal mines, and even banks and brokerage firms! But, I digress.
Back to the origins of this economic crisis, in a rather prophetic article published in the New York Times on September 30, 1999, Steven A. Holmes identifies the cause of the subprime mortgage meltdown of 2008. Here are a few of the telling facts Holmes articulates in that article.
“Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.”
“’Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990’s by reducing down payment requirements,’ said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chairman and chief executive officer. ‘Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.’”
“In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.”
There you have it. The current economic crisis can be directly traced back to the social engineering policies of the Clinton Administration. And now in an attempt to revive the economy, President Obama is proposing even more ill-advised social engineering programs.
Presidents Jefferson and Lincoln admonished America to never forget that you do not benefit the poor by taking from the wealthy (read Obama’s income redistribution plans) and you do not strengthen an economy by punishing those who create jobs (read Obama’s ideas about tax equity).
Whether it is greed or just plain old business sense, Wall Street knows that the most recent bailout legislation won’t begin to address the problem. And the Obama Administration’s propensity for obfuscation and platitudes without details is just like rubbing salt in the economic wound.
President Obama would be wise to understand that “It is the economy stupid.” And if you want to stimulate the economy, reduce tax rates, especially on capital gains, and restore investment tax credits. Do not start a trade war because, as the largest exporting nation in the world, the U.S.A. has the most to lose in that war. And decrease the regulatory burden on domestic businesses if you want to create jobs in America. In pursuing these real economic stimulus policies, the President would be unleashing the awesome and magnificent power of free enterprise, the American economy would once again lead the world in improving the people’s lot in life, and, yes, tax revenues would increase.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
