John O'Neill Tribute - Video

Video uploaded by David Horowitz

A video to commemorate Freedom Center board member John O'neill's service to this country, both at home and abroad. Includes video footage of his showdown on the Dick Cavett show with John Kerry.

 

The Nanny State Can Get You Killed

The National Center for Public Policy Research - Press Release

New York, Los Angeles, Chicago Move to Restrict Devices that Help Smokers Quit

New York, NY - On the same day the Los Angeles City Council moved to regulate e-cigarettes, the National Center for Public Policy Research's Jeff Stier testified at a New York City Council Health Committee hearing on a similar measure being rushed through the New York City Council.

In his testimony, the New York-based Stier, who heads the National Center’s Risk Analysis Division, encouraged council members to think twice about whether it is in fact "prudent" to extend New York City's ban on smoking in public places to include e-cigarettes:

I would caution you that this is not the prudent thing to do. The prudent thing to do here is to help cigarette smokers quit. Rushing to judgment here could have serious, unintended consequences that you need to be aware of. It will stop people from quitting smoking. E-cigarettes are not a gateway to smoking. The data does not show that. E-cigarettes are a gateway to quitting smoking.

E-cigarettes, which do not produce smoke, have been a boon to those who have tried to quit smoking but have failed.
"Nicotine," Stier explains, "is addictive, but not particularly harmful, especially at the levels consumed by smokers or users of e-cigarettes, who are called 'vapers' for the vapor, rather than smoke, emitted by e-cigarettes."
"Nicotine's bad reputation should be attributed to its most common delivery device, cigarettes," says Stier. "Nicotine itself is about as dangerous as the caffeine in soda. Along the same lines, while too much soda can cause weight gain, nobody seriously suggests that caffeine causes obesity. Similarly, e-cigarettes provide the nicotine and the habitual activity of smoking, without the danger of burning tobacco."
"Mayor Bloomberg and his nanny state allies in New York City and Los Angeles have steam coming out of their ears about e-cigarettes. Here is a product created by private-sector innovation that is doing what many hundreds of millions of dollars of government spending, costly litigation, addictive excise taxes, warning labels and punitive regulation have been unable to do: help cigarette smokers quit happily. "
"Regulators understand that in order to maintain not only their huge budgets, but their basis for authority to control both private-sector businesses as well as personal decisions, they must demonize, delegitimize, and defeat e-cigarettes every step of the way," Stier says.
"Some, without any basis in science, allege that e-cigarettes are a 'gateway' to smoking. But initial studies, as well as empirical evidence, show that e-cigarettes are a major gateway away from, not toward, smoking. For all the heated rhetoric, there's little dispute in the scientific community: those who quit smoking cigarettes and switch to e-cigarettes reap immediate as well as long-term health benefits. And those improvements are dramatic."
Stier concludes: "Regulations that treat e-cigarettes the same as their deadly predecessor will have the unintended consequence of keeping smokers smoking. Quitting nicotine use altogether is the best choice. But for those who chose not to, or find it too difficult, e-cigarettes are a potentially life-saving alternative."
Outgoing New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, nicknamed "Nanny Bloomberg" by many for his use of government tools to influence what private citizens eat and drink, supports the New York proposal. Bloomberg’s administration imposed New York City’s ban on public smoking in 2003.
Like Los Angeles and New York, Chicago is considering banning the use of smokeless e-cigarettes anywhere in the city tobacco smoking is banned. The proposed ban is supported by Mayor Rahm Emanuel. The sale of e-cigarettes to minors is already appropriately illegal under Illinois state law.

---

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Fighting for Liberty Since 1982

The National Center for Public Policy Research
501 Capitol Court, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002
(202) 543-4110
Fax (202) 543-5975
E-Mail: info@nationalcenter.org
Web: www.nationalcenter.org

Stopping Islamist Intimidation of Authors

Threat and Response—Part Six

We’re fighting the Islamist intimidation of
authors—and winning!

One of the weapons in the arsenal of stealth jihadists is called “libel tourism.”

They file lawsuits against American authors in countries like Great Britain, where authors don’t have the same protection against defamation lawsuits they enjoy in the U.S.

They know they can’t win their lawsuits in the U.S., but their goal is simple—intimidate authors who are writing about terrorism.

Rachel Ehrenfeld

This tactic was used against Rachel Ehrenfeld, author of the book Funding Evil. A wealthy Saudi won a judgment against Ehrenfeld in a British court.

Ms. Ehrenfeld fought back, getting a bill introduced in the New York state legislature in 2008 that became known as “Rachel’s Law.”

The legislation was designed to protect New York authors from the kind of intimidation lawsuit that targeted Ms. Ehrenfeld.

ACT! for America delivered thousands of names on a petition, and hundreds of phone calls and emails to legislators in support of the bill, and the bill passed. In 2010, we got a similar bill passed in Tennessee.

Why is this important?

If authors and their publishers fear lawsuits in foreign countries that don’t protect freedom of speech and the press like we do in America, they’ll be less likely to write the truth about terrorism. And that’s a victory for stealth jihad because it’s a victory for suppression of free speech. It’s another way that Islamists impose sharia law on Americans.

ACT! for America is now working in several states to pass what has become known as The Free Speech Defense Act—and a little over two weeks ago, South Dakota became the latest state to pass The Free Speech Defense Act.

With every state that passes this legislation we protect that many more authors from “libel tourism.” We win, free speech wins—and radical Islam and stealth jihad loses.

If you’ve been following our “Threat and Response” emails, you see the many ways in which radical Islam is trying to impose its will on the West and on America.

“Libel tourism” is just one of the tactics employed by our enemies.

With your help, we can shut down this tactic and ensure that authors can write the truth about radical Islam without fear from those who would use the courts of other countries against us.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ACT for America
P.O. Box 12765
Pensacola, FL 32591
www.actforamerica.org

Another Potential School Tragedy Avoided... By Armed Guard

How to Waste a Decade in Afghanistan

For Immediate Release   
Contact: Maggie Rackl   (202) 293-5550 x205   press@understandingwar.org

Leaving a bare-bones U.S. presence will risk a return of the Taliban—and civil war.

By Frederick Kagan and Kimberly Kagan

Originally published in The Wall Street Journal, January 8, 2013

At the White House on Friday, President Obama will meet with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Although Mr. Karzai will presumably take up his continuous complaints that America has "imposed" corruption on his country, the more vital subject for both parties will be the size of the U.S. military footprint beyond 2014.

Administration officials are already leaking that the U.S. presence will be smaller than that requested by Gen. John Allen. The U.S. commander in the region has said that a force of 6,000 to 20,000 troops is needed. The White House has floated that 3,000 to 4,000 may be sufficient.

The divergence mirrors a more general disjunction in U.S. policy and perceptions regarding Afghanistan. Americans think the war is going badly, and many think it is hopelessly lost. But the Obama administration says that the process of "transitioning" responsibility for security to the Afghan military is going well enough to justify dramatic reductions in American forces this year and after 2014.

Has the president decided to cut his losses or does he actually think that the U.S. will have succeeded in Afghanistan at the end of his second term? Does it even matter?

Success in Afghanistan has always meant driving al Qaeda out and preventing it from returning. The U.S. cleared al Qaeda from the country in 2001-02 quickly, and with few forces. American efforts have since aimed at creating conditions in which Afghanistan will be able to keep al Qaeda out with limited international assistance. This part of the task has always been the most difficult. Yet it remains as vital today as it was in 2001.

Failing at it means letting al Qaeda regain its footing in the land from which it launched the most devastating terror attack against the U.S. in history...

...If a much-reduced U.S. force level is announced, Afghans will say that the Americans have abandoned their country. They will be right. With a drastically reduced U.S. presence, the Afghan government and army will fracture, warlords will begin fighting each other and the insurgents and terrorists in ungoverned spaces. The conditions will be ideal for al Qaeda's return. That's failure. And it will matter.

Read the entire opinion editorial at The Wall Street Journal.

To speak with ISW President Dr. Kimberly Kagan, please contact Maggie Rackl at mrackl@understandingwar.org or at (202) 293-5550 x205.

For more, visit www.understandingwar.org and join us on Twitter and Facebook.

###

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) is a non-partisan, non-profit, public policy research organization. ISW advances an informed understanding of military affairs through reliable research, trusted analysis, and innovative education. We are committed to improving the nation’s ability to execute military operations and respond to emerging threats in order to achieve U.S. strategic objectives.