"Ifølge deres egne udsagn, har den gennemsnitlige fattige [amerikaner] tilstrækkelige midler til at varetage alle essentielle behov samt til at opnå lægebehandling for familiemedlemmerne i løbet af året, når behovet er der", lyder det fra Heritage [Foundation].

USA's fattige sulter således ikke. Men det gør imidlertid 925 millioner mennesker i de ikke-industrialiserede lande, som ifølge "The World Food Programme" ikke får tilstrækkeligt med mad til at kunne leve et normalt og aktivt liv. På organisationens hjemmeside: www.wfp.org optræder USA således heller ikke over de 72 lande i verden, hvor sulten ifølge WFP hersker. Det gør i stedet 41 lande i Afrika, 8 lande i Syd- og Mellemamerika; 18 lande i Asien og 5 lande i Mellemøsten.

Læs mere om USA's fattige her:

http://www.180grader.dk/Udland/taenketank-usas-fattige-lever-relativt-godt

Læs mere om fattigdom i ikke-industrialiserede eller ikke-kapitalistiske lande her:
http://www.wfp.org

Læs om sammenhængen mellem velstand og frihed her:
http://www.heritage.org/Multimedia/InfoGraphic/Prosperity-linked-to-economic-freedom

The European Union is pouring enormous amounts of money into the United States. Regular
multimillion-dollar payments to individuals and organizations in the U.S. raise important
questions over Brussels’ interference in U.S. political and social debates—including climate
change, the death penalty, and membership of the International Criminal Court. It is also not
possible to justify EU human rights budgets being spent in one of the world’s freest nations.
The EU budget has become synonymous with profligacy, waste, fraud, and mismanagement.
It is beyond time for EU member state governments and European parliamentarians to take
action. And it is Congress’s duty to ascertain whether these expenditures are in compliance
with U.S. laws, and to ensure that American interests are protected.

Swaying American Opinions
Congress Should Investigate
EU Advocacy in the United States

http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2011/pdf/sr0092.pdf

"Declaring a Palestinian state before the signing of a peace agreement with Israel would put the cart before the horse. It would irreparably destroy any remaining trust between Israelis and Palestinians and set the two nations on a path toward war. The end result would be disastrous for Israeli, Palestinian, and American interests."

[...]

"Clearly, not only is Hamas a threat to Israel and to peace prospects, but it is hostile to the United States. Yet Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has left the door open to continued American support for a Palestinian Authority that includes Hamas. Such a naïve policy only invites disaster. "

[...]

"The only path to a genuine Israeli–Palestinian peace lies in direct negotiations between the two sides. This requires a good-faith effort by both to build a secure and stable peace. Hamas cannot contribute to such negotiations unless it has halted terrorism, recognized Israel, and accepted previous agreements. Palestinian statehood is possible only with Israel’s acceptance, not an end run through the U.N. "

The Palestinian Facebook Intifada and Campaign for Unilateral Statehood by James Phillips
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/05/The-Palestinian-Facebook-Intifada-and-Campaign-for-Unilateral-Statehood

In the past 40 years, Europeans have fallen further behind Americans in their standard of living and have become accustomed to high levels of structural unemployment. But despite the obvious negative impact of a European superstate, Americans seem more likely than ever to duplicate the errors of their cousins across the Atlantic. With increased bailouts, stimulus plans, and private-sector remuneration, the U.S. government is growing — while its economy is shrinking.

In this Broadside, Daniel Hannan, a British Conservative Member of the European Parliament, calls on Americans to avoid Europe’s fate. He traces the common roots of British and American liberty and describes how both countries are losing their inheritance as government crowds out the private sphere. He calls for a renewed commitment to the Anglosphere: the alliance of free, English-speaking nations that has preserved freedom in our time. And he shows us, through Europe’s current crises, the future that Americans could face.

http://www.insideronline.org/summary.cfm?id=14932

Abstract: Governments and large agribusinesses are increasingly using the environmentalist movement and its policy arm of green nongovernmental organizations to justify imposing protectionist non-tariff barriers on developing countries. Wrong-headed environmental policies and “green” protectionism are contributing to a resurgence of malaria in some countries and endangering millions of jobs in developing countries. Even the World Bank’s mandate to foster economic development is being subverted to serve environmentalist and protectionist objectives. The EU and the U.S. need to eliminate protectionist policies and regulations that are masquerading as environmental safeguards and refocus the World Bank on promoting economic development to alleviate poverty.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/01/How-Western-Environmental-Policies-Are-Stunting-Economic-Growth-in-Developing-Countries

Summary: Modern environmentalism is entering a new phase. The idealists have been shoved to the margins. Corporate partners that have mastered public relations are hiring political lobbyists to make the case for government regulations that will shift the cost of controlling carbon emissions to taxpayers and generate revenues for private sector players.

http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/v1259679999.pdf

Seen via www.heritage.org

[A binding agreement in Copenhagen would imply that] the U.S. would be required not only to overhaul its domestic energy policy but to assist other countries to develop their own energy capacity with billions, if not tens or hundreds of billions, of U.S. taxpayer dollars over the course of many years.

Furthermore, as conceived, the proposed Kyoto II treaty would require the U.S. and other parties to accept as binding the decisions and rulings of the international bureaucracy created to monitor compliance with the treaty. That is to say, the U.S. would not have the final authority on questions regarding its compliance. Instead, the Kyoto II treaty bureaucracy will decide.

From The "Kyoto II" Climate Change Treaty: Implications for American Sovereignty by Steven Groves

Is the Kyoto Protocol Worth Extending?

Yes. Kyoto has no international enforcement mechanism with any real teeth. To actually reduce emissions, any successor treaty coming out of Copenhagen would need an effective enforcement mechanism. Domestic U.S. enforcement of the treaty, if ratified, would be problematic enough, but any binding international enforcement provisions would create additional serious problems.

More:
What Americans Need to Know About the Copenhagen Global Warming Conference by Ben Lieberman

This biography of Lady Thatcher [by John Blundell] relates in warm detail the life of Margaret Thatcher, her achievements as British Prime Minister, and her life since retirement. Written in a vigorous, no-nonsense style, Lady Thatcher provides a succinct portrait of the Iron Lady, illustrating what the terms “Thatcherite” and “Thatcherism” really mean. Blundell shows why Thatcher was such an outstanding world leader and such an inspiration for women leaders in particular.

InsiderOnline

Institute of Economic Affairs

Evan Sayet, der er komiker giver på lidt mere end en halv times tid sit bud på, hvordan den venstreorienterede mentalitet tager sig ud.

Foredraget handler ikke mindst om venstreorienterede amerikaneres anti-amerikanisme. Og for Evan Sayet handler det om at vågne op efter den 11. september, og opdage hvor stort hadet til friheden og fornuftskulturen hos mange demokrater og venstreorientede i USA er.

Her gives en ret interessant forklaring på, hvordan "democrats" og "liberals" er i stand til at leve i et af de mest frie nationer i verden, og alligevel kun kan se undertrykkelse. Det handler også om, hvorfor venstreorienterede i praksis har taget parti for ondskab og ufrihed - ikke mindst for skabelsen af islamiske teokratier, men også andre former for diktatur.

Ovenstående stillingtagen må ifølge Sayet ses som et mere grundlæggende forsøg fra "the liberals" på at vise, at der ikke er noget, der hedder "rigtigt" og "forkert".

Han kalder dette for the cult of indiscriminateness. Sayat mener således, at venstrefløjens værdi-nihilisme må ses som en direkte kamp fra de venstreorienteredes side imod fornuft, fakta, logik, normer, standarder, rigtigt og forkert samt argumentation. Dette bygger atter ifølge Sayet på en mere eller mindre bevidst formuleret ide fra de venstreorientedes side om, at fornuft som sådan har fejlet og derfor skal bekæmpes.

Tesen er derfor at "the liberals" ser ikke-diskriminering (hvor man siger, at "alt er lige godt" - eller "man kan ikke vide noget med sikkerhed", og samtidig lægger positive værdier - som frihed - for had) er blevet et "moralsk imperativ" for den venstreorienterede og "de intellektuelle" som klasse (, for problemet med værdi-nihilisme er som Sayet nævner det især stort og udbredt blandt de, der i længst tid har været udsat for indoktrinering på højere læreanstalter).

- Fordraget giver derfor en forklaring på, hvorfor man på venstrefløjen i så vid udstrækning hader såvel supermarkedskæden Walmart som frihedshelten George Washington; og hvorfor der i stedet fra samme side kan findes sympati for terrorister som Yassir Arafat og Osama Bin Laden.

Evan Sayet at the HERITAGE FOUNDATION: "How Modern Liberals Think".