Washington, D.C. – The following is a statement by David A. Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Now that both Turkey and Iran are on the record supporting the violation of another nation’s waters so long as the ships doing so are providing humanitarian relief, a huge impediment to two ideas of mine – the Free Turkey Movement and the Free Iran Movement – has now been lifted.

The main project of both groups would be “Free Minds Flotillas,” collections of ships loaded with sufficient servers and broadcast equipment to ensure that the citizens of Turkey and Iran have full access to Google, YouTube and Facebook.

Both countries have been running blockades of these services. Earlier this week – and with the “Freedom Flotilla” incident still fresh in our minds – Turkey banned YouTube and blocked access to more than 30 Google websites.

Iran permanently suspended Google’s email service this past February and YouTube and Facebook have frequently been filtered or blocked by the Iranian regime.

Unfettered communication between people is a basic human right and people of Turkey and Iran are crying out for the world’s help.

The “Free Minds Flotilla” can now respond now that both Turkey and Iran have given the green light for such operations.

We’ll need substantial funding for these two projects, of course, if we’re to be successful. And it is unlikely we’ll be able to count on the kind of support Weather Underground leaders William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, Code Pink founder Jodie Evans and Noam Chomsky provided to the Free Gaza Movement.

But plenty of support should be forthcoming…

To the executives of Google, Facebook, and YouTube: I await your calls.

Note: David A. Ridenour most recently commented on Israel, Gaza, Turkey and the Freedom Flotilla in “Turkey Responsible for Flotilla Deaths” on June 1.

Washington, D.C. – The following is a statement by David A. Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research:

The international community should be denouncing Turkey, not Israel, for the loss of life on the so-called “Freedom Flotilla.”

That’s because Turkey, the flag state of the ship, had an obligation to ensure that the ships making up the flotilla adhered to international law.

It didn’t.

Though neither Turkey nor Israel are parties to the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the treaty presumably spells out what the states ratifying the treaty believe to be acceptable rules of behavior. Many of those countries are now, rather hypocritically, denouncing Israel.

The Free Gaza Movement announced its intention to breach Israel’s barricade of Gaza – requiring it to violate Israel’s territorial waters.

Article 19 of the Law of the Sea Treaty specifies that “any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal state” or “the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws or regulations of the coastal state” are deemed “prejudicial to the peace, good order or security” of that state. This flotilla – as with ones before it – would have done both if allowed to proceed.

While Article 19 only gives the coastal state the authority to act within its territorial waters, the bloodshed may well have been greater had Israel waited until then. If reports are accurate that some activists carried arms, Israeli commandos would have lost the element of surprise.

It also appears that Israel may have been within international norms in boarding the ship as all states have an obligation under Articles 109 and 110 of the treaty to stop unauthorized broadcasts (those intended for the general public, but not distress calls), including in international waters. The so-called “Freedom Flotilla” was broadcasting their voyage live.

Blood is on Turkey’s hands.

President Obama should do the right thing and recall the U.S. ambassador.

Note: David A. Ridenour is the author of “Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty: A Not-So-Innocent Passage.“

Photo from fOTOGLIF

Washington, DC: As people honor the values and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., members of the Project 21 black leadership network are also taking this time to commend the American people for their quick and generous acts of charity after last week’s devastating earthquake in Haiti.

Deneen Borelli (Project 21 Fellow): “As we remember Dr. King, it is heartwarming to see how the American people have come together to help those in need. As they always do, average Americans of all races, classes and backgrounds opened their wallets and asked what they could do to help long before even the government could respond. Faith-based organizations n which have always been a great help n are picking up the slack where established relief groups and the government are already overwhelmed. Without a political goal in mind, the American people joined as one to offer hope. That is something to be proud of on this holiday.”

Geoffrey Moore: “I want to commend the American people on their response to the earthquake in Haiti. As usual, Americans step up to the plate to help those most in need.”

Darryn ‘Dutch’ Martin: “The fact that the American government and its people are front and center in helping the people of Haiti after the devastating earthquake n and have been from the start n is not surprising. No other sovereign nation is doing more to provide immediate humanitarian and financial assistance to needy countries and peoples with the same passion and on the same scale as the United States of America. At the same time, other jealous, America-hating nations either badmouth us as they sit on their hands or simply ride our coattails. Do we get the credit from the rest of the world that we so richly deserve for this never-ending helping hand? Of course not, and our efforts in Haiti will probably be no exception. But that’s to be expected, and it will not deter American generosity.”

Or maybe it is what you think. James Hansen heads the NASA Goddard Institute earth sciences unit and he says, according to ABC News, that any agreements that might be reached in Copenhagen next would be so flawed it would better to start over from scratch………whatever exactly that means.

But he bases his claims on the notion that any treaties or agreements would be done on the premise of cap and trade issues like paying extra money to continue polluting.

Is this really what’s behind Hansen’s wish for failure? Even though Hansen is one of the foremost “experts” on global warming, after the recent hack job of emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the U.K., his own data is now under great scrutiny and rumors are flying around that some are interested in suing to get that data.

Maybe in some perverted way this is to somehow save face once everything is all said and done. After all, there has been dissension and serious skepticism as the the validity of the data Hansen has used to support the man-made global warming theories. Perhaps he sees the writing on the wall and figures if Copenhagen fails, he might be able to say, “at least we didn’t do any harm there”…………or something.

Copenhagen should fail. Not so much that we shouldn’t be studying our ever changing climate, but because a great deal of new evidence has seriously brought into question the validity of doom and gloom climate change.

Even if you are one of those that espouse to the notion of “the precautionary principle”, (which basically says that even if science can’t really prove something, if you think it might cause harm to the public, something should be done.) the information leaked from Climategate probably destroys that principle. It certainly rises to a level that would raise serious questions about the validity of any claims made about man-made climate change.

A great example of how someone might view “the precautionary principle”, comes from comments Arizona Sen. John McCain made while a candidate for president in 2008. He often said things like, even if we are wrong about man-made climate change, what harm is it going to do us to do something about it. Other than that being an ignorant statement, is doesn’t take into account the harm that would be done to humans if we were to enact a “cap and trade” like the one being proposed. If we reversed the use of “the principle”, we shouldn’t enact any global warming legislation because of the harm it would cause humans financially.

Maybe everyone should just consider shrinking their own carbon footprints from a trip in private jets, etc. to Copenhagen and stay home and do some real serious thinking about the prospects of the future of scientific research in this country and around the globe. The destruction of all confidence in scientific research is perhaps one of the most frightening notions ever to consider, at least in my lifetime.

Tom Remington

Earlier today we learned that the UN’s IPCC Climate guru, Rajendra Pachauri, said none of this leaked information would have any effect on the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

And now it appears the brain dead, repeat-after-me thugs at the White House press corp are pounding the same drum. According to Michelle Malkin, she says Robert Gibbs, White House press secretary, repeats pretty much what Pachauri mouthed earlier.

So now we have the final answer (yes, that’s my final answer) as to what Barack Obama meant back last March when he said he was going to “restore the scientific process to its rightful place”. Back then Obama seemed mostly to be referring to the Endangered Species Act.

By July, we had found out that Obama had appointed two whackos as his science and policy czars, Holdren and Sunstein, and we began to better understand Obama’s statement about whose science the President intended to “restore to its rightful place”.

If that isn’t quite enough to convince you that real science might not have a role in our society any longer, Malkin dug up another quote from Obama from back in March of 2009.

But let’s be clear: Promoting science isn’t just about providing resources — it’s also about protecting free and open inquiry. It’s about letting scientists like those who are here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient — especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.

File that under lie number 2,385 of one of the promises Obama has made that he has not followed through on.

We now have it confirmed that what Obama meant about restoring science only pertained to his science and that of his fellow radicals. But people, this isn’t about science now is it? It’s really about control. Environmentalism at work, the kind that will strip us of our freedoms, destroy our way of life, wreck the U.S. and world economies and turn this country into just another nation under the dictatorial control of a global governance. We are to become subjects, always at the mercy of the “leaders” because of one crisis or another…….always a crisis isn’t there. Do you see any pattern here at all?

Climategate is a great opportunity for those interested in finding the truth to do so. We can expose this scam for what it really is and slow down the systematic march into the hells of socialism. But are there enough of us who want to? We shall see.

Tom Remington

Gadhafi feigned the renunciation of terrorism during the Bush years while pursuing weapons purchases from Iran, chemical warfare stockpiles, and almost certain jihadi underwriting activities. In Italy last week, the stubbornly un-rehabilitated Libyan dictator blamed American “arrogance and disdain” for generating “the terrorism which they now suffer.”

In his ignorance and complete lack of experience (along with his hatred of Bush), Obama ran contrary to Bush in his dealings with terrorists. Bush had no use for them, taking the fight to them and Obama wants to bring them home to meet momma and have a cold Bud.

Former President Ronald Reagan beat the drum loudly that the best way to achieve peace is through a position of strength. This is not a new strategy and it is one that history has taught us works. President Bush was a president that believed in asserting this country’s strength in dealing with terrorists and what Malkin reminds us of is how Gadhafi crumpled and cowered in fear of what Bush might do to him.

Now that Obama has taken over and squandered our “peace through strength”, the question becomes, how is that appeasement to the terrorists working out for us Mr. Obama?

We were told by candidate Obama that once the United States changed it’s policies around the world, countries would stop hating us. Again, how’s that working out? August was the deadliest month so far in the war on terror in Afghanistan. It seems every time we turn around some country is thumbing their noses in our face presumable believing this country will do nothing about it.

Seems to be the case here with Gadhafi. He thumbed his nose in a lot of people’s faces by putting on a welcome home party for convicted terrorist Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in the death of hundreds over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988.

As outrageous as this is, who can we really point a finger at and blame? It doesn’t take a whole lot of brains to understand what all of a sudden emboldened Gadhafi to come out from his hiding place, away from George W. Bush, and test the resolve of a weak president, one willing to pander to those bent on our destruction.

Obama’s hope and change will get us all killed.

Tom Remington

The list is endless and this has all taken place within the first four months of his presidency. Wake up America. Our nation has been hijacked by a person now proud to be a Muslim. What should we expect next in his bag of hopenchange tricks?

Yesterday, Netanyahu met for the first time face to face with Barack Obama. The prime minister made it clear that he was willing to begin negotiations for peace with the Palestinians as soon as they were willing to acknowledge and honor Israel’s right to exist. He also would not commit to a two state solution, one he does not want and one that Obama has indicated he wants to see.

On the other side, Obama has a problem both at home and in Israel. More than likely Obama does not have the support at home to promote his agenda with Iran, Israel, Hamas, Palestine and basically the entire Middle East. Just as disturbing is the fact that it now appears Israelis overwhelmingly see Barack Obama as anti-Israel. According to the results of a recent poll printed in the Jerusalem Post, only 31% of Israelis view Obama as pro-Israel.

Besides the 31% who labeled Obama pro-Israel, 14% considered him pro-Palestinian and 40% felt he was neutral. The other 15% declined to provide an opinion for the poll

If you are wondering how that compares to former President Bush’s approval of the Israelis, his rating was 88%. It may be that the longer Obama stalls in taking a definitive position, the lower that number may fall.

Even though Barack Obama says he hasn’t taken any options off the table, he appears weak in any attempts he has made to negotiate with Iran and the Arab world in general. Now with Israel not viewing Obama as a friend and the president still clinging to hope that he can negotiate with terrorists, does Obama have any leverage at all?

Pat Buchanan says Netanyahu and Israel really only have three options and none of them look very encouraging.

One option is to annex the West Bank, which Buchanan says would ultimately end up with Israel absorbing a population of Palestinians that in time would outnumber Jews. A second option is basically ethnic cleansing, which I would have to agree with Buchanan, this is something the U.S. could not support.

The third plan is one that seems to be Netanyahu’s option – no Palestinian state and to retain control over the West Bank to make sure that what happened with Hamas in Gaza doesn’t happen there. This plan of course has it’s problems, the biggest being that this would essentially isolate the Palestinians.

Netanyahu understands that Israel is always a target and that as many times as they have tried to negotiate peace and give up territory and yield to the demands of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Palestinians and pressures from the West, they continue to be shot at, grenades launched into settlements, car bombed and rockets fired at them.

When you have never spent everyday of your existence wondering who will be killed by a terrorist today, it is easy to suggest concessions for peace. I suggest that Netanyahu and the Israeli people have a much better understanding of reality than Barack Obama who believes in negotiating with those who want to kill Jews and Americans.

So we are still left with the big question. Where will the United States come down on the issue of protecting Israel from those bent on her destruction? It is believed that Barack Obama will announce to the world those plans in a speech scheduled for June 4, 2009 in Cairo, Egypt. Mark that day on your calendar. It could be one of the biggest days in world history.

Tom Remington