WASHINGTON, September 23, 2009--In a recent statement by top U.S. commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal, he criticized the U.S. military for being “preoccupied with protection of our own forces” in Afghanistan. He wrote that American forces should “share risk, at least equally, with the people” of Afghanistan. What makes our leaders think that they can ever win a war with this sort of philosophy? 

“If Afghanistan now seems unwinnable, blame Bush and Obama,” writes Elan Journo, a fellow with the Ayn Rand Center. “Bush crusaded not to destroy the Taliban but to bring Afghans elections and reconstruction. Obama’s ‘new’ tack is to insist we spend billions more on nation-building and bend over backwards to safeguard the local population. Both take for granted the allegedly moral imperative of putting the lives and welfare of Afghans first--ahead of defeating the enemy to protect Americans.

“This imperative lies behind Washington’s self-crippled war--a war which could have worked to deter other jihadists and their state-sponsors, but instead encourages them to attempt further attacks.

“How many more Americans must die before we challenge this conception of a proper war?”

WASHINGTON, September 22, 2009--The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recently launched an investigation into an attempt by the health insurance company Humana to enlist its customers to fight proposed cuts to Medicare Advantage. The investigation was initiated at the urging of Senator Max Baucus, who said, “It is wholly unacceptable for insurance companies to mislead seniors regarding any subject--particularly on a subject as important to them, and to the nation, as health care reform. . . . I’m not going to let insurance company profits stand in the way of improving Medicare for seniors.”

According to Don Watkins, a writer for the Ayn Rand Center, “It is painfully obvious--and alarming--that Humana is not being investigated for its ‘marketing’ practices. It is being investigated because it had the gall to challenge the assertions of a member of Congress.

“The implication of Baucus’s statement is that Humana must be investigated for in effect defrauding its customers by misleading them about the nature of Baucus’s proposal. But what did Humana’s ‘fraudulent’ claim consist of? No one disputes the fact that the budget for Medicare Advantage could be slashed under the health care bills now in Congress. The dispute is over the effects this will have. Humana claimed it could potentially lead to some of its customers losing benefits--not an unreasonable view--but Baucus insists ‘The health care reform bill we released . . . strengthens Medicare and does not cut benefits.’

“Think of what it would mean for politicians--hardly notorious for their scrupulous honesty--to be able to punish Americans because our claims about the effects of a proposed law conflict with their assertions.

“In a free country, it is not a crime to question the claims of one’s political leaders. If Baucus’s action is allowed to go unchallenged, however, free speech is gravely threatened.”

WASHINGTON, September 18, 2009--The Wall Street Journal reports today that the Federal Reserve is about to propose new regulations that would give it power to control compensation policies at American banks--including banks that did not receive bailout funds. As the Journal notes, critics have long complained about high executive compensation packages, which have become increasingly unpopular in the wake of the financial crisis.

“It’s understandable that taxpayers think they should have some say in how bailed-out businesses are run, which is one reason why Washington should have never bailed-out those companies in the first place,” says Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Center. “But why have the critics been so intent on dictating to shareholders of private companies how much they can pay their CEOs?”

In fact, said Brook, “The critics want to bring down banker’s pay, not because it is economically unjustifiable, but because they view it as morally unjustifiable.”

But, says Brook, “successful CEOs earn their pay by creating vast amounts of wealth. In smearing America’s great wealth creators as villains and attributing their high pay to greed and corruption rather than productive achievement, the critics want us to overlook the virtues that make individuals successful. In demanding lower compensation, despite the wishes of shareholders, the critics aim to deprive them of their just desserts.

“Ultimately, how to pay bankers is a question that only shareholders have a right to decide. But in today’s anti-business climate, it’s vital that we recognize the moral right of successful individuals to huge rewards.”

WASHINGTON, September 15, 2009--The Supreme Court has recently finished an unusual second round of hearings in the case of Citizens United v. FEC. The case concerns the government’s decision to ban Citizens United from airing a movie about Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democratic primaries on the grounds that it violated a campaign finance provision in the McCain-Feingold Act. Supporters of campaign finance restrictions argue that by limiting the ability of the wealthy to promote their political views, these restrictions make speech more "fair."

"What campaign finance supporters call ‘fair’ speech is anything but fair,” writes Don Watkins, a writer and researcher with the Ayn Rand Center.

“Those who acquire wealth through productive activity, whether individuals or corporations (which are nothing more than groups of individuals), have every right to use their ‘louder megaphone’: they earned it. What possible reason could make it ‘unfair’ for these individuals to use their resources to support and further their political views?

“In ordinary speech, ‘fairness’ means justice: getting what you deserve--i.e., what you have earned. But the advocates of campaign finance laws twist it to mean equal results: everyone, they claim, must have ‘equal speech.’ They are speech egalitarians.

End States Who Sponsor Terrorism by Leonard Peikoff (September 11, 2009)
Fifty years of increasing American appeasement in the Mideast have led to fifty years of increasing contempt in the Muslim world for the U.S. The climax was September 11, 2001.

Hatred of Western Civilization: Why Terrorists Attacked America by John Lewis (September 11, 2009)
The hatred of the West is not based on jealousy but on hatred of the good because it is good. Nihilism, the desire to destroy, is why the enemies of freedom fly planes into buildings and blow themselves up with dynamite.

September 11th: Where Have Our Leaders Gone Wrong? by Keith Lockitch (September 8, 2006)
Unable to defend America intellectually, our leaders are unable to defend her militarily.

September 11th: Five Years Later by Edwin A. Locke and Alex Epstein (September 7, 2006)
It is now five years since September 11, 2001--and since that horrific day we have witnessed numerous additional attacks by Islamic terrorists against the West. In the face of a seemingly never-ending supply of suicidal killers, many still do not understand the motivation of the terrorists. Commentators are eager to offer a bevy of pseudo-explanations--poverty, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, etc.--while ignoring the motivation the terrorists themselves openly proclaim: Islam.

Columbus Day: The Cure for 9/11 by Thomas A. Bowden (October 5, 2004)
Columbus Day's celebration of Western Civilization reminds Americans why they deserve to win the war against Islamic totalitarianism.

Reflecting America: World Trade Center Memorial Should Celebrate America's Producers by Dianne Durante (September 2, 2004)
The people who worked at the World Trade Center (WTC) were all productive people: they were there to do a job and earn money. They died on September 11 because they symbolized that productivity, not just to millions around the world who aspire to live like Americans, but also to the terrorists who despise all that America stands for.

Diverting the Blame for September 11th by Onkar Ghate (April 1, 2004)
Sept. 11 could have been prevented only by having a principled foreign policy.

1776 vs. 9/11 by Edward Cline (September 11, 2008)
Non-actions also have consequences.