|
JANUARY 28, 2024
|
|
FULL TWO HOURS |
 |
|
|
hour 1:
"In
Defense of Israel"
|
|
with Ambassador Francis Rooney
 |
|
hour 2:
"Bad
Wi-Fi is NOT a Reason to Regulate the
Internet" with Phil Kerpen
|
|
|
|
"In
Defense of Israel" |
About Francis Rooney
Francis Rooney is an American politician and
diplomat who was the U.S. Representative for
Florida's 19th congressional district from
2017 to 2021 in the Republcian caucus.
He served as United States Ambassador to the
Holy See under George W. Bush from
2005–2008. He is Chairman of Rooney
Holdings, Inc.
In his book, THE GLOBAL VATICAN, Ambassador
Rooney provides an unprecedented inside look
at the Catholic Church, its role in world
politics and diplomacy, and the
extraordinary relationship between the
United States and the Holy See.
Ambassador Rooney serves as a member of the Advisory Board of the
Panama Canal Authority, a member of the Council of American
Ambassadors, and a Trustee of the Center for the Study of the
Presidency and Congress. He is a graduate of Georgetown University
and Georgetown University Law Center. He also has Honorary Degrees
from the University of Notre Dame and the University of Dallas. |
|
|
|
THE GLOBAL VATICAN
|
AN INSIDE LOOK
AT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, WORLD POLITICS,
AND THE EXTRAORDINARY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES AND THE HOLY SEE
By Ambassador Francis Rooney
Washington, DC—During a period of immense
change and challenge for the United States,
the Catholic Church, and the world, Francis
Rooney served as U.S. Ambassador to the Holy
See, the governing body of the Catholic
Church, under George W. Bush from 2005 to
2008. His new book captures the interwoven
nature of religious and political power and
the complexities, battles, and future
prospects for the relationship between the
Holy See and the United States as both face
challenges old and new.
In THE GLOBAL VATICAN (Rowman & Littlefield,
November 2013), Ambassador Francis Rooney
provides an unprecedented inside look at the
Catholic Church, its role in world politics
and diplomacy, and the extraordinary
relationship between the United States and
the Holy See. He argues that U.S. foreign
policy has much to gain from its
relationship with the Holy See, and vice
versa. No institution on earth has both the
international stature and the global reach
of the Holy See—the “soft power” of moral
influence and authority to promote religious
freedom, human liberties, and related values
that Americans and our allies uphold
worldwide.
The timing of Francis Rooney’s assignment to
the Holy See came at a momentous period for
both America and the Catholic Church.
America was four years out from 9/11 and
locked in difficult wars in two countries,
including a conflict in Iraq—of which the
Holy See had strongly and vocally
disapproved. The Bush Administration was
making progress in bringing democracy,
freedom, and stability to Iraq and
Afghanistan, but it was difficult on both
fronts. And the Catholic Church had its own
challenges—the first of these facing Pope
Benedict XVI was succeeding the beloved Pope
John Paul II. A decline of active
participation and growing secularization in
much of the Western world threatened the
Church at the same time that the abuse
scandal continued to expand. Still, the
Church remained a powerful moral voice in
the world, and Rooney worked with the Holy
See to achieve as much diplomatic alignment
as possible on crucial issues.
As Francis Rooney argues, the United States
and the Holy See remain two of the most
significant institutions in world history,
one a beacon of democracy and progress, the
other a sanctum of faith and allegiance to
timeless principles. Despite these
differences between the first modern
democracy and the longest surviving Western
monarchy, Rooney maintains that both were
founded on the idea that “human persons”
possess inalienable natural rights granted
by God. This had been a revolutionary
concept when the Catholic Church embraced it
2,000 years ago, and was equally
revolutionary when the Declaration of
Independence stated it 1,800 years later.
Given our mutual respect for human rights,
it seems obvious that America and the
Catholic Church would be natural friends and
collaborators in world affairs. But this
wasn’t the case for nearly 200 years of
American history. As THE GLOBAL VATICAN
demonstrates, both the United States and the
Holy See had to overcome deeply held
convictions and perceptions—entrenched
anti-Catholicism on the part of Americans;
antidemocratic, monarchical reflexes on the
part of the Holy See. President Reagan
established full diplomatic relations with
the Holy See in 1984 because, among other
reasons, he realized that he could have no
better partner than Pope John Paul II in the
fight against communism—and he was right.
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Holy
See has continued to play a crucial role as
a diplomatic force while maintaining formal
relations with 179 countries—a number
surpassed only by the United States.
The Church is one of the leading advocates
and providers for the poor in the world,
fights against the scourge of human
trafficking, and advances the cause of human
dignity and rights more than any other
organization in the world. The Holy See also
plays a significant role in pursuing
diplomatic solutions to international
predicaments, whether, for example,
promoting peace between Israel and
Palestine, helping end the civil war in
Lebanon, or helping to secure the release of
nearly one hundred political prisoners from
Cuba in 2010.
Francis Rooney contends in THE GLOBAL
VATICAN that American values and foreign
policy goals can be advanced in many parts
of the world, including the Middle East,
China, Latin America, Cuba, and Africa,
through closer diplomatic ties with the Holy
See. He notes that the past few years have
seen cordial but cooling relations as
President Obama has visited the Vatican just
once since taking office, and the Obama
Administration has demonstrated little more
than a perfunctory interest in the Holy
See’s diplomatic role in the world. This is
a regrettable lost opportunity.
The power and influence of the Holy See is
often underestimated. A benevolent monarchy
tucked into a corner of a modern democracy,
the Holy See is at once a universally
recognized sovereign—representing more than
a billion people (one seventh of the world’s
population)—and the civil government of the
smallest nation-state on earth. It has no
military and only a negligible economy, but
it has greater reach and influence than most
nations. It’s not simply the number or
variety of people that the Holy See
represents that gives it relevance; it’s
also the moral influence of the Church,
which is still considerable despite
secularization and scandals.
As THE GLOBAL VATICAN illustrates, the Holy
See advocates powerfully for morality in the
lives of both Catholics and non-Catholics,
and in both individuals and nations. One may
disagree with some of the Church’s positions
and yet still recognize the value—the real
and practical value—of its insistence that
“right” should precede “might” in world
affairs. At its core, the Catholic Church is
a powerful and unique source of noncoercive
“soft power” on the world stage—it moves
people to do the right thing by appealing to
ideals and shared values, rather than to
fear and brute force.
There are limits to the Church’s ability to
influence the actions of societies and
nations, of course, because it cannot force
its will with economic or military leverage.
But it is precisely in these failings that
its greatness lies—the Church appeals above
and beyond might, money, or political power
to a deeper recognition in human beings of
what is good and right. Ultimately, the
Church has power through its consistent
defense of enduring principles—it stands for
the same thing every day, and in every
place.
As the author and historian Hilaire Belloc
put it, “the Church is a perpetually
defeated thing that always outlives her
conquerors.” And Francis Rooney proves that
there is much good still to come from the
Church, especially in areas where the Holy
See and the United States find themselves in
alignment. |
|
|
|
Book:
 From
the centuries-long prejudices against Catholics in
America, to the efforts of Fascism, Communism and
modern terrorist organizations to “break the cross
and spill the wine,” this book brings to life the
Catholic Church’s role in world history,
particularly in the realm of diplomacy. Former U.S.
ambassador to the Holy See Francis Rooney provides a
comprehensive guide to the remarkable path the
Vatican has navigated to the present day, and a
first-person account of what that path looks and
feels like from an American diplomat whose
experience lent him the ultimate insider’s
perspective. Part memoir, part historical lesson,
The Global Vatican captures the braided nature of
religious and political power and the complexities,
battles, and future prospects for the relationship
between the Holy See and the United States as both
face challenges old and new.
Click to
purchase book |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hour 2: "Opposition to FCC Regulation of the
Internet" |
|
with Phil Kerpen,
President of American Commitment
|
|
|
|
|
FCC Chair’s Bad
Wi-Fi Is Not a Reason to Regulate the Internet
October 2, 2023
End Regulatory Tyranny
By Phil Kerpen
For two years, starting in 2015, the FCC
regulated Internet service providers as public
utilities in the name of net neutrality. When
the Trump FCC under Chairman Ajit Pai proposed
to repeal those Obama-era regulations, the media
and other Democrats unleashed a series of
apocalyptic predictions.
“End of the Internet as We Know It,” headlined
the CNN home page.
“The Internet Is Dying. Repealing Net Neutrality
Hastens That Death,” was the New York Times
version.
“The repeal of Net Neutrality is an assault on
our digital civil rights. This is an issue that
will define our times,” was the statement from
Senator Ed Markey, typical of Senate Democrats.
Pai followed through on his proposal and made
those predictions look ridiculous. The lightly
regulated, free-market approach passed the
lockdown-era Zoom-boom test with flying colors,
with hardly a hiccup as vast amounts of offline
activity moved online in stark contrast to
regulated Europe.
A CNN headline read: “Netflix and YouTube are
slowing down in Europe to keep the Internet from
breaking.”
Unfortunately, one of the only places in the
United States where the Internet was not working
well during lockdowns was at FCC chair Jessica
Rosenworcel’s house – and, shockingly, it is
possible to rise that position without
understanding the difference between your local
area network and the Internet.
Last week, Rosenworcel announced a new proposed
rule almost identical to the short-lived Obama
rule, and her whole speech was framed by the
problems with her router:
“We were told to stay home, hunker down, and
move life online. So I grabbed what I thought
was important at work and moved my office to my
dining room table. At home, I kept changing the
location of the Wi-Fi router, feverishly trying
to identify the sweet spot where the signal
would reach everyone in my family. We had two
parents, two kids, a too-crowded house, and all
of us on the internet, all the time. It was a
lot.”
The United States, contrary to liberal
predictions of doom, enjoyed a boom in
investment, a decline in consumer prices, and
rapid increases in Internet speed since Pai
repealed the Obama regulations. But Rosenworcel
had a janky router, so ignore all that, right?
It would be easy to disregard this latest round
of net neutrality as a non-issue, with
overheated rhetoric on both sides but no real
consequences. That would be a mistake. If we
follow the path of heavy-handed regulations we
will get less private investment, as we did last
time.
The new proposal even explicitly reserves the
right to engage in ex-post rate regulation,
deciding after the fact that a company charged
too much for a service. Who can invest with that
threat hanging over their heads?
The FCC argues that it doesn’t matter because of
the billions of taxpayer dollars from Biden’s
infrastructure bill set to subsidize broadband,
but companies will not accept tax dollars to
build out networks if they are concerned that
regulations will prevent them from reaching
break-even on an ongoing basis after the
subsidized build-out is complete.
Regulation will therefore result in many places
where federal tax dollars flow to government
entities to build government-owned networks,
despite the fact these have historically been
poorly run and racked up huge operating losses.
Worse, there is a real risk of slipping from
taxpayer funding and economic regulation to
content regulation, with the rationale that
public networks must be regulated and managed in
the public interest. Some net neutrality
advocates have been open about that goal, such
as Alex Lockwood, who argued for public-utility
regulation of the Internet as a predicate for
censoring “climate disinformation.”
The free-market approach that held sway from the
commercialization of the Internet in the 1996
Telecom Act to the 2015 imposition of
public-utility regulation under the banner of
net neutrality was an overwhelming success, and
its restoration after two years of the Obama
rules resulted in another five years of success.
FCC Chair Rosenworcel should buy herself a good
mesh router to deal with her Wi-Fi issues and
leave the rest of us alone.
More Debt Without Spending
Reform Is Dirty | American Commitment
MORE DEBT WITHOUT SPENDING REFORM IS DIRTY
By Phil Kerpen
Before Republicans agreed to elect Kevin
McCarthy Speaker of the U.S. House of
Representatives, a handful of his colleagues
demanded the implementation of a fiscal
framework to rein in federal spending.
The threat of spending reduction has, however,
launched a full debt ceiling “default” panic.
The spending interests are trying to cast
conservatives as unreasonable and spendthrift
Democrats as saviors of our economy for favoring
no-strings-attached increases in federal debt.
In the Orwellian world of Washington, the media
and other Democrats call what they want a
“clean” debt ceiling increase. But what could be
dirtier than jacking up the limit on the
national credit card with no plan to reform
spending?
The rhetorical strategy they deploy to continue
reckless spending is to insist the alternative
to a naked debt ceiling increase is “default.”
But a federal debt default is not a risk as long
as there is more money coming into the federal
government on a monthly basis than is owed in
interest.
Over the past decade, paying interest on the
debt consumed about 10 percent of monthly
federal revenues, and in no month reached 20
percent. That means a scenario in which Congress
does not raise the debt ceiling and the federal
government is forced to operate on a cash basis
presents no genuine risk of default.
It would be massively disruptive – much of the
government would necessarily shut down and bills
would not be paid in a timely fashion. But
defaulting on the debt would not occur unless
Treasury made the irrational decision not to pay
bondholders with current revenue.
So-called experts who insist on “correcting”
politicians who refer to a debt ceiling lapse as
a shutdown are wrong, and Congress could take
this deception off the table by passing a law
clarifying that Treasury is required to pay
bondholders first.
But while the “default” crisis from a lapse in
the authority to issue additional debt is fake,
the risk of a real debt crisis is visible on the
horizon.
The latest long-term budget projections from the
Congressional Budget Office show debt reaching a
new all-time high of 107 percent of GDP in 2031
and soaring to 185 percent of GDP in 2052. This
is driven almost entirely by federal spending,
which is expected to remain higher than before
the pandemic even after much of the one-time
spending ends. Spending then significantly rises
starting in 2025 until it reaches 30.2 percent
of GDP in 2052.
Revenues for 2022 came in at 19.6 percent of
GDP, the second highest level ever recorded –
contrary to the predictions of Trump tax cut
opponents – and projected revenues are expected
to remain well above the historical norm of 17.3
percent of GDP and remain in the 18 to 19
percent range.
Congress must restrain federal spending before
we face a real debt crisis in which we actually
cannot afford to pay our bills.
Every major spending and debt deal in Congress
since 1985's Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act has
included negotiations over the debt ceiling.
House conservatives were right to demand
spending reforms as a condition for raising the
debt, and they should hold firm even if it means
a government shutdown. The only clean outcome is
one that sets spending on a more sustainable
path. |
|
|
|
|
