Key Peruvian ally in U.S. "war on drugs" sentencing to 20 years in prison for running guns to Colombia's FARC upheld.

"Thanks for nothing" would be the proper response by Muslims to "tolerance" by Christians and Jews.

Some detect a eugenics agenda in concerns for overpopulation.

Meet 3 co-authors and see how their compelling argument for ending U.S. drug wars also shows how life can sometimes really resemble an action movie.

If the left doesn't come up with a credible and comprehensive alternative to a focus on reducing the deficit, argues FPIF columnist Walden Bello, the far right might eventually fill the policy vacuum.

There may be both less and more to Russian arms trafficker Viktor Bout than meets the eye.

The Israeli Defense Forces are itching for a rematch with Hezbollah.

Former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), the chairman of the Atlantic Council, recently sat down for an interview with the Washington Diplomat. In the interview, the former senator touched on a variety of topics, including what he feels is the need for the United States to “unwind” from the war in Afghanistan. Towards the end of the interview, Hagel says that while he has “no plans to renounce his membership in the party,” he finds that the Republican Party of which he is a part is not “presenting any new alternatives, any new options, or any new thinking“:

“I don’t see them presenting any alternatives, any new options or any new thinking,” Hagel said. “If the Republicans get back in power, what are they going to do? There is no articulation. It’s just a ‘no no no, I’m against Obama because he’s a socialist and he’s taking America in the wrong direction.’ That’s certainly an opinion, but what about you, Mr. Republican? What would you do?”

In fact, leading Republicans like Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, and Peter King have proudly embraced the “no, no, no” agenda. Hagel told the interviewer that he remains confident that his party will once again rebuild itself. “The Republican Party will find a new center of gravity,” he said. “I think they’ll let this nonsense play out. It’s like a bad storm — it just has to go through.”

In a statement reminiscent of Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle’s call to abolish the federal Department of Education, Colorado GOP Senate candidate Ken Buck falsely claimed at a Q&A session with College Republicans that American schools have declined since the 1950s because of increased federal involvement in education:

In the 1950s, we had the best schools in the world, and the United States government decided to, um, get more involved in federal education. Where are we now after all those years of federal involvement?  Are we better, or are we worse?  So what’s the federal government’s answer?  Well since we’ve made education worse, we’re gonna even get more involved.  And what’s gonna be the result?

Watch it:

First of all, Buck’s claim that American schools are worse now than they were in the 1950s is laughably wrong. In 1957, less than half of white Americans and fewer than one in five African-Americans graduated from high school. By 2002, however, almost nine in ten white children and eight in ten black children earned their diploma.  Likewise, college graduation rates more than tripled during the same time period for both racial groups.  Our country has a long way to go before we build the education system Americans deserve, but Buck is simply wrong to claim that American schools haven’t made massive strides since the 1950s.

More importantly, although Buck was probably referring to the federal Department of Education, which was created in 1980, when he attacked federal involvement in education. His blanket attack on federal education policy ignores the single most significant example of federal intervention in public schools:

In the 1950s, much of America was an apartheid state. For millions of children, the black educational experience was a tale of crumbling buildings housing overcrowded classes taught by underqualified teachers who were paid a substandard salary.  Federal involvement broke this “airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society,” and Buck is wrong to ignore this history.

(HT: David Sirota)

Earlier this week, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) issued an executive order directing “all state agencies not to participate in the federal health care overhaul,” specifically demanding they not seek any discretionary funding available through the Affordable Care Act. In issuing the order, Pawlenty vowed to do “anything that I can do to slow down, limit or negate Obamacare,” warning that it “threatens private sector economic growth.” Immediately, the move and its implicit attack on President Obama were seen as a means to position Pawlenty for a presidential bid in 2012. Indeed, his Political Action Committee promptly tried to raise money off of Pawlenty’s order.

But his claim about the law’s danger to businesses were quickly undercut. As the AP reported, the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce is calling on Pawlenty to accept the funds:

Chamber President David Olson sent a letter to the Republican governor this week encouraging him to specifically apply for a $1 million federal planning grant to study a potential health insurance exchange.

“This grant does not require the state to create an exchange,” Olson wrote. “Instead, it allows for an independent and comprehensive actuarial analysis of an exchange. The analysis will help us determine whether or not an exchange is a cost effective option for Minnesotans shopping for health care coverage.”

Olson also stressed that an exchange could possibly have a significant impact on Minnesota businesses.

The state Chamber is not alone here. The Minnesota Medical Association and the 20,000-member Minnesota Nurses Association both blasted Pawlenty for refusing the money, calling on him to immediately relent and accept the funds.

But in urging Pawlenty to take federal money available through the Affordable Care Act, the Minnesota Chamber seems to be breaking with with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has relentlessly attacked the health care plan since before it became law. Still, while many of the U.S. Chamber’s right-wing allies have signed onto an effort to completely repeal the Affordable Care Act, the Chamber has tellingly hedged, saying full repeal “is not a realistic option.” The Chamber has led efforts to repeal small portions of the Act, but perhaps they quietly realize — as it appears the Minnesota Chamber has — that the law can actually be very helpful to businesses.