For 13 years, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has shined light on situations of egregious religious persecution globally. With a mandate from the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, USCIRF has provided forthright policy recommendations to the President, State Department, and Congress on responding to regimes that persecute actively or tolerate the persecution of religious believers.

But if Congress does not reauthorize its funding soon, USCIRF will cease to exist at a time when it is needed more than ever. Reauthorization legislation passed overwhelmingly in the House and was set to pass by unanimous consent in the Senate when a single senator anonymously called it back for undisclosed reasons. It would seem that one man, Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin, could cause the dissolution of the valuable religious freedom commission.

I was part of a coalition of religious and human rights organizations that worked to see the passage of IRFA in spite of the hostile climate caused by the secular myopia of U.S. foreign policy elites. One colleague in this battle, the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom director, Nina Shea, observed “Human rights has often been described in American foreign policy as the island off the mainland of foreign policy. I look at religious freedom as the drowning man in the life raft off the island, off the mainland.”

Once again, the drowning man is in danger of being pushed off his life raft. The commission would have shut down on November 18 if not for a spending bill passed by both Houses on November 17 granting it a four-week reprieve. Concerned citizens have until December 16 to stop the demise of USCIRF.

With nine appointed commissioners (including Nina Shea) and a small professional staff, working on an extremely modest budget, USCIRF has helped persuade countries in which vulnerable minorities are persecuted that the United States government is serious about religious freedom. Many advocates for the persecuted church were appreciative that the commission was included in the law as a counterbalance or at least an enhancement to the Office on International Religious Freedom at the U.S. State Department. The new State Department office and Ambassador-at-Large for Religious Freedom were also important provisions of IRFA. But an office on international religious freedom at the State Department is still an office at the State Department – home to the previously discussed foreign policy elites. On the other hand, being independent, USCIRF speaks forthrightly about the behavior of thug regimes.

According to a recent article by CQ Weekly’s Shawn Zeller, Senator Durbin’s reasons for holding up the authorization have no direct relation to the commission. Rather, Durbin wants Congress to fund the purchase of an unused maximum-security prison in his state of Illinois and make it a federal facility that will provide jobs for his constituents. The prison, identified as the Thomson Correctional Center, is the same facility Senator Durbin wanted to hold detainees from Guantanamo Bay. Zeller offers that Durbin’s leverage could be that U.S. Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-VA), who sponsored IRFA and greatly values the work of the commission, chairs the Appropriations subcommittee that funds federal prisons.”

The Congress has demonstrated the commitment of many of its members to sustaining USCIRF in that the recent reprieve is the third time this fall that Congress has approved a measure to keep the commission running temporarily since the “anonymous” hold stopped the reauthorization legislation. If Zeller’s findings are true, it is appalling that Senator Durbin would so cynically tie the continuation of USCIRF to any other issue. Dissolution of USCIRF would send a message to tyrants and thug regimes around the world that the United States no longer considers religious freedom a priority. The lives of millions of persecuted Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Baha’is, Muslims, and other religious believers around the world should not be made more vulnerable because the United States Senate fails to remain the champion of individuals’ inalienable right to religious freedom.

From 2003-2009, over 150,000 Mexican soldiers deserted from their ranks. Drug cartels became so confident in their recruitment of military personnel that they posted help wanted ads for hit men, traffickers, and guards. When these soldiers desert, their US-supplied weapons (grenades, sniper rifles, assault weapons, etc.) often accompany them over to the cartels. In 2008 and 2009, 13,792 and 20,530 small arms were exported to Mexico from the US. Over 92% of these arms were civilian legal semi-automatic or non-automatic firearms, a number eerily similar to the debunked 90% number echoed by the ATF. A 2008 State Department memo to then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi shows a $1,000,000 shipment of select fire M4A2 assault rifles to the Mexican Federal Police Force, (AKA Federales) one of the most corrupt Mexican government agencies.

The most recent numbers from 2010 show the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) — the State Department agency responsible for overseeing the exportation of military goods — authorized the transfer of 2.5 million units of small arms, weapon optics, silencers, and related components. In that same year, over 11 million units of ammunition and 127,000 units of explosive ordnance were cleared for exportation to Mexico. This amounted to $25 million worth of small arms, ammunition, and explosives shipped to Mexico authorized by our State Department.

In recent months, allegations have surfaced that the State Department’s US Direct Commercial Sales Program and DDTC may have directly shipped arms to the Zetas, the Gulf Cartel’s hit squad. The Zetas were at one time trained and supplied with American weaponry by our own 7th Special Forces Group in the early 1990s. These claims against the State Department arose even after the DDTC recognized the Americas Region in 2009 as having the highest rate of unfavorable traces for their Blue Lantern Program. The Blue Lantern Program involves traces performed by the DDTC to ensure exported military weaponry does not end up with an unauthorized nation or organization. For the Americas, 80% of traces where unauthorized end users were identified involved small arms. Data specifically for Mexico was unavailable from the State Department.

From 2008 to 2009, when President Obama entered office, Defense Department expenditures to Mexico have increased from $12 million to $34,000,000 and State Department expenditures increased from $7.2 million to $356 million. While 2010 data is currently unavailable, it appears our foreign aid to Mexico has continued to increase for 2011. These statistics imply the State and Defense Departments may very well be the top suppliers of small arms to Mexico’s drug cartels and not civilians. Only the information obtained from ATF Firearms Traces will tell. However, those records are not public. After the DOJ and the White House knowingly pursued attempts at new gun control legislation, we are left to ask the question; is this just another case of government stupidity or is this something more premeditated?

Earlier this month, the Keystone XL pipeline was big in the news with environmental groups weighing in forcefully against the proposal and alleging a pro-pipeline bias on the part of the Department of State.  Prominent among such groups was Greenpeace, which alleged “cozy relationships between oil lobbyists and the State Department” that supposedly led to a determination that the pipeline would not have a “significant [environmental] impact.”  Of course, Greenpeace has a long history of taking extreme (and also in cases hypocritical) positions on energy, agriculture, development and other matters with effects that many people would regard as obviously negative, topics that just happen to be explored in a new video exposing the victims of Greenpeace.

Will the video have an impact on Greenpeace’s credibility?

That remains to be seen, but it certainly seems to expose some shocking behavior on the group’s part that many conservatives will regard as worthy of attention.

Anthony Weiner’s wife is taking time off from her senior job with the State Department – as well as time off from the randy former representative, The Post has learned.

While Weiner, 46, heads to an “intensive” rehab program to recover from the sexting scandal that cost him his congressional career, his 35-year-old spouse, Huma Abedin, will be relaxing at an undisclosed location.

“She is definitely taking time off away from her husband and chilling,” a source said. “And he’s going some place for at least a couple of weeks.”

Huma, who is in the early stages of pregnancy with the couple’s first child, has been seen infrequently since she returned from a trip to Africa with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

She returned just before the Democrat announced his decision to quit his Brooklyn-Queens seat in the House after six terms. It was also reported that she had decided to try to make their marriage work.

Huma’s family “is going to be watching her like a hawk,” the source said, “like she’s under a microscope.”

There was no immediate confirmation from the State Department of Abedin’s plans to take time off from work.

The Post reported yesterday that Weiner, once considered a front-runner to be the next mayor of New York, is going into rehab.

Full article here.

The BBC charity had developed a lucrative relationship with the U.S. government during the Obama administration. U.S. tax dollars are supporting at least two BBC World Service Trust projects: The State Department gave the organization $300,000 for work in Burma and USAID gave it $4.5 million for a project in Nigeria.

But outrage from American taxpayers, members of Congress and the Broadcasting Board of Governors was apparently enough to dissuade the British organization from making a formal proposal this time. At stake was up to $28 million in funding for work on Internet freedom issues.

Even with the BBC World Service Trust out of the running, there’s still hard feelings over a British organization seeking U.S. funding for work that the federal government’s own taxpayer-funded broadcaster does as well.

Voice of America Director Dan Austin told me he recently confronted his British counterpart, Peter Horrocks, director of the BBC World Service, about U.S. funding going to the BBC World Service Trust for broadcasting support and training in Burma and Nigeria.

“We like to make the point that while we’re all for media development in countries, when it’s Nigeria and Burma, we have significant operations and a larger audience share than the BBC World Service as well as our own journalism training operation,” Austin said at a VOA event in Washington. “This is probably an issue the U.S. government needs to work out internally.”

The BBC World Service was reportedly close to shutting down its Burma operation when the U.S. funding arrived. And in Nigeria, where VOA has a proud history, the British are providing broadcasting equipment and media training — resources Americans could have offered.

At a time when funding is scare, that’s led some critics to question the appropriateness of letting the notoriously anti-American BBC earn goodwill abroad at the expense of U.S. taxpayers.

Commissioners on the Broadcasting Board of Governors take the issue seriously. But even more troubling to them is the State Department’s unwillingness to give the BBG — a federal government agency — a share of the $28 million dedicated to Internet freedom.

“For more than seven years, the BBG has had to do Internet circumvention work on a daily and hourly basis,” said Michael Meehan, a Democratic commissioner on the BBG. “And that is why the State Department in 2009 sent us $1.4 million. We had great success and we think we’re the best federal agency to handle Internet circumvention.”

The BBG’s work has caught the attention of Capitol Hill. Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN), ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee, recently wrote in a report that “the BBG is perfectly placed to serve as the lead U.S. government agency in assisting [Internet Censorship Circumvention Technology] efforts.”

BBG commissioners met this week with Reps. Kay Granger (R-TX) and Nita Lowey (D-NY), chairwoman and ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees State Department funding. Despite their pleas, the BBG is unlikely to get any of the $28 million for Internet freedom.

“We support what the BBG does. We think it’s a valuable mission for the American people,” said Daniel Baer, a deputy assistant secretary at the State Department. “We support congressional funding for what they do. If they need technology to enhance the reach of their information, we support that objective. We see it as distinct from what we do, which is focusing on Internet freedom as a human-rights policy priority.”

Over the next few weeks, Baer said the State Department will be reviewing the proposals and negotiating arrangements to commence the Internet freedom work. And while the BBG likely won’t receive any money, it’s not the end of the road.

That’s because the House-passed continuing resolution that funds the government for the remainder of this fiscal year includes language directing the State Department to provide $10 million to the BBG — leaving the State Department no choice in the matter.

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Josh Kraushaar to talk about the new electoral math Obama faces in 2012. Then Pejman Yousefzadeh talks about PJ Crowley’s dismissal at the State Department.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

For Obama, Virginia Is the Next Ohio
Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval
Josh Kraushaar at National Journal’s Hotline
Pej: Hope and Change?

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter
Follow Josh on Twitter
Follow Pej on Twitter

One other story that Maddow called out was from RedState.com, to which she mocked the suggestion that unions and the U.S. state department are involved in the Egypt protests and quipped, “What, no ACORN?”

The author of that post is a friend of mine and fellow BigGovernment contributor, who, in addition to blogging at RedState.com, also runs Labor Union Report.  I was surprised when I saw his post called out on Maddow’s show.  Not only is he not usually a typical target of MSNBC’s brand of snark, but it was obvious that Maddow – or whomever does her research – had not even read the post beyond paragraph two.  If they had, they would have noticed that the information came from a few familiar sources:  the Huffington Post and WikiLeaks. And those sources contained some potent information that’s directly related to the current uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt.

The post in question, “The American Left’s Role in Leading Mid-East Regime Change,” essentially establishes two key points:

1. Labor unions played a large role in the recent Tunisian revolution and are actively engaged in similar future protests
2. According to one of the Wikileaks cables, the U.S. State Department appears to have had a hand in supporting, training and networking with Egypt’s protesters

As much as Maddow would like them to be, these aren’t conspiracy theories. The author did a thorough job of laying out all the supporting pieces.  To make it easy, let’s recap some of these.

The RedState post makes good use of a January 25^th piece on the Huffington Post titled “Tumult in Tunisia: Labor Propels Protest.”  Its author, blogger Michelle Chen contributes to Colorlines.com, a magazine with investigative articles concerning minorities and organizing, and In These Times, a popular magazine that focuses on labor issues.  Chen discusses the crucial role that organized labor activists played in the days leading up to Tunisia’s protests:

Though the movement appears to be a mix of grassroots spontaneity and targeted direct actions, it has achieved political valence through the savvy of organized labor activists. In the days leading up to the uprising, unions were feeding the foment of the demonstrators by calling strikes nationwide, including an 8,000 strong lawyer strike that paralyzed the courts.

The entire piece pays homage to the power of organized labor in uprisings such as Tunisia, and the importance of the collaboration of so many involved in the movement.  It’s a very interesting read, and really zeroes in on how labor is fueling the youth movement, the “forgotten majority” in so many Maghreb/Arab countries.

In expanding upon the solidarity amongst the youth of Tunisia, Chen also cites Dyab Abou Jahjah, founder and former president of the Arab European League, who republished a 1/14/2011 piece at the Monthly Review Zine.  Several of Dyab Abou Jahjah’s accounts of the Tunisia protests are especially worth noting:

The youth played an important role in all this and cell phones combined with Facebook connected through proxy services was the media of the revolution.  The trade union (UGTT) played the role of the momentum regulator and political indicator.  It was clear that as long as the trade union kept on declaring strikes the battle was on, and that was the signal to the people to stick to the streets.

The global AFL-CIO of course has also been supportive of an overthrow of the Egyptian government, having been active there for quite a while.  In fact, the AFL-CIO Solidarity Center published this study just last year on the legislative, social and direct action that has been undertaken to change the Egyptian government and its views on workers rights.  Yesterday, the AFL-CIO announced that organizers were successful in defying the ban on unionizing in Egypt and have formed a new labor federation called the Federation of Egyptian Trade Unions.

Reflecting upon the recent success in overthrowing Tunisia’s dictatorship, Dyab Abou Jahjah describes the sentiments of the Tunisian protesters and their outlook for Egypt and the rest of the Arab world in the near future:

As for the repercussions on the Arab world and beyond…They are paramount.  All Arab dictators are now shaking on their thrones.  Especially in the Maghreb countries, but also Mubarak will have a sleepless night.  The Arab peoples now saw and know for sure what a people can do.  They saw another Arab people bring down the harshest of dictators in less than a month.  All that was needed was unity and determination to go all the way.  This will certainly lead to the revival of revolutionary dreams among the Arab oppressed classes (middle class and masses) and will start the dawn of democracy.  The Americans and the Zionists — and also France — are nervous today: their best friend in the area was kicked out. . . .  And the people is [sic] heading to govern itself in Tunisia with its own agenda with all the anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist elements of that.  A free democratic Tunisia will not only be a model for democracy for all Arabs, it will also be a safe haven for revolutionary powers and a place of support for the resistance against Israel and the U.S. The international alliance against empire hegemony will have another member.

Place of support for the resistance against Israel and the U.S.?

While I’m fully aware of the disdain for the U.S. from some regions of the world due to our country’s perceived intervention and government meddling in their affairs, any American must admit, this statement seems a bit disconcerting for the U.S., no?

That leads us to the second point, which is, the level of involvement of the U.S. State Department.

The RedState post takes its lead on this particular part of the story from one of the leaked Wikileaks cables.  As the post notes, a Telegraph article titled “Egypt protests: America’s secret backing for rebel leaders behind uprising“ claims that the U.S. was aware that a plan to overthrow the Egyptian government had been discussed.

The American Embassy in Cairo helped a young dissident attend a US-sponsored summit for activists in New York, while working to keep his identity secret from Egyptian state police.

On his return to Cairo in December 2008, the activist told US diplomats that an alliance of opposition groups had drawn up a plan to overthrow President Hosni Mubarak and install a democratic government in 2011.

Stunning details, including info related to the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups, are provided in the Wikileaks documents, specifically within the section titled, “Washington Meetings and April 6 Ideas for Regime Change.”

The Telegraph article also mentions that Egyptian security has already arrested this dissident in connection with the protests.  The paper says that it is protecting his identity; in following the #Jan25 hashtag stream on Twitter, there appears to be some discussion of this individual’s arrest.

The RedState post made special note of the Alliance of Youth Movements Summit (AYM) mentioned in the document (also referred to as Alliance for Youth Movements).  It indicates that based upon both the information from the Wikileaks document, as well as the AYM website, the U.S. State Department appears it may have been openly working with various private corporations to support and train grassroots activists involved in the current and future uprisings in support of human rights.

From the leaked US Embassy document:

On December 23, April 6 activist xxxxxxxxxxxx expressed satisfaction with his participation in the December 3-5 \”Alliance of Youth Movements Summit,\” and with his subsequent meetings with USG officials, on Capitol Hill, and with think tanks. He described how State Security (SSIS) detained him at the Cairo airport upon his return and confiscated his notes for his summit presentation calling for democratic change in Egypt, and his schedule for his Congressional meetings. xxxxxxxxxxxx contended that the GOE will never undertake significant reform, and therefore, Egyptians need to replace the current regime with a parliamentary democracy. He alleged that several opposition parties and movements have accepted an unwritten plan for democratic transition by 2011…

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressing the Alliance of Youth Movements Summit in 2009.

On its surface, the Alliance for Youth Movements initiative and its partnership with the State Department seem relatively benign.  But, the Wikileaks document implies that there was potentially a deeper level of collaboration with the Alliance for Youth Movement and protests in Egypt, including at least some of its participating members/sponsors, several of which are crucial components to the protests we’re seeing today.  At this point in time, we simply have no way of knowing for sure and to what extent (unless of course all of the Wikileaks documents were suddenly validated as 100% fact).

[Oh, look at that – MSNBC is on the list!]

No one’s stating a position on Egypt one way or the other in this post.  But one thing’s for certain – if WikiLeaks was right, then so was RedState.  And we haven’t even scratched the surface on this yet.

** Read LaborUnionReport’s follow-up post, “Clinton’s 21st Century Statecraft a Success! AFL-CIO Applauds New Egyptian Unions“