webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Hudson Institute

HUDSON INST  mostly for policy

NO MERRI

anti-china (commie?)

 OMG origins Dr Strangelove:  uber https://webbrain.com/brainpage/brain/6950F840-FB80-FCB0-D505-8AB1FA685F08#-4539

kind of faded, but still alex avery

http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Hudson_Institute

xian wacko http://watch.pair.com/Hudson.html  crossovers  (http://watch.pair.com/)

 see bottom

bORK,  Perle R,

PHaRMA AND BIG AG CO'S (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Trashing_organic_foods  ?)

http://www.cgfi.org/2010/06/pay-attention-to-sunspot-forecasts-by-dennis-t-avery/ bogus ctr for global food issues  http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Global_Food_Issues

 ---

also bannon pres danger

Lianchao Han is vice president of Citizen Power Initiatives for China and a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute.After the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989, Dr. Han was one of the founders of the Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars. He worked in the U.S. Senate for 12 years, as legislative counsel and policy director for three senators.

---

---

2025

https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1743&context=lawreview

Uncharitable Think Tanks 207

Institution—also led in the earlier one, with only slight shifts otherwise.229 • From 2010 on, the top funders were Donors Trust, Donors Capital Fund, and the Scaife, Bradley, and Koch family foundations. The Devos family foundations rose to join the ranks of the top ten. • Grants channeled through Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund accounted for 13.7% of the total. • 74% of all contributions came from completely unidentified sources. • }:}:

After AEI, Heritage and Hoover, the largest recipients were Cato, the Manhattan Institute, the Hudson Institute, the Mercatus Center, the Acton Institute, the State Policy Network, the Reason Foundation, Heartland, and the Americans for Prosperity Foundation. From 2003 to 2018, Brulle and his co-authors tallied total gifts to this cohort of $9.77 billion 230—a sum that refutes the mistaken notion that charitable giving is small dollars, and influential only at the margin. Now for the thought experiment.

Broidy relied on a few key figures in Washington to help carry out his plan. One was Rep. Ed Royce, the Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Broidy had helped Royce’s wife get a job at the State Department. A onetime Saudi critic, Royce figured prominently into Broidy’s work. Broidy told Nader that he “caused” Royce to enter into the Congressional Record a fawning FoxNews.com op-ed by a Saudi general that hailed Trump for ushering in a new era in U.S.-Saudi relations.

Royce also headlined a May 2017 conference on Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood that, at least on paper, was organized by two think tanks, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy and the Hudson Institute. But emails and other planning documents show that Broidy had a hand in the planning. With dozens of journalists in the audience at the Fairmont Hotel in Washington, Royce announced an upcoming piece of legislation that would accuse Qatar of funding Hamas and open up the possibility of sanctions. “This is the first such bill to do so!” Broidy told Nader in an email. (Royce did not respond to requests for comment.)

Broidy’s conference came amid a crescendo of op-eds, news stories and other critical statements about Qatar in the spring and summer of 2017. As one former foreign lobbyist told me, small actions that create the perception of closer ties or tensions between a foreign nation and the U.S. are nearly as valuable as actual policy. That can take the form of a public event, a critical editorial or a letter from one member of Congress to his or her colleagues.

The lobbyist tells the story of a 2015 hearing about U.S.-Hungary relations hosted by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., the then-chair of a subcommittee focusing on Eastern Europe. Few people attended the hearing, and it received almost zero coverage in the U.S., but it created a “deluge of coverage” in Hungary and was used by the country’s autocratic prime minister, Viktor Orban, to show that he had champions in the U.S. “The smallest or inconsequential action by a member of Congress, such as a ‘Dear Colleague’ letter, can be put out in the foreign press and used by governments to justify their policies and politics,” the lobbyist says.

nyt

BUSINESS

|

Steve Bannon and a Fugitive Billionaire Target a Common Enemy: China

Steve Bannon and a Fugitive Billionaire Target a Common Enemy: China

Stephen K. Bannon, the former strategist to President Trump, and Guo Wengui, who is wanted in China, have teamed up.

Just months after being pushed out of the White House, Stephen K. Bannon, President Trump’s former chief strategist, met with a fugitive Chinese billionaire at a suite in the luxurious Hays-Adams Hotel in Washington.

The billionaire, Guo Wengui, who is also known as Miles Kwok, was living in New York City and had landed on China’s most-wanted list, accused of bribery, fraud and money laundering. He was also a dissident and fierce critic of Beijing, seeking political asylum in the United States. And Mr. Bannon — increasingly obsessed with the emerging China threat — was eager to talk about the Communist Party, corruption and American naval operations in the South China Sea.

Since their first discussion in October 2017, they have met dozens of times — in Dallas, on Mr. Guo’s yacht and, more often, at the billionaire’s $67.5 million apartment in the Sherry-Netherland Hotel, overlooking New York’s Central Park. The two shared a stage two weeks ago in Manhattan, at a news conference they organized to announce plans to set up a $100 million fund to investigate corruption and aid people they deem victims of Chinese government persecution.

“We both naturally despise the Chinese Communist Party,” Mr. Guo said in an interview last week, referring to Mr. Bannon. “That’s why we’ve become partners.”

It’s an unusual partnership between two political gadflies with a common, if overly grand, objective: bringing about the demise of the Chinese Communist Party.

One is an exiled businessman who claims to have evidence of corruption at the highest levels of government in China. The other is a former Goldman Sachs banker who delights in lobbing political grenades at what he calls the “party of Davos,” a band of global elites that he says has undermined America’s interests at home and abroad.

As tensions between the United States and China grow, the two men are hoping to stoke them even further, by effectively calling for the overthrow of Beijing’s leadership. Mr. Guo is dipping into his fortune, while Mr. Bannon has agreed to provide a strategy.

Mr. Bannon is, in effect, reprising the role of political provocateur he played before joining the Trump campaign in the summer of 2016. Back then, he was running the conservative news site Breitbart, and helping promote conspiracy theories through the publication of books like “Clinton Cash,” which aimed to destroy Hillary Clinton’s White House bid.

In an interview in his hotel room two weeks ago, Mr. Bannon, 65, said the new China-related fund he will head, without pay, will gather evidence, share it with authorities — in the United States and elsewhere — and publish it in the media. The fund also targets Wall Street banks and law firms, which he says are complicit in China’s misdeeds.

The project, he says, is consistent with his populist and nationalist agenda. China’s reckless behavior, he contended, is endangering the global economy, and sapping America’s strength.

“As a populist, this is outrageous,” Mr. Bannon said, noting that American financial institutions have helped back the worrisome global buying sprees of Chinese companies, with cash raised from ordinary people, includinggovernment pension funds. “The elites in this country have to be held accountable. We have to get the facts on the table.”

Mr. Guo, 50, insists that the fund offers a way to strike back at Beijing. China has pressed the Trump administration to extradite him so that he can face a raft of charges in China — allegations he strongly denies. Billions of dollars in assets he controlled have been frozen by Beijing. And Interpol, the global police organization, has issued a warrant seeking his arrest.He now travels with a phalanx of security guards, saying he fears for his life.

The Chinese Embassy could not be reached for comment. But the Guo-Bannon alliance has alarmed some analysts, who view the two men as purveyors of conspiracy theories fueling anti-China sentiment.

“The problem with these types of reckless, loose-cannon accusations is that they undermine the ability of responsible analysts and policymakers to identify the genuine cases of Chinese wrongdoing and fashion realistic and effective policy responses,” said Michael D. Swaine, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.

For Mr. Bannon, the new effort plays to a longstanding and complicated interest in China. As a young naval officer in the 1970s, he patrolled the South China Sea. He also lived for a time in Shanghai, where he ran a small online gaming company. In recent years, he has come to view China as a military threat to the United States, and a fierce economic rival that refuses to play by the rules.

In helping elect Donald J. Trump, Mr. Bannon counseled him to take a tough line on China and step up trade pressure on Beijing. Mr. Trump obliged by tapping the Harvard-trained economist Peter Navarro, a longtime China critic known for his book “Death by China,” and Michael Pillsbury, a China hawk at the Hudson Institute, as top trade advisers.

The effort has bristled some of Beijing’s friends like President Milos Zeman of the Czech Republic, right, who met with President Xi Jinping of China in Prague in 2016.

It was during his time at the White House, Mr. Bannon says, that he first heard about Mr. Guo. The Chinese billionaire was living in New York, broadcasting allegations of high-level government corruption in China on Twitter and YouTube — some credible, some outlandish and still unproved. By then, he had also applied for political asylum.

Alarmed by his social media campaign and his public denunciations of the Communist Party, Beijing began pressing the Trump administration to extradite Mr. Guo. Chinese investigators said he has ties to Ma Jian, a former spy chief now imprisoned in China on charges of bribery and abuse of power.

Inside the White House, there were disagreements over how to deal with Mr. Guo. Several Western businessmen, apparently eager to cozy up to Beijing, lobbied President Trump to accede to China’s demands, according to people familiar with the talks.

Mr. Bannon said he sided with those in the administration who opposed any handover, viewing Mr. Guo as a potentially valuable “intelligence asset.”

They met only after Mr. Bannon was forced out of the White House. Mr. Bannon says he received a call from Bill Gertz, a Washington journalist who has long been critical of China. Mr. Gertz told him that Mr. Guo was scheduled to give a talk in Washington at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank. The talk was canceled at the last minute.

Over lunch, Mr. Guo and Mr. Bannon discussed China’s military capabilities, as well as the financial implications of Beijing’s rule, including what impact the country’s mounting corporate debt might have on its economy. A friendship emerged.

“It was fantastic. He really impressed me,” Mr. Bannon said of his first meeting with Mr. Guo. “We talked about President Trump’s approach to China, and he went into corruption in the Chinese Communist Party.”

Mr. Bannon later introduced Mr. Guo to people in the hedge fund community, including J. Kyle Bass, who has soured on China and sought to profit by short-selling the Chinese currency.

As Mr. Bannon sharpened his critique of China’s rise, he also began meeting privately with some of America’s leading experts on China, to seek their counsel and outline his agenda. Few welcomed his strident remarks, according to people who attended some of the sessions. But more recently, analysts say, his positions have gotten a warmer reception.

“The tectonic plates are shifting,” says Orville H. Schell, the director of the Center on U.S.-China Relations at the Asia Society. “Many analysts would have totally rejected him two years ago. But people are more sympathetic now that engagement with China has been defrocked.”

Mr. Schell adds, “On the China question, he’s no longer the skunk at the party.”

But Mr. Bannon is getting blowback from some of Beijing’s friends. On a trip abroad this year to drum up support for nationalist and populist leaders in Eastern and Central Europe, Mr. Bannon says, he was scolded for his positions on China by Milos Zeman, president of the Czech Republic and one of Beijing’s closest allies in the region.

“He threw down on me hard,” Mr. Bannon says. “He said: ‘Tell Trump you didn’t learn from Hitler. You can’t fight on two fronts. You can’t take on radical Islam and China. You will end up in the bunker, like Hitler.”

A spokesman for President Zeman said that he had challenged Mr. Bannon on American tariffs against China, and that the two men had parted ways in a very “cold atmosphere.”

Mr. Bannon is unbowed. He has agreed to serve as chairman of the so-called Rule of Law Fund, the $100 million effort that Mr. Guo is financing. The fund plans to publicize its findings and offer financial support to businessmen, government officials and others who run afoul of the Chinese authorities — including those who flee overseas, like Mr. Guo himself.

Mr. Bannon has also joined Mr. Guo in targeting the HNA Group, the huge Chinese conglomerate that borrowed heavily and spent billions around the world, before debt and regulatory pressures forced the company to curb its global ambitions.

Until Twitter suspended his account late last year, Mr. Guo was waging an online war against HNA and its top executives. He claimed, without proof, that the company was engaged in bribing top officials and their relatives, and has even spun conspiracy theories about the death of the company’s co-chairman Wang Jian in an accident in France last summer. HNA declined to comment.

At their joint news conference last week, Mr. Bannon took the stage at the Pierre Hotel on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan to say, “Literally hundreds, if not thousands, of the best and brightest” in China have disappeared, been imprisoned or committed suicide under unusual circumstances and without due process.

“Today is about recklessness and accountability,” he added, noting that American financial institutions have close ties to political elites in Beijing. “Who profited off this? Who looked the other way?”

A version of this article appears in print on Dec. 4, 2018, on Page B1 of the New York edition with the headline: Bannon and Exiled Critic Find Mutual Foe in China. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

Related Coverage

The Billionaire Gadfly in Exile Who Stared Down Beijing

May 30, 2017

Image

Billionaire Who Accused Top Chinese Officials of Corruption Asks U.S. for Asylum

Sept. 7, 2017

Image

The Mystery of the Exiled Billionaire Whistle-Blower

Jan. 10, 2018

==

https://www.alternet.org/how-blow-700-billion-and-lose-wars-guide-americas-exploding-defense-budget-and-military-failure

...[personal narr]  On the wall of the mess hall across the table from us was a 40-inch flat-screen TV.  Usually the TVs in the Army’s mess hall were turned to one of the sports networks like ESPN Classic. For some reason that morning, the one we were watching was showing C-Span broadcasting from the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, where a roomful of suit-and-tie wearing D.C. swells had gathered to hear a talk by Douglas Feith, the deputy secretary of defense for policy.

Feith was one of the triumvirate of defense intellectuals who had already become known as the “architects of the Iraq war.” The other two were Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

The U.S. invaded Iraq in March and took Baghdad in three weeks. Eight months later, the “architects” of the war were riding high. At the same moment we were sitting there in Tal Afar having breakfast, Feith was standing in front of this roomful of lobbyists, congressional staffers and defense industry hacks holding forth on the subject of “Transforming the U.S. Global Defense Posture.” Feith was rambling on, spewing macho military strategy-speak about “updating the types, locations, numbers and capabilities of our military forces and the nature of our alliances.” We had to get away from our “Cold War posture,” Feith was saying, when “U.S. forces deployed forward were defensive, tripwire units that were expected to fight near where they were based. The kind of forces used for that mission are not the agile, fast, lean forces we need for the future.”

The sergeant sitting next to me was covered in dried mud and dust. He had gone six weeks in Sinjar without a bath or hot food. Breakfast that morning was his first taste of civilization, and there was Feith on the TV telling him: “We no longer expect our forces to fight in place; rather, their purpose is to project power into theaters that may be distant from where they are based.”

“What the fuck are you talking about?” the sergeant yelled at the man on the screen. Shaking his head in amazement, he asked me, “Sir, you got any idea who that asshole is?”

I told him he was Douglas Feith, one of the “architects” of the war who had sent him and the other soldiers over there to Iraq.

“Stupid motherfucker doesn’t know what the fuck he doesn’t know,” the sergeant said between bites.

“Realigning the U.S. posture will also help strengthen our alliances by tailoring the physical U.S. ‘footprint’ to suit local conditions. The goal is to reduce friction with host nations,” Feith intoned.

“Reduce friction my ass,” said one of the other soldiers at the table. “We been out there killing the motherfuckers!” He picked up a piece of toast covered with butter and jelly and threw it at the screen. “Shut the fuck up, you douchebag!” yelled another soldier. Soon the whole table was throwing eggs and toast and open containers of yogurt at the screen.

Feith was still talking: “We intend to increase combined training for expeditionary operations, for example, to encourage Allied participation in so-called ‘high-end’ U.S. exercises. For this deployability concept to work, U.S. forces must be able to move smoothly into, through, and out of host nations.”

“We been here for 10 fuckin’ months, you idiot,” one of the soldiers yelled.  “Tell me about into and out of this fuckin’ host nation! They’ll be sending our sorry asses back! You can count on it.”

By now, the television screen was covered in bits of egg and buttered toast and jelly. Feith finally reached his grand finish: “Whatever improvements in military effectiveness the actual posture decisions produce, they will serve our interests fully only if they also help sustain and strengthen our ties with our friends, allies and partners around the world. We are confident that they will.”

Sinjar, the town where the soldiers had been fighting for six weeks, would fall to ISIS control 10 years later. More than 5,000 Yazidi civilians were killed in the ISIS attack and hundreds of Yazidi women were taken as slaves. Tal Afar would be in and out of U.S. control over the next 10 years, until it too was taken by ISIS fighters. Same with Rabihya. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians would lose their lives. Hundreds of U.S. soldiers would be killed. So much for “posture decisions” and “military effectiveness.”

But that didn’t stop think tanks in Washington like the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute and the American Enterprise Institute from lobbying for higher and higher defense budgets. (Douglas Feith is now “director for national security strategies” for the Hudson Institute.) This year, President Trump signed the largest defense budget in our history: $700 billion. The budget includes $13.7 billion for 90 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, which according to CNN are “in service and mission capable only 26 percent of the time.” Not a single F-35 jet has yet to see combat duty.

The budget will provide $4.5 billion for the construction of a new Ford class aircraft carrier, $450 million for three Littoral Combat Ships, $4 billion fortwo new guided missile destroyers,$5.5 billion fortwo new Virginia Class submarines, and tens of billions more for upgrades and repairs on various aircraft and naval vessels. Two of the guided missile destroyers already in service were involved in deadly collisions with cargo ships in the western Pacific last year. A Navy investigation revealed that for all of the hundreds of billions spent on defense, there was apparently not enough in the budget to provide for adequate training in standing watch and driving Navy combat ships.

All of billions spent on defense, and still the United States Army couldn’t interdict smuggling along the Iraq-Syria border. They couldn’t hold onto Sinjar, Tal Afar, Mosul or Rabihya.

You want to know what those soldiers in the 101st Airborne Division were using for weapons when I was there? The M-16 rifle. The 7.62 mm machine gun. The 81 mm mortar. The 105 mm Howitzer. All weapons the U.S. Army had fought with in Vietnam, 35 years earlier. You want to know what they’re still fighting with overseas? Those same old weapons.

You want to know what wasn’t being used over there near the Iraq-Syria border? Any of the fancy Navy ships or F-22 or F-35 fighters.

We’ve still got exhausted, dusty, hungry sergeants and corporals and privates over there in Iraq. If they’ve got C-Span on the TVs in the mess halls, they’re still listening to defense intellectuals like Douglas Feith giving speeches at those think tanks in Washington, which are still holding symposiums. They’re still talking about our “strategic footprint,” and “pursuing peace through strength” and “offshore balancing” and how “the strength of the unilateral pre-eminence vision is that it appears to provide an opportunity to reassert U.S. leadership and stave off risks for U.S. security in a rebalancing world.” This from Gordon Adams, a “distinguished fellow” at the Stimson Center in Washington, who wrote something called “U.S. Global Engagement and the Military” for the Foreign Policy Association.

Not billions, not tens of billions, not hundreds of billions. Trillions of dollars spent.

Fifteen years in Iraq. Seventeen years in Afghanistan. There is no end in sight.

==

8/15 alternet

A counterjihad echo chamber

The family of Gatestone’s founder and president, Nina Rosenwald has long pumped millions of dollars into this anti-Muslim network, through various trusts and foundations including the Abstraction Fund, discussed shortly. For this reason, Rosenwald herself has been dubbed, by journalist Max Blumenthal, ‘the sugar mama of anti-Muslim hate’.  

Blumenthal notes that Gatestone emerged in 2011 as an offshoot of the right wing **Hudson**Institute. Since then it has become a hub for anti-Muslim ideologues of all hues; neoconservative, ultra-Zionist and so-called ‘counterjihad’. It has acted as a clearing-house, for example, for claims about Muslim ‘no-go zones’ (the likes of which ‘terrorism expert’ Steven Emerson was widely ridiculed for, including by UK Prime Minister David Cameron). Its articles carry fear-mongering titles such as: ‘‘Spain: Soon the Muslims will be kings of the world’, ‘Britain’s Islamic future’, ’The Islamization of France’, ‘The Islamization of Germany’ and ‘The Islamization of Belgium and the Netherlands’.

--

bks: SAVING THE PLANET WITH PESTICIDES & PLASTIC,  “UNSTOPPABLE GLOBAL WARMING.

THE TRUTH ABOUT ORGANIC FOODS

:{http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alex_Avery:(style="color:#000000"):}:

wiki :

The Institute has taken positions critical of environmentalism.[5]  Dennis Avery, as Director of the Hudson's Center for Global Food Issues, has written in opposition to those who favor the adoption of organic agricultural methods.[6]  :{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Institute:(style="color:#000000"):}:

The Hudson Institute is a non-profit think tank headquartered in Washington D.C.

While describing itself as "non-partisan" and preferring to portray itself as independently "contrarian" rather than as a conservative think tank, the Hudson Institute gains financial support from many of the foundations and corporations that have bankrolled the conservative movement. The Capital Research Center, a conservative group that seeks to rank non-profits and documents their funding, allocates Hudson as a 7 on its ideological spectrum with 8 being "Free Market Right" and 1 "Radical Left." [1]

Hudson has traditionally had a strong focus on U.S. domestic policies such as national defense, education, crime, immigration, welfare, pesticides and biotechnology. However, in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks it has substantially boosted its focus on international issues such as the Middle East, Latin America and Islam.

Contents

[hide]

SrchW   * Castle Rock Foundation

   * Earhart Foundation

   * F.M. Kirby Foundation

   * John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.

   * JM Foundation

   * Koch Family Foundations (David H. Koch Foundation)

   * Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation

   * Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation

   * Scaife Foundations (Scaife Family, Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage)

   * Shelby Cullom Davis Foundation

   * Smith Richardson Foundation

   * Walton Family Foundation

   * William H. Donner Foundation

==

The Hudson Institute is a non-profit :{think tank:(style="color:#000000"):}: headquartered in Washington D.C. Its 2008 IRS form 990 listed $11.8 million in advocacy expenditures. [1]

While describing itself as "non-partisan" and preferring to portray itself as independently "contrarian" rather than as a conservative think tank, the Hudson Institute gains financial support from many of the foundations and corporations that have bankrolled the conservative movement. The :{Capital Research Center:(style="color:#000000"):}:, a conservative group that seeks to rank non-profits and documents their funding, allocates Hudson as a 7 on its ideological spectrum with 8 being "Free Market Right" and 1 "Radical Left." :{[1]:(style="color:#000000"):}:

Hudson has traditionally had a strong focus on U.S. domestic policies such as national defense, education, crime, immigration, welfare, pesticides and biotechnology. However, in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks it has substantially boosted its focus on international issues such as the Middle East, Latin America and Islam.

Contents:{:(style="color:#000000"):}:[:{hide:(style="color:#000000"):}::{]}:

History

The Institute wasfounded in 1961 by the late :{Herman Kahn:(style="color:#000000"):}: and his colleagues :{Max Singer:(style="color:#000000"):}: and :{Oscar Ruebhausen:(style="color:#000000"):}: from the :{RAND Corporation:(style="color:#000000"):}:. Initially its policy focus, while right-wing, was dictated by Kahn's own interests (such as domestic and military uses ofnuclear power, the future of the US workplace, and the science of "futurology"). Following his death in 1983, the Institute expanded its staff and took on a more overtly conservative stance.

Hudson states in its 2002 annual report that its guiding principles continue "Kahn's optimism about the future, his commitment to free markets and individual responsibility, his belief in the connection between the advance of technology and economic progress, a respect for the importance of religion and culture in human affairs, and his understanding that the prosperity and security of the United States are vital to the prosperity and security of the world." :{[2]:(style="color:#000000"):}:

Hudson insists that its policy positions are not influenced by either its funding sources or ideology. "Whether in domestic policy, national security, or international events, the institute guards its intellectual integrity. Neither dollars nor ideology will sway our opinions. At Hudson Institute, we always strive for the betterment of our world," Walter P. Stern and Herb London wrote in an introductory message in the think tanks 2002 annual report. :{[3]:(style="color:#000000"):}:

ssed January 20, 2012  

Programs

The Institute now operates a number of programs - each of which are dubbed as a "center" or "project" - including:

The Hudson Institute also works on medicines issues, arguing for positions very close to those of the large patent-holding drug companies. In particular, one of its Senior Fellows, :{Carol Adelman:(style="color:#000000"):}:, has authored a number of articles attacking the :{World Health Organization:(style="color:#000000"):}:, and :{NGOs:(style="color:#000000"):}:, for approving the use of generic versions of antiretroviral AIDS drugs.

Funding

Between 1987 and 2006, the Institute received 273 grants totaling $17,722,643 (unadjusted for inflation) from a range of foundations including::{[4]:(style="color:#000000"):}:

While many conservative think tanks eschew government funding, Hudson happily takes government contracts. The :{Capital Research Center:(style="color:#000000"):}: (CRC) database lists Hudson as having received six grants between 1996 and 2002 totalling $731,914 (unadjusted for inflation). Five of the six grants were from the Department of Justice Officeof Justice Programs. (Neither the CRC database or Hudson's annual report for those years provide details on what the grants were specifically for). :{[5]:(style="color:#000000"):}:

In 2002 Hudson received a grant of $173,484 from the Department of Commerce. (Rather bizarrely, CRC assigns the Department of Commerce an "ideological ranking" of 1 - "Radical Left").

The Hudson Institute's IRS Form 990 for the financial year ending on September 30, 2003 showed total revenue of $9.34 million, including over $146,000 in government grants. Other known funders listed in the institute's 2002 annual report include:

After it was revealed that :{:{Michael Fumento:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}::(style="color:#000000"):}: received funding from Monsanto for his 1999 book Bio-Evolution, company spokesman Chris Horner confirmed that it continues to fund the think tank. "It's our practice, that if we're dealing with an organization like this, that any funds we're giving should be unrestricted," Horner told Businessweek. Hudson's CEO Kenneth R. Weinstein told Businessweek that he was uncertain if the payment should have been disclosed. "That's a good question, period," he said. :{[6]:(style="color:#000000"):}:

Between 2001 and 2010, the Institute received $7 million from the :{Bradley Foundation:(style="color:#000000"):}:[2]

Personnel

In 2006, Scooter Libby, former Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, joined Hudson Institute as a senior advisor. Libby, who was convicted as part of the federal investigation into the :{Valerie PlameGate:(style="color:#000000"):}: affair, became a vice president of the Institute. According to the Hudson Institute's 2008 IRS Form 990, Libby was paid an annual salary of $187,000, plus $10,755 in benefits.[3] [4] Later, in 2009, the Institute advocated for a presidential pardon for Scooter Libby.[5] As at October 2005 key Hudson Institute personnel, with pay data from the 2000-2003 IRS return, include:

Executive Management

:{

 }:

Other Members of the Executive Commitee

Board of Trustees

The Hudson Institute also has 32 :{trustees:(style="color:#000000"):}: including:

The Hudson Institute also has "Trustee Emeriti" including:

Staff

According to the Institute's 2002-2003 IRS return, the five highest paid employees, other than officers, and their total financial compensation, were:

Selected other staff and Fellows

Former personnel

Former board directors include :{James H. Dowling:(style="color:#000000"):}: from the multinational PR firm :{Burson-Marsteller:(style="color:#000000"):}:. Former staff, listed in 2001 IRS return, include include :{John Curtis Smith:(style="color:#000000"):}:, vice president; :{Patricia Hasselblad:(style="color:#000000"):}:, secretary; and :{Gary Geipel:(style="color:#000000"):}:, COO; Betsy Ross, senior fellow; and Edwin S. Rubinstein, senior fellow. Other former staff include: :{Phyllis Busansky:(style="color:#000000"):}:, :{Welfare Policy Center:(style="color:#000000"):}:; :{David Dodenhoff:(style="color:#000000"):}:, :{Welfare Policy Center:(style="color:#000000"):}:; :{Joshua Kaufmann:(style="color:#000000"):}:, :{Welfare Policy Center:(style="color:#000000"):}:; :{Kay Crawford:(style="color:#000000"):}:, restorative justice coordinator of the :{Crime Control Policy Center:(style="color:#000000"):}:; :{Natalie Hipple:(style="color:#000000"):}:, research director at Hudson's :{Crime Control Policy Center:(style="color:#000000"):}:; :{John Clark:(style="color:#000000"):}:, director of Hudson's :{Center for Central European and Eurasian Studies:(style="color:#000000"):}:; :{Donald K. Jonas:(style="color:#000000"):}:, director of Hudson's :{Center for Workplace Development:(style="color:#000000"):}:; :{Michael Garber:(style="color:#000000"):}:, director of Hudson's :{Education Policy Center:(style="color:#000000"):}:; :{Diana Etindi:(style="color:#000000"):}:, director of Hudson's :{Phoenix Center on Human Relations and Community Affairs:(style="color:#000000"):}:; :{Marshall Wittmann:(style="color:#000000"):}:, director of the :{Project for Conservative Reform:(style="color:#000000"):}:; :{Amy Sherman:(style="color:#000000"):}:, director of the :{Welfare Policy Center:(style="color:#000000"):}:.

Contact details

1015 15th Street, N.W. (the :{Examiner Building (Washington DC):(style="color:#000000"):}::{, home to numerous conservative organizations)

6th Floor

Washington, DC 20005

Phone: (202) 974-2400

Fax: (202) 974-2410

Email: info AT hudson.org

Web: }::{http://www.hudson.org:(style="color:#000000"):}:

Articles and resources

Related SourceWatch articles

External resources

External articles

Emma Schwartz, ":{Kazakhstan Pays for Academic Reports: Johns Hopkins Institute Says It Had Complete Independence:(style="color:#000000"):}:," ABC News, September 29, 2008.

References

  1. :{↑:(style="color:#000000"):}: PewForum.org :{All Expendidures Data:(style="color:#000000"):}:, chart/lobbying database, accessed January 20, 2012
  2. :{↑:(style="color:#000000"):}: Daniel Bice, Bill Glauber, Ben Poston. :{Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:(style="color:#000000"):}:. November 28, 2011
  3. :{↑:(style="color:#000000"):}: Hudson Institute/IRS :{2008 Form 990:(style="color:#000000"):}:, government reporting form, accessed January 20, 2012
  4. :{↑:(style="color:#000000"):}: Hudson Institute Communications :{Lewis Libby Joins Hudson Institute:(style="color:#000000"):}:, news release, January 6, 2006
  5. :{↑:(style="color:#000000"):}: Diana Furchtgott-Roth :{Pardon Scooter Libby:(style="color:#000000"):}:, January 15, 2009

:{Categories:(style="color:#000000"):}:: :{Think tanks:(style="color:#000000"):}: | :{United States:(style="color:#000000"):}: | :{US Health Care System:(style="color:#000000"):}:

:{http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hudson_Institute:(style="color:#000000"):}:

GW

http://www.desmogblog.com/tags/hudson-institute dennis avery  http://www.desmogblog.com/taxonomy/term/1720

 tag eg

Dennis Avery at the Hudson Institutepushed out a story the other day claiming that: “The atmospheric CO2 levels at Hawaii’s Mauna Loa observatory have declined since 2004.” He’s totally wrong and admitted he was, but has failed to correct this mistruth and now the story is bouncing around the right-wing media echo chamber.

 ---

2008

We can now count the dead and the imaginary among the shrinking number of scientists in the Heartland Institute list of 500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares.

“Bond, G., Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory;” “Bradbury, J. Pratt, USGS;” and “Keeling, Charles D., Scripps Institute of Oceanography” are all deceased and therefore unable to join the chorus of legitimate scientists who are demanding that their names be removed from the list.

Read more: A Few Scientists Who Won't Deny Being Deniers

-

In his controversial new book, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning (Doubleday) Jonah Goldberg offers a startling new perspective on the theories and practices that define fascist politics. Reaching beyond familiar myths, he reminds us that the original fascists were men of the left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated some policies and principles remarkably similar to those of European fascism, including an aversion to the free market, and the promise of free health care and a generous pension system. Do these striking parallels mean that today's liberals are genocidal maniacs, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new racial order? Of course not. Yet it is hard to deny, Goldberg argues, that modern progressivism and classical fascism share the same intellectual roots. :{http://fora.tv/2008/01/30/Jonah_Goldberg_on_Liberal_Fascism:(style="color:#000000"):}:

==

The Hudson Institute is a :{conservative:(style="color:#000000"):}:[2][3] :{think tank:(style="color:#000000"):}: founded in 1961, in :{Croton-on-Hudson, New York:(style="color:#000000"):}:, by :{futurist:(style="color:#000000"):}:, :{military:(style="color:#000000"):}: :{strategist:(style="color:#000000"):}:, and :{systems theorist:(style="color:#000000"):}: :{Herman Kahn:(style="color:#000000"):}: and his colleagues at the :{RAND Corporation:(style="color:#000000"):}:.[4] It moved to :{Indianapolis, Indiana:(style="color:#000000"):}:, in 1984 and to :{Washington, D.C.:(style="color:#000000"):}:, in 2004.[5]

The Institute promotes public policy change in accordance with its stated values of a "commitment to free markets and individual responsibility, confidence in the power of technology to assist progress, respect for the importance of culture and religion in human affairs, and determination to preserve America's national security."[4]

The :{Capital Research Center:(style="color:#000000"):}:, a conservative group that seeks to rank non-profits and documents their funding, allocates Hudson as a 7 on its ideological spectrum with 8 being "Free Market Right" and 1 "Radical Left".[6]

In March 2011, Kenneth R. Weinstein was appointed president and CEO of the institute.[4]

Contents:{ :(style="color:#000000"):}:[:{hide:(style="color:#000000"):}::{] }:

:{:(style="color:#000000"):}:[:{edit:(style="color:#000000"):}::{]}::{ }::{Policy positions}:

According to its mission statement, the Hudson Institute "challenges conventional thinking and helps manage strategic transitions to the future through interdisciplinary and collaborative studies in defense, international relations, economics, culture, science, technology, and law. Through publications, conferences and policy recommendations, we seek to guide global leaders in government and business."[4]

The Hudson Institute mission statement continues "In the 1970s, Hudson's scholars advocated a turn away from the 'no-growth' policies of the :{Club of Rome:(style="color:#000000"):}:; in the early 1990s, it advised the newly independent :{Baltic nations:(style="color:#000000"):}: on becoming :{market economies:(style="color:#000000"):}:; it assisted in drafting the :{Wisconsin:(style="color:#000000"):}: :{welfare reform:(style="color:#000000"):}: law."[4]

The Institute has taken positions critical of :{environmentalism:(style="color:#000000"):}:.[7] :{Dennis Avery:(style="color:#000000"):}:, as Director of the Hudson's Center for Global Food Issues, has written in opposition to those who favor the adoption of organic agricultural methods.[8]

It was described by US foreign policy scholars :{John Mearsheimer:(style="color:#000000"):}: and :{Stephen Walt:(style="color:#000000"):}: as “closely associated with :{neoconservatives:(style="color:#000000"):}:”.[9]

:{:(style="color:#000000"):}:[:{edit:(style="color:#000000"):}::{]}::{ }::{Funding}:

The Hudson Institute is supported by donations from companies and individuals. Corporate contributors listed in a publication from 2001 included :{Eli Lilly and Company:(style="color:#000000"):}:, :{Monsanto Company:(style="color:#000000"):}:, :{DuPont:(style="color:#000000"):}:, :{Dow-Elanco:(style="color:#000000"):}:, :{Sandoz:(style="color:#000000"):}:, :{Ciba-Geigy:(style="color:#000000"):}:, :{ConAgra:(style="color:#000000"):}:, :{Cargill:(style="color:#000000"):}:, and :{Procter & Gamble:(style="color:#000000"):}:.[10]

Fundraising efforts use testimonials from what the Institute calls its "family of generous supporters and friends", among them, :{:{Henry Kissinger:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}::(style="color:#000000"):}:, who provides a testimonial: "Hudson Institute is today one of America's foremost policy research centers, in the forefront of study and debate on important domestic and international policy issues, known and respected around the globe, a leader in innovative thinking and creative solutions to the challenges of the present and the future."[11]

Critics question the institute's position on many issues, such as their negative campaigning against organic farming, since they receive large sums of money from conventional food companies. :{The New York Times:(style="color:#000000"):}: commented on Dennis Avery's attacks on organic farming: "The attack on organic food by a well-financed research organization suggests that, though organic food accounts for only 1 percent of food sales in the United States, the conventional food industry is worried."[8]

In a May 18, 2003, BBC broadcast entitled, "The War Party", Meyrav Wurmser, wife of AEI member David Wurmser and member of The Hudson Institute, candidly admitted that “many of us are Jewish” and that “all of us, in fact, are pro-Israel­, some of us more fiercely so that others.

While many conservative think tanks eschew government funding, Hudson happily takes government contracts. The Capital Research Center (CRC) database lists Hudson as having received six grants between 1996 and 2002 totaling $731,914 (unadjusted for inflation). Five of the six grants were from the Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. (Neither the CRC database or Hudson's annual report for those years provide details on what the grants were specifically for.)

In 2002, Hudson received a grant of $173,484 from the Department of Commerce.

The Hudson Institute's IRS Form 990 for the financial year ending on September 30, 2003 showed total revenue of $9.34 million, including over $146,000 in government grants. Although several of the organizations listed below no longer exist, some of the funding sources listed in the institute's 2002 annual report include:

After it was revealed that Michael Fumento received funding from Monsanto for his 1999 book Bio-Evolution, company spokesman Chris Horner confirmed that it continues to fund the think tank. "It's our practice, that if we're dealing with an organization like this, that any funds we're giving should be unrestricted," Horner told BusinessWeek. Hudson's CEO and President Kenneth R. Weinstein told BusinessWeek that he was uncertain if the payment should have been disclosed. "That's a good question, period," he said.[12]

:{:(style="color:#000000"):}:[:{edit:(style="color:#000000"):}::{]}::{ }::{Hudson Institute Leadership}:

Source: [13]

:{:(style="color:#000000"):}:[:{edit:(style="color:#000000"):}::{]}::{ }::{Notable trustees, fellows and advisors}:

In 1990, fellow :{Bruce Chapman:(style="color:#000000"):}: founded another think tank, the :{Discovery Institute:(style="color:#000000"):}:.

Politicians who have been affiliated with Hudson include former :{U.S. Vice President:(style="color:#000000"):}: :{Dan Quayle:(style="color:#000000"):}: and :{Governor of Indiana:(style="color:#000000"):}: :{Mitch Daniels:(style="color:#000000"):}: who served as Hudson's President and CEO from 1987 to 1990.[15]

Other members have included:

:{:(style="color:#000000"):}:[:{edit:(style="color:#000000"):}::{]}::{ }::{Notes}:

  1. :{^:(style="color:#000000"):}: :{CharitiyNavigator.org:(style="color:#000000"):}:
  2. :{^:(style="color:#000000"):}: Blumenauer, Earl. The New York Times. :{http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/betsy_mccaughey/index.html?scp=3&sq=hudson%20institute&st=cse:(style="color:#000000"):}:.
  3. :{^:(style="color:#000000"):}: :{http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20111218/BIZ/312189965/1031/BIZ:(style="color:#000000"):}:
  4. ^ a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Institute#cite_ref-HIMS_3-0) b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Institute#cite_ref-HIMS_3-1) c(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Institute#cite_ref-HIMS_3-2) d(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Institute#cite_ref-HIMS_3-3) e(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Institute#cite_ref-HIMS_3-4) The Hudson Institute, :{"Mission Statement":(style="color:#000000"):}:, accessed April 15, 2008.
  5. :{^:(style="color:#000000"):}: The Hudson Institute, :{"Frequently Asked Questions":(style="color:#000000"):}:, accessed April 15, 2008.
  6. :{^:(style="color:#000000"):}: :{Capital Research profile:(style="color:#000000"):}: (archived site)
  7. :{^:(style="color:#000000"):}: :{Environment Issues article list:(style="color:#000000"):}:, The Hudson Institute, accessed August 10, 2008.
  8. ^ a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Institute#cite_ref-Burros_7-0) b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Institute#cite_ref-Burros_7-1) Marian Burros, :{"Eating Well; Anti-Organic, And Flawed":(style="color:#000000"):}:, :{The New York Times:(style="color:#000000"):}:, accessed December 14, 2007.
  9. :{^:(style="color:#000000"):}: The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M Walt, Allen Lane (UK Edition), p130
  10. :{^:(style="color:#000000"):}: John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, Trust Us, We’re Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future (New York: Penguin Putnam, 2001). :{ISBN 1-58542-139-1:(style="color:#000000"):}:.
  11. :{^:(style="color:#000000"):}: The Hudson Institute, :{"Meet our Family of Generous Supporters and Friends":(style="color:#000000"):}:, accessed April 15, 2008.
  12. :{^:(style="color:#000000"):}: Javers, Eamon. :{"A Columnist Backed by Monsanto":(style="color:#000000"):}:, :{BusinessWeek:(style="color:#000000"):}: , January 13, 2006.
  13. :{^:(style="color:#000000"):}: Hudson Institute leadership, :{http://www.hudson.org/learn/index.cfm?fuseaction=hudson_leadership:(style="color:#000000"):}:
  14. :{^:(style="color:#000000"):}: Hudson Institute Press Release, :{http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=7880&pubType=HI_PressReleases:(style="color:#000000"):}:
  15. :{^:(style="color:#000000"):}: :{http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=hudson_upcoming_events&id=800:(style="color:#000000"):}:
  16. :{^:(style="color:#000000"):}: :{Joseph M. Giglio:(style="color:#000000"):}: Hudson Institute Biography.
  17. :{^:(style="color:#000000"):}: :{Robert H. McKinney:(style="color:#000000"):}: Hudson Institute Biography.
  18. :{^:(style="color:#000000"):}: Douglas J. Feith and Abram N. Shulsky (20 May 2010). :{"The Dangerous Illusion of 'Nuclear Zero' – Why even speculate about a nuclear posture that would require world peace as a precondition?":(style="color:#000000"):}:. :{The Wall Street Journal:(style="color:#000000"):}:.
  19. :{^:(style="color:#000000"):}: :{Max Singer:(style="color:#000000"):}: Hudson Institute Biography.
  20. :{^:(style="color:#000000"):}: :{Walter P. Stern:(style="color:#000000"):}: Hudson Institute Biography.
  21. :{^:(style="color:#000000"):}: :{Allan R. Tessler:(style="color:#000000"):}: Hudson Institute Biography.
  22. :{^:(style="color:#000000"):}: :{John Walters:(style="color:#000000"):}: Hudson Institute Biography
  23. :{^:(style="color:#000000"):}: :{Curtin Winsor:(style="color:#000000"):}: Hudson Institute Biography.
  24. :{^:(style="color:#000000"):}: :{http://www.marcellopera.it/:(style="color:#000000"):}:

:{:(style="color:#000000"):}:[:{edit:(style="color:#000000"):}::{]}::{ }::{Further reading}:

:{:(style="color:#000000"):}:[:{edit:(style="color:#000000"):}::{]}::{ }::{External links}:

:{Categories:(style="color:#000000"):}::

=

The Center for Global Food Issues is a project of the :{Hudson Institute:(style="color:#000000"):}:, a conservative :{U.S.:(style="color:#000000"):}: :{think tank:(style="color:#000000"):}:. It aims to promote agricultural free trade, encourage technical innovation in agriculture, and raise environmental awareness among farmers.

The Center has received criticism from the :{Union of Concerned Scientists:(style="color:#000000"):}:[1] and other :{organizations:(style="color:#000000"):}:.[citation needed]

:{Dennis Avery:(style="color:#000000"):}: is the Director.[2] His son, Alex Avery, is the Director of Research and Education.[3]

The Center manages additional websites, including:

:{:(style="color:#000000"):}:[:{edit:(style="color:#000000"):}::{]}::{ }::{References}:

  1. :{^:(style="color:#000000"):}: :{Dialogue:(style="color:#000000"):}:. :{Earthwise:(style="color:#000000"):}:. Volume 7 Number 1. Retrieved 12 November 2007.
  2. :{^:(style="color:#000000"):}: :{About CGFI:(style="color:#000000"):}:. www.cgfi.org. Retrieved 12 November 2007.
  3. :{^:(style="color:#000000"):}: :{Alex Avery:(style="color:#000000"):}:. :{GM Watch:(style="color:#000000"):}: profile. Retrieved 12 November 2007.

 =

First Woodlands Conference: 

:{

}: 

Limits to Growth, 1975 The first Woodlands Conference was held in October 1975. The conference title reflected Mitchell’s desire to restate the original message by the Club of Rome: “Limits to Growth: The First Biennial Assessment of Alternatives to Growth,” which meant, in short, “Limits, but . . .” Mitchell was intimately involved in preparing the conference, more so than in later events. The problem “concerned me,” he said. “Therefore I took the time to try to think out what in the world was happening.” 10 Dennis Meadows and John Naisbitt, then president of the Urban Research Corporation, served as conference directors. 11 The conference, held at the just-opened Woodlands Conference Center, was an enormous success, with five hundred attendees, large press coverage,and the excitement generated at the event. 

Molly Ivins, coeditor of the Texas Observer, said in her review of what she called the “Doom Conference”: “I have seen the future, and I can tell you it is polysyllabic.” 12 The conference started from the premise that limits not only existed but were already having a negative effect on the global quality of life. Most participants agreed that there were some limits to be faced. They attempted to formulate a response: (1) Transition to steady state would have positive consequences for society provided action was taken in time; (2) Limits would have serious negative consequences if they were ignored so long that they began to intrude on social development;

 and (3) Growth had to be redirected by better balancing of economic, social, and environmental goals. 13 There were forty panelists and speakers, including Jay Forrester (who had designed the computer program that was used in the Limits to Growth study); the British economist E. F. Schumacher (author of Small is Beautiful); World Watch Institute president Lester Brown; Herman Kahn, founding director of the Hudson Institute; Dr. Jonas Salk, developer of the polio vaccine; Limits to Growth authors Donella and Dennis Meadows; and Ian McHarg, author of Design with Nature and planner of The Woodlands. Other prominent speakers at the 1975 conference included Sico Mansholt (European Common Market), Amory Lovins (United Nations Environment Program), Elise Boulding (University of Colorado), U.S. senator Jacob Javits, Herman E. Daly (Louisiana State University), and Hazel Henderson (Princeton University). Many of the conference speakers became prominent in the field of sustainability studies in the years that followed. Reminiscing, George Mitchell described the highlight of the conference: a heated debate between Dennis Meadowsand Herman Kahn. Kahn, a former staff member of the rand Corporation and founder of the Hudson Institute on future studies, spoke on the topic “Growth Is Good for You.” He disagreed vehemently with the limits-to-growth thesis. Mitchell summarized Kahn’s position: “Just develop everything and technology will take care of everything.” 14 In Mitchell’s view Meadows had the better arguments in the debate that followed Kahn’s presentation, but he faced a formidable debater. Meadows put it this way: “Kahn’s viewpoint, which is shared by many other people, is that there are no limits. If something like a limit starts to show up, the market and technology will finesse it and let you keep going.”

:{

}: 

Schmandt, Jurgen. George P. Mitchell and the Idea of Sustainability. 

     College Station, TX, USA: Texas A&M University Press, 2010. 

     ebrary collections. 25 May. 2014

. Texas A&M University Press. 

:{

}: 

:{

}::{http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Alex_Avery:(style="color:#000000"):}::{

 SON}:

Alex Avery is the Director of Research and Education at the :{Center for Global Food Issues:(style="color:#000000"):}: (CGFI), a project of the :{Hudson Institute:(style="color:#000000"):}:. The Hudson Institute receives funding from big agribusiness interests, including:{Monsanto:(style="color:#000000"):}:, :{DowElanco:(style="color:#000000"):}:, the :{Ag-Chem Equipment Company:(style="color:#000000"):}: and :{Syngenta:(style="color:#000000"):}: which are involved in agriculture biotechnology.[1][2]

According to a biographical profile on the CGFI website, prior "to joining Hudson in 1994, he was a McKnight research fellow at Purdue University, where he worked to develop drought-resistant sorghum varieties for the Sudan of Africa."[3]

"Since joining the Center in 1994, Avery has spoken to a wide variety of national and international audiences and has represented the Center at the United Nations World Food Summit in Rome," his bio note states.[3]According to his bio note, Alex Avery's articles have "appeared in many publications, including the Des Moines Register, USA Today Magazine, :{The Washington Times:(style="color:#000000"):}:, and Canada's Western Producer.[3]

Contents:{ :(style="color:#000000"):}:[:{hide:(style="color:#000000"):}::{] }:

Baby blues

Avery's biographical note states that he authored a "peer-reviewed study documenting that nitrates in drinking water do not cause the infamous 'blue baby syndrome' in infants". [3]

However, his initial study - "Infantile Methemoglobinemia: Reexamining the Role of Drinking Water Nitrates" which was published in the July 1999 edition of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences journal Environmental Health Perspectives - was more equivocal than his biographical note makes out.

"Recent research and a review of historical cases offer a more complex picture of the causes of infantile methemoglobinemia. Gastrointestinal infection and inflammation and the ensuing overproduction of nitric oxide may be the cause of many cases of infantile methemoglobinemia previously attributed to drinking water nitrates," the abstract stated.

"If so, current limits on allowable levels of nitrates in drinking water, which are based solely on the health threat of infantile methemoglobinemia, may be unnecessarily strict," he wrote.[4]

Alex concluded change was needed. "A complete review of the drinking water nitrate standard should be conducted. The National Research Council conducted a review of the nitrate standard in the early 1990s with the purpose of determining if the current standard was adequate to protect human health; it did not address whether the standard was overly protective," he wrote.[4]

Avery took issue with an editorial in The Des Moines Register calling for more responsible farming to prevent the pollution of water sources with nitrogen. "While the goal of limiting nitrogen losses from farmland is sound, the editorial missed the boat on the health risks from nitrates," Avery wrote. Avery argued that the EPA mandated limit of 10 parts per million in water supply could safely be doubled. "Raising the federal standard to just 20 ppm would not raise the health risk to small infants or the general public, but it would eliminate the need to treat Des Moines' drinking water, saving millions of dollars," he wrote. [5]

Dennis too, took the issue up in an article for the Hudson Institute. Avery senior objected to 1977 proposals by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based environmental organization, that the drinking water nitrate limit should be halved to 5 parts per million. Where Alex's paper had suggested that causes other than nitrates "may" be the cause of the baby blue syndrome, Avery senior found no need to repeat the qualification. "Now, a study in the July issue of Environmental Health Perspectives, a publication of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, says that nitrate doesn't cause blue baby syndrome after all," wrote Dennis, who later in the article disclosed his son had authored the report. A limit of 20 parts per million, he wrote, "would take the regulatory pressure off good farmers with no additional risk to infants".[6]

In late 2003, Alex was back on the case. In an article published on the :{Heartland Institute:(style="color:#000000"):}:'s website, Alex stated that "nitrate levels in drinking water are regulated for one reason only: to prevent blue baby syndrome, medically known as infantile methemoglobinemia," he wrote. "That regulation is costing U.S. communities and homeowners hundreds of millions of dollars per year, and the cost is increasing," he wrote, demanding that Congress should demand the National Research Council institute a scientific review of the nitrate level.[7]

Associate director at the Center for Health Effects of Environmental Contamination, University of Iowa, Peter Weyer, expressed his concern when Avery's paper was first published. "The potential long-term health impacts and related costs to society could be staggering. Rather than relaxing the MCL, we should be working towards preventing contamination of water supplies by nitrate (whatever the source) as a prudent effort towards reducing potential risk to the public's health," he wrote.[8]

The National Center for Appropriate Technology argued that Avery's argument had major flaws. "While the nitrate in contaminated water does not appear to cause methemoglobinemia, it can certainly affect the severity of an attack, by increasing the amount and concentration of nitrates and nitrites the body must contend with. Excess nitrates have been associated with other health problems for both humans and livestock, including questions regarding its carcinogenic and teratogenic effects", he wrote.[9]

Books

Articles and resources

Related SourceWatch articles

References

  1. :{↑:(style="color:#000000"):}: Marian Burros :{EATING WELL; Is Organic Food Provably Better?:(style="color:#000000"):}:, New York Times, July 16, 2003
  2. :{↑:(style="color:#000000"):}: Hudson Institute :{Hudson Institute 2002 Annual Report:(style="color:#000000"):}:, (pdf) Annual report, accessed January 19, 2012
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 :{"Alex A. Avery":(style="color:#000000"):}:, Center for Global Food Issues website, accessed August 2009.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Alexander Austin Avery, :{"Infantile Methemoglobinemia: Reexamining the Role of Drinking Water Nitrates":(style="color:#000000"):}:, Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 107, Number 7, July 1999.
  5. :{↑:(style="color:#000000"):}: Alex Avery, :{"Dispel myths about the danger of nitrates":(style="color:#000000"):}:, The Des Moines Register, June 24, 1999.
  6. :{↑:(style="color:#000000"):}: Dennis T. Avery, :{"Don't Blame Farmers For Blue Baby Syndrome":(style="color:#000000"):}:, Bridge News, July 7, 1999.
  7. :{↑:(style="color:#000000"):}: Alex Avery, :{"Nitrate Alarmists Cost Consumers Plenty":(style="color:#000000"):}:, :{Environment & Climate News:(style="color:#000000"):}:, Heartland Institute, December 2003.
  8. :{↑:(style="color:#000000"):}: Peter Weyer, :{"Should we worry about nitrate in our water?":(style="color:#000000"):}:, The Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, May 16, 2002.
  9. :{↑:(style="color:#000000"):}: :{"Blue Babies and Red Herrings":(style="color:#000000"):}:, National Center for Appropriate Technology, archived from September 9, 2001.

External resources

External articles

Biographical notes
Articles by Avery

General articles on Avery

:{Category:(style="color:#000000"):}::

:{=

  }:By Barbara Aho

The Freedom From Religious Persecution Act (HR 2431/S772) was authored by Michael Horowitz, a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute. Our own investigation reveals that Hudson Institute is part of a vast network of pseudo-conservative organizations which serve as fronts for the New World Order.

The following profile of Hudson Institute is excerpted from a publication offered by Mackinac Center for Public Policy which is related to the Heritage Foundation. It was written by Dr. Bruno Manno of the Hudson Institute making a case for Outcome Based Education. (According to the article, the public opposed OBE because the state did an inadequate job of educating.)

"The Institute is a private, not-for-profit research organization headquartered in Indianapolis with offices in Washington D.C.; Montreal, Canada; and Madison, Wisconsin. Hudson analyzes and makes recommendations about public policy for business and government...

"Hudson Institute was founded in 1961 by the late Herman Kahn and colleagues from the Rand Corporation. Initially, the institute focused on policy issues involving national security and international order...

"Hudson Institute's research agenda compromises six areas: national security and foreign affairs; human resources (including education, employment, and social welfare); economic and financial affairs; global food issues; political institution; and competitive issues executives, as well as for the public at large."

In her book, Educating for the New World Order, B.K. Eakman tells of a training manual for "change agents" developed for the U.S. government by Rand Corporation, also founded by Herman Kahn following World War II:

"What [education] researchers in Pennsylvania [found] was a how-to manual with a 1971 U.S. Office of Education contract number on it entitled 'Training for Change Agents'; [and] seven volumes of 'change agent studies' commissioned by the U.S. Office of Education to the Rand Corporation in 1973-74; [and] scores of other papers submitted by behaviorist researchers who had obtained grants from the U.S. Office of Education for the purpose of exploring ways to 'freeze' and 'unfreeze' values, 'to implement change,' and to turn potentially hostile groups and committees into acquiescent, rubber-stamp bodies by means of such strategies as the 'Delphi Technique.'" 1.

"The Rand Corporation’s change agent studies –– full of statistical data and very hard to obtain –– are essentially a set of feasibility studies. Apparently, the federal government wanted to know how difficult and costly it would be to move forward with a national version of the change-agent program. Volumes II and IV, respectively, of the Rand series are entitled 'Factors Affecting Change Agent Projects' and 'Factors Affecting Implementation and Continuation.' Without going into depth on these lengthy statistical studies, the titles here give a pretty good idea what the thrust of the work was. As with other change agent documents, the federal contract number is emblazoned plainly on the front cover of each Rand document." 2.

HUDSON /HERITAGE / CFR CONNECTIONS

The Heritage Foundation has well-documented connections with many subversive organizations and individuals -- old and neo-Nazis, Sun Myung Moon's Unification network, Communism and the United Nations. Listed in the Heritage directory of organizations that share the foundation's beliefs is Hudson Institute. The source of Hudson's brochure by Brunno Manno is the Heritage-related Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

The Heritage Foundation list of past Scholars and Fellows included the late Herman Kahn, founder and director of the Hudson Institute. Former U.S. Secretary of Education, William Bennett, is currently a Senior Fellow at Hudson Institute and Distinguished Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Present Hudson Fellows also include Dennis Doyle, Chester Finn, and Pierre Du Pont who, with Bennett serve on the board of directors of the Center for Education Reform (CER), whose President is Jeanne Allen, formerly of Heritage. Hudson is also part of the Heritage Foundation School Choice Program Networkand linksdirectly to the Education Policy Institute (EPI), a Heritage subsidiary.

Other crossover memberships occur among the officers of Heritage Foundation, Hudson Institute and the Council for National Policy :

Pierre Du Pont IV: CNP / Trustee Emeritus Hudson Institute 

Coors Family: CNP / Holly Coors, Heritage Foundation Trustee, Joe Coors, Heritage Foundation Honorary Trustee 

DeVos Family (Amway Corp): CNP / Funds CNP, Hudson Institute and Heritage Foundation 

Jay Van Andel: CNP / Co-Founder and Senior Chairman of Amway Corporation / Hudson Board of Trustees / Funds Heritage Foundation 

Beurt Servaas: CNP / Hudson Board of Trustees

Hudson's long list of benefactors includes: Amway, DuPont, Exxon, Forbes, Ford Motor Co., J. Paul Getty, McDonalds, Oscar de LaRenta, Pew Charitable Trusts, Sarah Scaife Foundation (Mellon). In 1988, Adolph Coors Foundation gave $25,000 to Hudson for programs involving U.S. foreign policy issues, economic growth and defense. 3.

Hudson Institute's directors include many individuals who belong to the Council on Foreign Relations:

HUDSON BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Walter P. Sterns, Chairman of the Board (CFR)

TRUSTEES EMERITI

Kenneth Duberstein (CFR) 

Prof. Roger D. Fisher (Harvard Law School; CFR) 

Alexander M. Haig, Jr. (CFR, Knights of Malta) 

Dan Quayle (CFR, Bilderberg Group) 

John C. Whitehead (CFR, Bilderberg Group)

HUDSON STAFF

William E. Odom, Senior Fellow, Director, National Security Issues (CFR) 

Norman Podhoretz, Senior Fellow (CFR)

ADJUNCT FELLOWS

Frank C. Carlucci (CFR; Trilateral Commission) 

Paula Dobriansky, Vice President (Director, Washington Office CFR; Host of National Empowerment Television Freedom's Challenge) 

Mary Eberstadt (CFR) 

Dr. Stephen F. Starr (CFR/Trilateral Commission; Director, Rockefeller Brothers Foundation; Chairman, Central Asia Institute, Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University)

Also a member of the CFR is Hudson Institute/GOALS 2000 SCANS committee member, J. Paul Sticht, who expressed the view that the future workforce need not be educated, but "managed and trained...although a small cadre of highly educated creative people are essential to innovation and growth."

HUDSON AS A FUTURIST ORGANIZATION

The Hudson Institute describes its orientation as "futurist," "contrarian," and "unconventional."

"Hudson is a nonpartisan futurist organization that is known for its healthy skepticism of conventional wisdom and its guarded optimism about solving tomorrow’s problems today. Herman Kahn, along with Max Singer and Oscar Rubenhausen, established Hudson Institute as a research organization dedicated to thinking about the future from a contrarian point of view. From 1961 to 1983, Kahn maintained – and depended on – a research staff committed to engaging in intellectual exchange and analysis that offered predictions about the future."

In the late 1970s, Herman Kahn authored three books believed to have measurably impacted American anti-war sentiment, leading to decreased government spending on military projects and increased spending on education programs:

"Hudson produced unconventional works such as Kahn’s On Thermonuclear War, which examined in frightening detail the consequences of nuclear proliferation, and The Next 200 Years, where Kahn and Anthony Wiener extrapolated into the future. As funding for military research projects decreased, Hudson started examining domestic social and economic issues. These efforts produced books such as Frank Armbuster’s Our Children’s Crippled Future, which examined the failings of the American educational system long before they became a matter of widespread public concern."

HUDSON INSTITUTE & GOALS 2000

Alice Bailey's channeled work, The Externalisation Of The Hierarchy, discloses the critical areas in which change agents would prepare humanity for the New Age: "The three main channels through which the preparation for the new age is going on might be regarded as the Church, the Masonic Fraternity and the educational field." 4.

Hudson Institute has played a pioneering role the area of education reform. Dr. Brunno Manno, former senior fellow in Hudson's education policy studies program, developed the aforementioned profile of Hudson Institute for his promotion of Outcome Based Education. Dr. Manno is also part of the Annie E. Casey Foundation, which played a large role in GOALS 2000, the radical plan for restructuring American education under George Bush (renamed AMERICA 2000 under the present administration). AEC is currently playing a large role in influencing the direction of the state network of Family Policy Councils.

The America 2000/Goals 2000 Research Manual mentions Dr. Manno of Hudson Institute in a strategic government position for the restructuring of American education.

"[In 1991] Developing Leaders for Restructuring Schools: New Habits of the Mind and Heart was released. The Forward to this report of the National LEADership Network Study Group on Restructuring Schools was written by Brunno Manno, Assistant Secretary of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education…

"In this report, one reads: 'Because restructuring schools create organizational structures that support risk taking and innovation, they often require that external and internal controls - laws and regulations, policies and bargaining agreements - be modified or waived.' The report advocates the following: 'create dissonance,' 'create interdependencies,' and 'encourage risk taking.'" 5.

The Modern Red Schoolhouse [MRS] Design Team

The New American Schools Development Corporation [NASDC] was established as a private non-profit tax exempt organization by the National Business Roundtable and the National Association of Business working with the strategists of GOALS 2000. NASDC used private monies to implement government reform, which amounted to Big Business setting their own standards for education; by-passing the traditional avenues of representational government. This strategy allowed the corporate community, which is unelected, to set standards for education with the view of producing a workforce to meet the needs of business. Hudson Institute was one of eleven private sector organizations to offer alternative plans for the failing education system.

The Modern Red Schoolhouse [MRS] design team is Hudson Institute's plan for the break the mold school design project. Strangely, MRS and all of the other school design team plans looked identical, due to the fact that they were required to include the nine essential components which the National Business Roundtable [David Hornbeck and Paul Hill of GOALS 2000/RAND Corporation] developed. This was one of those contests where the winners were pre-determined.

Present fellows on the staff of Hudson Institute were involved in the development of GOALS 2000. Bennett's involvement goes back many years to when he was Secretary of Education, having been screened by the Heritage Foundation for this position in the Reagan administration. William Bennett is also co-director with Jack Kemp and Jeane Kirkpatrick of Empower America, whose President and CEO until March, 2000 was Josette Shiner, a high-ranking Unification Church member and former editor at the Sun Myung Moon-owned Washington Times newspaper.  The board of Empower America is composed almost entirely of CFR members and/or high ranking Freemasons, including Jack Kemp [33º Mason], Jeane Kirkpatrick [CFR], Michael Novak [CFR], Trent Lott [33º Mason], Ward Wood [CFR], Theodore Forstmann [CFR] and past board member Newt Gingrich [CFR, 33º Mason].

On the Hudson MRS Design Team, William Bennett served as chairman with Dennis Doyle, Chester Finn, Jr., Pierre du Pont IV and Lamar Alexander (former Education Secretary under George Bush). Chester Finn, author of AMERICA 2000 with Lamar Alexander, also sits on the National Education Goals Panel for GOALS 2000. Chester Finn and Diane Ravitch are co-directors of the Thomas Fordham Foundation's Educational Excellence Network, which works with Hudson Institute, and also direct the Education Policy Institute (EPI), bringing together GOALS 2000 players with Heritage Foundation's Center for Education Reform.

It is interesting that, under William Bennett, the U.S. Department of Education’s role was greatly expanded. Many of the behavioral surveys were developed at that time to measure the beliefs and adaptability of students. Also, Chester Finn’s Bio at the web sites of Hudson Institute and Fordham Foundation, where Finn is President, do not mention his role on the GOALS 2000/ National Education Goals Panel [let alone his authorship of GOALS 2000].

As head of the US Department of Education's Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Chester Finn also authored WE MUST TAKE CHARGE: Our Schools and Our Future. In this book, not only does Finn advocate a national curriculum, but he also writes:

"The school is the vital delivery system, the state is the policy setter (and chief paymaster), and nothing in between is very important. This formulation turns on its head the traditional American assumption that every city, town and county bears the chief responsibility for organizing and operating its own schools as a municipal function. That is what we meant by 'local control,' but it has become an anachronism no longer justified by research, consistent with sound fiscal policy or organizational theory, suited to our mobility patterns, or important to the public." 6.

HUDSON'S WORKFORCE 2000

Hudson Institute scholars also developed Workforce 2000: Work and Wonders for the 21st Century. This publication calls for restructuring the American workforce in such a manner that only a small percentage of the population will be educated.

"In 1987, Hudson’s landmark study Workforce 2000 accurately forecasted the changes the American workforce would encounter with the new millennium. In 1997, Hudson released its sequel, Workforce 2020. In addition, Hudson played a crucial role in engineering Wisconsin’s Welfare-to-Work system in 1995, and its once-supported Modern Red Schoolhouse Project has been implemented by dozens of schools across the Midwest."

Hudson's web site announced the Workforce 2020 Conference preparing for the Millennium:

"Don't miss the Workforce 2020 Conference on September 23-24, hosted by Hudson Institute, publishers of the book, Workforce 2020: Work and Workers in the 21st Century. America's top workforce experts will speak."

Among the top workforce speakers listed were Hudson scholars, Chester Finn and co-author of Workforce 2000, Arnold Packer. The latter is also described as "Professor, Director of SCANS/2000 Johns Hopkins University...former Executive Director of the Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) at the U.S. Department of Labor."

SCANS was a pivotal document coming out of the Department of Labor at the upstart of GOALS 2000 -- identifying qualities business expected to be instilled in the workforce of the future. "Arnold Packer's book, Learning a Living: A Blueprint for High Performance was described in the SCANS report as 'the seminal study' which 'laid the cornerstone' of the 'reform structure' we continue to assemble." 7. The elitist philosophy of the Hudson Institute was expressed by SCANS committee and CFR member, Thomas Sticht, in the following statement:

"Many companies have moved operations to places with cheap, relatively poorly educated labor. What may be crucial, they say is dependability of a labor force and how well it can be managed and trained not its general educational level, although a small cadre of highly educated creative people are essential to innovation and growth."

For those who may be unfamiliar with education reform issues, Robert Holland explains What's Wrong with School-to-Work?

"School-to-Work, which is linked with Goals 2000, injects the federal government deeply and dangerously into shaping the curriculum of American schools. It puts the United States in the camp of regimes that decree what knowledge is "official," and, even more than that, how that knowledge should be taught and for what purpose.

"School-to-Work locks students into career tracks much too early, chilling opportunity and killing youthful dreams.

"Throughout their history, Americans have rejected efforts to have the government track their children into jobs satisfying the designs of economic planners.

"School-to-Work, as part of a national human resource development system, cuts local school boards and state legislators almost completely out of the decision-making loop... It will teach those skills the government planners say that children-whom they consider to be "human capital"-need to have in the Brave New Millennium.

"School-to-Work drastically narrows the curriculum, making it less likely that schools will produce literate, well-rounded generalists who can cope with rapid change in civic life as well as the workforce. School-to-Work is about the servile arts, not the liberal arts. We should remember that the liberal arts derive from the Latin libera, which means freedom. Vocational training can be liberating, too, but not compulsory training to meet state workforce quotas. That is a form of slavery."

Spring, 1998

FREEDOM HOUSE: A CFR FRONT

Freedom From Religious Persecution

1.    B.K. Eakman, Educating for the New World Order, Halcyon House, Portland, OR, 1991, p. 118.2.    Ibid., p. 121.3.    Russ Bellant, The Coors Connection, South End Press, 1988, p. 125.4.    Alice Bailey, TheExternalisation Of The Hierarchy,Lucis Trust, 1957, p. 511.5.    James R. Patrick, Editor, America 2000/Goals 2000 Research Manual, Citizens for Academic Excellence, 1994, p. 120.6.    Ibid., p. 117.7.    Ibid., p. 495.

===

Attachments