Wandering Away From Your Stated Purpose

Anyone who reads this site regularly knows that I am not a fan of the United Nations (U.N.). I think they have been taken over by a bunch of tin-horned dictators and need to be shut down and kicked out of New York City. Just the uncollected parking ticket revenue could reinvigorate the New York City budget! The current members list of the U.N. Human Rights Commission illustrates how far the U.N. has fallen from its original noble purpose ( to prevent further “generations from the scourge of war”, “reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights” (“equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small”), “establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained” and “promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom”.). The current members of the U.N. Human Rights Commission include Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela. Cuba and Venezuela are run by dictators who routinely ignore human rights, and Saudi Arabia does not allow religious freedom.

A website promoting a petition to remove the U.N. from all Israeli territory points out:

Furthermore, a notable subgroup UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) has been a) found to be storing weaponry for an internationally recognized terrorist organization and b) time and again shows that it does not treat various groups equally or respect international law despite these two things being at the core of the UN’s founding charter.

The amazing part of the story is that they gave the weapons back to Hamas:

Here is the UNRWA’s “apology” for allowing rockets to be stored in one of their schools in Gaza and here is a follow-up article stating that they did not turn said weapons over for destruction to UN forces or some other legal body that respects human rights but rather gave them back to Hamas, an internationally recognized terrorist organization that has to date committed numerous war crimes and various human rights violations according to the fourth Geneva Conventions.

It really is time to send the U.N. packing. They are not aiding the cause of peace.

Iran Has Been Apppointed To The United Nations Commission On The Status Of Women

Iran has been appointed to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. Good grief. A country that stones women if they have been raped, beats them if their skirts are too short, and allows family members to kill them if the violate the family code in any way is now on the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women.

Breitbart.com reported yesterday that Iran has been named to five United Nations sub-committees. It is definitely time for the United States to leave the United Nations, stop funding it, and kick it out of New York City. The United Nations no longer supports the idea of freedom and democracy–something it was originally purposed to do.

The article reports:

The United States has objected to Iran’s election to these positions. UN Ambassador Samantha Power said in a statement: “The unopposed candidacy of Iran, where authorities regularly detain human rights defenders, subjecting many to torture, abuse, and violations of due process, is a particularly troubling outcome of today’s election.”

Iran’s history makes it a clearly unworthy steward of international human rights, though two of those appointments are far more distressing than the others: the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations and the Commission on the Status of Women. Power’s statement preceded a promise to continue supporting NGOs that work to expose human rights violations abroad, many of which have clashed with the Iranian government when attempting to investigate its abuses. 

The appointment to that committee reaches the Iranian government at a time when they are attempting to quell uprisings triggered by a massive human rights scandal. The head of the Iranian prison system was removed and appointed to a position of less power this week after relatives of political prisoners at the nation’s notorious Evin prison called for justice for their relatives. Political prisoners at Evin allege that an inspection at the institution resulted in more than one hundred guards savagely beating and abusing dozens of prisoners. Iranian legislators have promised to investigate the situation.

It is truly time to remove ourselves from the United Nations.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Obama Administration Makes The Right Decision

Yes, you read that headline right. The Hill posted an article today in their Global Affairs blog stating that the Obama Administration has decided to deny a visa to Hamid Abutalebi, Iran‘s chosen Ambassador to the United Nations. Abutalebi has admitted that he worked as a translator and negotiator for the student group that held Americans hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Iran for 444 days.

The White House has informed the United Nations of this decision.

The article reports:

Abutalebi’s nomination prompted bipartisan outrage on Capitol Hill, where both chambers of Congress passed legislation that would prevent the government from providing a visa to any United Nations ambassadors with ties to terrorist attacks against the United States

…The bill could be seen as a violation of a 1947 treaty that obligates the United States to grant entry visas to the representatives of U.N. member states, which was signed as part of the bid to attract the permanent headquarters to New York.

But Carney said the White House shared the concerns at the root of the bill, and would work to implement its “intent.” He hinted that Obama might sign it but attach a signing statement questioning its constitutionality.

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the sponsors of the legislation Congress passed this week, praised the administration’s decision.

But Lamborn said Obama should still sign the bill to establish the legal authority to deny Abutalebi’s visa.

“I urge the President to sign the Cruz/Lamborn legislation which passed the House and Senate unanimously that actually gives the him the legal authority to deny this visa and future attempts to get terrorists into the United States with diplomatic cover,” Lamborn said in a statement to The Hill.

The appointment of Abutalebi was an illustration of the fact that Iran simply assumed that the President would not have the backbone to protest. I am glad that they were wrong.

Enhanced by Zemanta

What Happened?

Yesterday Michal Ledeen posted an article at PJ Media about the meaning of recent events in Fallujah.

The article opens with the following statement:

Al-Qaeda is back in Fallujah and Ramadi, where we defeated them in the recent past. Everyone in the Middle East knew it, and they all knew al-Qaeda was on the ropes.  Recruitment was more difficult, fund-raising likewise, and the cult of bin Laden was decidedly wobbly.

Mr. Ledeen reminds us that instead of seizing the moment, the Obama Administration chose to leave the country without securing its victory.

The article continues:

So we walked away, abandoning those who had staked their future to America’s commitment to freedom, and giving hope and time to our enemies, who regrouped and attacked again.  Thus, Iraq, where the slaughter often exceeds the death toll in Syria.  Thus, Syria itself.  And Lebanon.

Al-Qaeda, and others like them, can now say, “You see, Allah is indeed with us.  We are stronger than ever.  Much stronger.  We used to have bands of terrorists, but today we have armies.  The Americans have run away from Iraq, where our flag now flies, and they are running away from Afghanistan, where the Taliban are preparing to impose God’s will.  The future is clear.  We will win.  Join us, or perish.”

That is the meaning of Fallujah.  And everyone in the Middle East knows it.  These Americans can win some battles, but they do not have the stomach to win the war.

Unless we are determined to finish a war we start, we have no business starting it. We went into Iraq because Saddam Hussein brazenly ignored all the sanctions and limitations the United Nations had imposed on him to prevent him from any further attacks on his neighbors and his own people. The question of whether or not he had nuclear weapons has never been resolved (despite what you may read in the mainstream media). He was a threat to peace in the Middle East. Looking back, Iran was probably a bigger threat, but they had not invaded any of their neighbors. Had the United Nations oil embargo on Iraq been handled by honest people, it probably would have crippled Iraq enough that America might have avoided the war, but the corruption in the oil for food program only complicated the situation.

The article at PJ Media concludes:

Here in Washington, some pundits are saying that things are actually going well, since radical Sunnis and Shi’ites are killing one another.  The problem with this cheery outlook is that eventually one of them will win, and the winner won’t be good for us.  Moreover, Sunnis and Shi’ites have demonstrated they can work well together when the mission is killing Americans.

They can do that even when they’re killing one another.  Just wait.

Until we realize that the goal of radical Islam is a world-wide caliphate, we will continue to lose Americans and essentially lose the war on terror. We are up against a theology that worships death–not life. While we fight according to our rules of war, the radicals train children to hate the ‘infidels’ and to become suicide bombers. We can’t afford to walk away from the radical Islamists in the Middle East–if we do, they will come here.

Enhanced by Zemanta

It Never Really Was About The Environment

Global warming is not proven science. There are actually a very few things that are proven science. Almost every time one man declares that something is proven science, another man comes along with a different theory that also works. About the only thing we can actually count on as proven science is gravity. After that it gets a little sketchy.

On Wednesday the Daily Caller posted an article about the current United Nations climate talks.

The article reports:

The G77 and China bloc led 132 poor countries in a walk out during talks about “loss and damage” compensation for the consequences of global warming that countries cannot adapt to, like Typhoon Haiyan. The countries that left claim to have the support of other coalitions of poor nations, including the Least Developed Countries, the Alliance of Small Island States and the Africa Group.

We need to remember that poor nations are not poor because of global warming. When you look at the profiles of poor nations and rich nations, generally speaking richer nations embrace such things are private property rights, free enterprise, and a tax system that allows individuals to prosper. Many of the poorer countries that are demanding money in this deal are dictatorships where the money will simply line the pockets and improve the lifestyles of the leaders, but will never reach the people of the country.

Blackmailing successful countries in no way helps the average citizens of poorer countries–it only increases the power and wealth of their tyrannical leaders.

The article further reports:

“The carbon tax is bad for the economy and it doesn’t do any good for the environment,” (Australian) Prime Minister Tony Abbott told The Washington Post. “Despite a carbon tax of $37 a ton by 2020, Australia’s domestic emissions were going up, not down. The carbon tax was basically socialism masquerading as environmentalism, and that’s why it’s going to get abolished.”

Making richer countries poorer does not make poorer countries richer–it just empowers people who do not promote freedom.

Enhanced by Zemanta

America Is Rapidly Losing Friends

One of the campaign claims of Barack Obama was that George Bush’s foreign policy had resulted in America being disliked around the world and that he, Barack Obama, would change that. Well, it hasn’t exactly worked that way.

On Friday, Richard Fernandez posted an article at PJ Media about the changing relationship between America and Saudi Arabia.

The article reports:

Today Saudi Arabia rejected a seat on the UN Security Council to which it had been unanimously elected in protest against “its long-time patron United States’ overtures to Iran, among other peeves,” according to the Times of India.

Alienating Saudi Arabia is not necessarily a good thing. I understand that the government of Saudi Arabia is a repressive Islamic state. It is a dictatorship that severely limits the rights of women. However, the Saudis have been the major support of the U.S. dollar as the trading currency for oil. That is one of the major things that has prevented the U.S. dollar from becoming worthless paper.

The Saudis understand the threat that Iran presents. On October 3rd, the National Interest reported:

The Saudi royal family has seen Iran as a threat to their survival ever since 1979, when Iranian leaders began encouraging Shi’ite communities in Saudi Arabia’s oil-rich Eastern Province to rebel. Subsequently, the Kingdom has been engaged in a regional battle for influence with Iran, and the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq removed a traditional counterweight to Iranian power. Sunni rulers now fear a Shi’ite crescent stretching from Iran to the Mediterranean—and possibly south into the Arab Gulf states.

Fearing Iranian advances, the Kingdom spearheaded a 2011 military intervention by the Gulf Cooperation Council that was designed to rescue the minority Sunni regime in Bahrain from its Shi’ite opposition. But of late, Syria has been the biggest regional source of conflict between Riyadh and Tehran. Saudi officials insist that Syria’s Assad regime is guilty of genocide, and they see Iran’s efforts to rescue Assad as aiding and abetting this slaughter.

I have lost faith in the idea that any of the Muslim countries in the Middle East will form governments that will actually promote freedom. Sharia Law is not compatible with freedom, and Sharia Law is one of the basic tenets of Islam. I suspect our best course of action is to understand who we are dealing with and distance ourselves when necessary. Saudi Arabia is an ally in the fight against radical Shiite Islam, but the Wahabi brand of Sunni Islam in Saudi Arabia gave us Al Qaeda. We would be better off the let the radicals deal with each other and stay out of the way.

This is how Richard Fernandez sums up President Obama”s foreign policy:

Obama sold himself to the voters as the candidate of the future. His real talent however, apparently lies in missing every opportunity that history presents. It has been said that “generals always fight the last war, especially if they have won it”. With Obama it’s different. He always fights the last war and can’t even remember who won it, except to remain confirmed in his conviction that the future is some other country’s past.

President Obama may be a very intelligent man, but he obviously does not have a gift for dealing with (or understanding) the complexities of the Middle East.

Enhanced by Zemanta

I Really Like The British

Steven Hayward at Power Line posted an article today about a very interesting comment made by Owen Paterson, Britain’s secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs.

The Guardian posted his remarks today:

The cabinet minister responsible for fighting the effects of climate change claimed there would be advantages to an increase in temperature predicted by the United Nations including fewer people dying of cold in winter and the growth of certain crops further north.

Owen Paterson told a fringe meeting at the Conservative party conference on Sunday night that predictions by scientists – that there could be major increases in temperature resulting in melting ice caps and worldwide flooding – should not be seen as entirely negative.

…”People get very emotional about this subject and I think we should just accept that the climate has been changing for centuries.

“I think the relief of this latest report is that it shows a really quite modest increase, half of which has already happened. They are talking one to two and a half degrees.

“Remember that for humans, the biggest cause of death is cold in winter, far bigger than heat in summer. It would also lead to longer growing seasons and you could extend growing a little further north into some of the colder areas.

“I actually see this report as something we need to take seriously but I am rather relieved that it is not as catastrophic in its forecast as we had been led to believe early on and what it is saying is something we can adapt to over time and we are very good as a race at adapting,” he said.

Needless to say, those supporting drastic action to combat climate change that has not occurred for the past fifteen years are a bit upset at the comments. The science of climate change is questionable at best. When you listen to the solutions suggested by those offering solutions, you discover that they simply involve the transfer of wealth from democracies to countries ruled by tyrants. Their solutions have nothing to do with climate and a lot to do with taking money from free countries that have developed their resources through the free market and giving it to countries where the money will go to corrupt leaders. Somehow that doesn’t seem like the answer to anything.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Scientific Reports That Ignores Scientific Evidence

Brietbart.com posted a story today about the recently released report by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Because the IPCC could not explain why the earth has not warmed significantly over the past fifteen years (rising only 0.05 degrees Celsius (0.09 degrees Fahrenheit), they simply ignored the fact.

The article reports:

There have been many reports that have shown how climate models have vastly overestimated “warming.” For instance, a study in the journal Nature Climate Changecompared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990′s to the actual amount of warming” and 114 of those predictions overestimated the amount of warming. Other studies have found that various climate models used by the United Nations have “forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.” 

As Breitbart News reported, a group of 50 international scientists released a comprehensive new report, which cited thousands of peer-reviewed articles the United Nations-sponsored panel on climate change ignored, “concluded that evidence now leans against global warming resulting from human-related greenhouse gas emissions.”

There are serious questions about the scientific method behind the global climate studies. So far none of them have actually been accurate even in the short term. If you remember, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) predicted that due to global warming, this year would be one of the most active hurricane seasons on record. Admittedly, the season isn’t over yet, but so far that prediction falls somewhat short of the mark.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Congress As A Last Resort

On Monday, Byron York posted an article at the Washington Examiner about President Obama’s decision to seek authorization from Congress for military intervention in Syria.

The article points out that President Obama first sought approval on the world stage. When it became apparent that the world stage was not interested in giving its approval, President Obama sought approval from Congress.

The article reports:

It was only after it became clear to Obama that he could not win acceptance in other, preferred, circles that he chose to go to Congress. Would he have sought congressional authorization if he had won United Nations approval for a Syrian attack? Highly unlikely. Would he have sought congressional authorization if the British Parliament had voted to join Obama’s action? Also unlikely. Even approval from the Arab League might have been enough for Obama to act.

So where are we?

Yahoo News posted an article today with the following statement by Vladimir Putin:

He said he “doesn’t exclude” backing the use of force against Syria at the United Nations if there is objective evidence proving that Assad’s regime used chemical weapons against its people. But he strongly warned Washington against launching military action without U.N. approval, saying it would represent an aggression. Russia can veto resolutions at the U.N. Security Council and has protected Syria from punitive actions there before.

It will be interesting to see how Congress votes on this.

Enhanced by Zemanta

American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character

Tonight I had the privilege of hearing Diana West discuss her book American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character.

As Ms. West explained in an August 9, 2013, article for Townhall.com:

One point I try to convey when speaking to audiences about my new book, “American Betrayal,” is the inspiration of the truth-tellers.

These are the men and women who refused to stay silent and thus enable the “betrayal” the book lays out — engineered by a de facto Communist “occupation” of Washington by American traitors loyal to Stalin and, even more heartbreaking, largely covered up by successive U.S. administrations and elites.

The reason I take pains to bring these truth-tellers to light is that they remain lost to our collective memory, even as much confirmation of their truth-telling has become public record.

Ms. West explained that she began the investigation that led to the writing of the book by exploring the idea of how we got to a point where we are fed a constructed narrative and then fed the facts that support that narrative. Any facts that do not support the constructed narrative are conveniently left out. Anyone who speaks out against the constructed narrative is marginalized through the use of smear tactics, scorn, and isolation.

When truth-tellers warned us of communist infiltration into our government in the 1930′s and 1940′s, they were labeled red-baiters. When truth-tellers warn of Islamists in positions of influence today, they are called Islamaphobes. Commentators very rarely mention that after the Soviet Union fell, the archives revealed that the so-called red-baiters were right.

Ms. West related a number of stories from the book where people who were later shown to be Soviet agents held very influential positions in government and were responsible for major policy decisions.

The article at Townhall reminds us:

We still snicker reflexively over references to “the Red plot against America.”

With archival confirmation, however, we now know there was abundant Red influence on policymaking, as well as abundant Red plots, and many of them were brilliantly carried out to completion.

Meanwhile, we still fail to recognize that the institutions which define our world today, from the United Nations to the International Monetary Fund, were fostered by bona fide Soviet agents (such as the State Department‘s Alger Hiss and the Treasury Department‘s Harry Dexter White). We also remain oblivious to the contributions of those who spoke the truth along the way.

In his book Reason in Common Sense, George Santayana said, “Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it.” The book, American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character, reminds us of a past we cannot afford to forget.

Enhanced by Zemanta

What Do We Do In Syria?

Everyone who has seen the pictures of the innocent people killed by poison gas in Syria is wondering what America should do. There are questions as to who actually released the poison gas, and there are questions as to the motive of whoever used the gas. It is very disconcerting that anyone would use that kind of weapon.

The Heritage Foundation has recently posted two articles that clarify what is happening in Syria and the role America needs to play. One article, entitled “Top 5 Reasons Not To Use Missile Strikes in Syria” was posted on August 25. The other article, entitled “What to Do in Syria” was posted today.

The August 25th article lists five reasons not to attack Syria:

1. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine is not adequate justification for direct military intervention. This dangerous doctrine, promoted at the United Nations, undermines U.S. sovereignty by arguing for an obligation of nations to intervene.

2. A vital U.S. interest is not at stake. The U.S. does have an interest in the resolution of the conflict, but military force should be reserved for areas where the U.S. has a compelling need to act in defense of its own interests.

3. It would not be a wise use of military force. Military force should be used only if there is a clear, achievable, realistic purpose. Missile strikes are unlikely to deter the Assad regime and prevent further abuses. Rather, the U.S. risks escalating its involvement in the crisis.

4. Missile attacks would only make President Obama look weaker. Much like President Clinton’s ineffective cruise missile strikes on Osama bin Laden’s terrorist camps, strikes would only be seen as a sign that the U.S. is lacking a clear, decisive course of action.

5. It would distract from what the U.S. should be doing. Rather than attempting to intervene directly in the conflict, the U.S. should be working in a concerted manner with other countries in the region to hasten the end of the Assad regime and deal with the refugee crisis, the resurgence of al-Qaeda, and the destabilizing efforts of Iran and Hezbollah.

Today’s article at the Heritage Foundation suggests what we should do.

The article suggests:

Rather than attempting to intervene directly in the conflict, the U.S. should be working with other countries in the region to hasten the end of the Assad regime and deal with the refugee crisis and terrorist strongholds.

Like any solution to a difficult problem, even that is not a perfect solution. Some of the other countries in the region are working with America to bring down the Assad regime, but other countries in the region are propping up that regime.

However, bringing America into Syria’s civil war at this time will not accomplish anything.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

I Guess It Depended On Where You Were

New England had a hot July this summer. I live in a house without central air-conditioning, and we ran between two and three air conditioners most of the month. Usually we run two for about two weeks. Well, I guess there were other places that just weren’t quite that warm.

This is a map from a website called climatedepot.com:

RecordEvents-21Aug13

The map shows high and low record temperatures from July 24 through August 21. This was posted on their website yesterday.

Meanwhile, Steven Hayward at Power Line points out that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will begin its battle to convince us that global warming is real and man-made within the next few weeks. The IPCC will bring out its report in three sections–Science, Impacts, and Mitigation. The Science report is due out next month.

We already know from past scandals that much of the data used to prove global warming was cherry-picked–important warming periods were left out to skew the data. We have the emails to prove this. So why is the UN trying to convince us that global warming is real and that we are responsible? Because any bureaucracy in any governmental organization likes to grow and likes to control more people and more money. If the IPCC can convince Americans and other wealthy countries that unless they give all kinds of money to non-wealthy countries we will all die, chances are we will give them the money. Unfortunately, this is not about concern for the earth–this is about taking money from wealthy countries and giving it to other countries (generally run by tyrants who will live gloriously at our expense while giving nothing to the people of their countries.)

The earth’s climate goes through cycles. It has gone through cycles before man was here. Those cycles are somehow built into the way the earth works. So far we have not successfully figured out how those cycles work. In recent years the National Weather Service in America has predicted catastrophic hurricane seasons caused by global warming. We have had some severe hurricanes, but it has been a long time since we have seen a catastrophic hurricane season.

The bottom line here is that we as people do not control the earth. We could give all the money we have to corrupt dictators in third-world countries, and we still would not control the earth. We need to do everything we can to keep our air and planet clean, but giving money to countries that will not spend money responsibly helps neither us or the earth.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

When Sixties Radicals Refuse To Go Away

Bill Ayers, after avoiding prosecution on domestic terrorism charges, famously stated, “Guilty as hell, free as a bird—it’s a great country.” Well, he really hasn’t changed much. He has just adopted a more peaceful strategy in trying to ruin America.

Yesterday the Daily Caller reported that Bill Ayers has signed a letter urging the United Nations to investigate the closing of 49 Chicago elementary schools.

The article reports:

The Midwest Coalition for Human Rights sent the missive to the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights in Geneva, Switzerland this week.

The letter says that the closing of the schools is causing massive human rights violations.

The article reports:

The letter argues that the 49 school closings violate human rights because they affect black families disproportionately, because they force students to cross gang lines to get to the new schools they will attend, because class sizes will be slightly larger and because the school closings happened despite the objections of some people.

The dispatch asks the U.N. to “urge the United States to investigate and prevent these human rights violations.”

It’s not clear how or if the U.N.’s human rights office will act. The U.N. has no power to direct or regulate any federal, state or municipal government in the United States. The international body is, of course, free to conduct inquiries and issue findings, however.

An American city trying to balance its budget by closing schools and consolidating their educational program is running the risk of being investigated by the United Nations. This is not acceptable. First of all, according to a website called betterworldcampaign.org, America pays 22 percent of the regular UN budget and 27 percent of the peacekeeping budget. I really think we need to take a good look at what we are paying for. While we are at it, I think we should strongly encourage the United Nations to find a new home.

Bill Ayers was a domestic terrorist. He wanted to overthrow the American government. Now he has signed a letter asking the U.N. to take action undermining American sovereignty. I really don’t think he has changed much.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why I Don’t Believe Everything I Read

In his book Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution, The Alinsky Model, David Horowitz relates an incident that tells us all we need to know about how underhanded the game of politics can be.

The book states:

College student activists in the 1960′s and 1970′s sought out Alinksy for advice about tactics and strategy. On one such occasion in the spring of 1972 at Tulane University’s annual week-long series of events featuring leading public figures, students asked Alinsky to help plan a protest of a scheduled speech by George Bush, then U.S. representative to the United Nations, a speech likely to be a defense of the Nixon Administration‘s Vietnam War policies [Note: the Nixon Administration was then negotiating with the North Vietnamese Communists to arrive at a peace agreement- DH] The students told Alinsky that they were thinking about picketing or disrupting Bush’s address. That’s the wrong approach, he rejoined – not very creative and besides, causing a disruption might get them thrown out of school. [Not very likely-DH] He told them, instead, to go hear the speech dressed up as members of the Ku Klux Klan, and whenever Bush said something in defense of the Vietnam War, they should cheer and wave placards, reading, ‘The K.K.K. supports Bush.’ And that is what the students did with very successful, attention-getting results. (This story is taken from a Saul Alinksy book, Let Them Call Me Rebel)

So why am I telling this story? The tactics really have not changed. A website called redflagnews is reporting that Renee Vaughan, who was holding a sign at a Trayvon Martin rally, was not who she appeared to be. Ms. Vaughan held a sign that stated, “We’re racist & proud,” and stood with the group supporting George Zimmerman.

The article at Red Flag News reports:

Austin resident Renee Vaughan echoed the sign’s ugly sentiments by yelling, “We’re racist. We’re proud. We’re better because we’re white,” at the Martin group as they passed, according to the Chronicle.

Brandon Darby interviewed Renee Vaughan at the rally. She told him her sign means that “there are people here who are racist and apparently think that’s OK. I’m not one of them. I’m being sarcastic.”

It looks as if Saul Alinsky’s tactics are alive and well among those who want to divide this nation along racial lines.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Protecting Our Security In The Western Hemisphere

Today’s Los Angeles Times posted a story about a North Korean ship passing through the Panama Canal on route home from Cuba found to be carrying missile equipment. Panama President Ricardo Martinelli has released details of the discovery to the Panamanian media. He has also posted pictures on his Twitter account.

The article reports:

If the shipment proves to be missiles or other arms, it would likely constitute a violation of United Nations sanctions against North Korea that prohibit the importation of conventional weapons and items that could be used to develop nuclear weapons and missiles.

The sanctions against the hermit-like communist country have been in place since 2006, and were strengthened by the U.N. Security Council in March after the North Koreans announced a nuclear test in Febraury.

The Spanish news agency EFE reported that a Korean military delegation headed by general Kim Kyok Sik had visited with top Cuban military officials in Havana in late June. The North Korean general said at the time that the two friendly countries shared “the same foxhole.”

This episode shows that the United Nations sanctions against North Korea are not really working. In both Cuba and North Korea, the average citizen lives in conditions those of us who live in free countries can’t even imagine. Letting their governments continue to increase their weaponry does no one any good–either the citizens of their countries or the rest of the world.

Enhanced by Zemanta

America Is On The Wrong Side Of This

Yesterday the Washington Times reported that American soldiers will be taking part in a Multinational Force and Observers peacekeeping force in Egypt. Ultimately about 400 American troops will take part in the 9-month mission aimed at curbing riots. The troops will be stationed at checkpoints along the Sinai Peninsula. They’re also tasked with reporting violations to the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. My first question here is “Who will be commanding these American troops?”

The United Nations is probably one of the most anti-Israel organizations in the world. Last year the United Nations Human Rights Council called for a boycott on all companies doing business in Israel (rightwinggranny.com). How can anyone expect the United Nations to report honestly on peace treaty violations? The United Nations observers in Lebanon has been silent as Hezbollah has built up its weapons (Reuters). Why would their actions in the Sinai be any different?

In April the Reuters article linked above reported:

“Under pressure, a multi-national force is like an umbrella that gets folded up on a rainy day,” Yaakov Amidror, Netanyahu’s national security adviser, said in a Tel Aviv University speech.

Iranian- and Syrian-backed Hezbollah, Amidror said, has been building its arsenal despite the 35-year presence of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) in its heartland.

“Has Hezbollah avoided bringing any kind of rocket, missile or other arms into southern Lebanon because UNIFIL is there?” he said. Israel believes Hezbollah has amassed 60,000 rockets, including 5,000 with heavy warheads capable of hitting Tel Aviv.

“Under their (UNIFIL) mandate, they cannot stop Hezbollah and confiscate its arms, but they can write a report. There has been no UNIFIL report about any weapon of any Hezbollah person since UNIFIL has existed,” Amidror said.

As part of the U.N. ceasefire that ended Israel’s inconclusive 2006 war with Hezbollah, UNIFIL’s mandate was enhanced to include “assisting” the Lebanese army with keeping guerrilla “personnel, assets and weapons” out of south Lebanon.

Israel is America’s only true ally in the Middle East. We need to protect them–not aid and abet their enemies. The countries surrounding Israel train their children to hate Israel and to grow up to be soldiers or suicide bombers to destroy Israel. This is a picture of a kindergarten graduation in Gaza that I posted last June (rightwinggranny.com)::

Israel lives with this threat every day. We need to be sure that we are helping combat the threat–not becoming part of it. Our future as America depends on it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Hanging On To Free Speech By Your Fingernails

On Friday Politico reported that Bill Killian, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, has suggested that some inflammatory material on Islam might run afoul of federal civil rights laws. That in itself is an interesting statement, but it gets even more interesting if you understand the Islamic definition of slander. According to Sharia Law, slander is any negative comment about Mohammad–it doesn’t matter if the statement is true or not.  If you say “Jesus is Lord,” that is considered slander because in Islam Mohammad is Lord.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation has been pushing the United Nations for years to adopt a resolution that criminalizes free speech and institutes international blasphemy laws. (See Breitbart.com)  Pastor Saeed, an American citizen, has been sentenced to eight years in prison in Iran because of his Christian faith. Unless Americans stand up for their right to free speech, we could very easily lose that right. If you think that can’t happen here, remember that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, who made the anti-Islamic video that was NOT responsible for the attack in Benghazi, is still in jail.

I am not saying that we should abuse our right to free speech. I do not support burning the Koran or unfairly criticizing anyone’s religion. I just don’t want to see a special set-aside that says criticizing Islam is not free speech and criticizing Christianity is. Free speech applies to everyone. When we introduced the concept of ‘hate speech,’ we opened a door that we may someday regret walking through. How about some good old-fashioned manners instead?

Enhanced by Zemanta

If You Can’t Pass It In Congress, Go Around Them

Breitbart.com is reporting today that President Obama will sign the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) on June 3.

The article reports:

This treaty is ostensibly aimed at putting an end to gun trafficking across international boundaries, and both Breitbart News and the NRA have argued that it will eventually require an international gun registry in order to be enforceable. 

The ATT also provides the executive branch of our government with broad powers for controlling which guns do and don’t come into the country, and includes ambiguous language that a gun-control-friendly administration can use to its advantage.

Even though Obama will sign this treaty, it is not enforceable in the U.S. until the Senate ratifies it by a two-thirds majority.

America is one of the few functioning republics in the world. Part of our freedom rests on the citizens’ ability to own guns under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If Americans choose to retain their freedom, they need to speak out against those bills and treaties that work against the Constitution. Since President Obama was not able to push gun control legislature through Congress, he is doing an end run around Congress via this United Nations treaty. Please call your Senator and tell him (or her) not to support this treaty–it will not stop international arms trade–it will only take guns away from law-abiding Americans.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Let’s Put The Budget Together Right After The Company Christmas Party

Putting the budget together for a business right after the company Christmas party is ridiculous, right? Well, evidently the United Nations has done that consistently in the past.

ABC News posted a story today quoting Ambassador Joseph M. Torsella, who represents the U.S. on the U.N.’s budget committee.

The story reports:

Ambassador Joseph M. Torsella, who represents the U.S. on the U.N.’s budget committee, said Monday that the tense process of negotiating the world body’s annual budget is made more complicated by the number of diplomats who turn up drunk.

The U.N. budget is finalized in December, when holiday parties apparently lead to some revelry spilling over into budget negotiations.

The U.S. is making “the modest proposal that the negotiating rooms should in future be an inebriation-free zone,” Torsella said during a private meeting of the budget committee. The U.S. mission released a transcript of his remarks.

It’s mostly American money, so why should they worry?Enhanced by Zemanta

Why We Need The Keystone Pipeline

The Financial Times reported yesterday that American increased the amount of oil it imported from the Middle East last year.

The article reports that by the end of November the U. S. had already imported 450m barrels of crude oil from Saudi Arabia, more than we imported in 2009, 2010, or 2011. This is the first time since 2003 that Saudi Arabia has accounted for more than 15 percent of America’s oil imports. The Gulf region accounted for more than 25 percent–a nine-year high. This is happening at the same time that demand for crude oil has declined slightly since 2004 due to increased efficiency, an economic slowdown, and the increased use of natural gas.

This is foolish on the part of America. Because of our dependence on Middle-Eastern oil, we are forced to make political and foreign policy decisions that are not in our best interest. Whether we choose to acknowledge it or not, there is currently a clash of civilizations between western freedom and Islamic nations and radicals that do not support freedom. We are supporting these radicals with our oil purchases. If you look at the changes in the United Nations over the past thirty years, you will find that the new empowerment of Islamic groups was financed by Americans buying oil. The anti-Semitism that has ruled the United Nations in recent years is funded by Americans buying Middle East oil. Saudi Arabia, who is an awkward ally at best, is one of the major financial backers of terrorism and extreme Islam around the world, and we keep giving them oil money.

It is time for America to declare its energy independence. That does not mean wind and solar–so far they do not work. We live in a carbon-based world economy. We might as well acknowledge this and get on with life. The Keystone Pipeline would be a positive step in that direction.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Bad News From Algeria

The Associated Press is reporting tonight that hostage crisis at the natural gas complex in Algeria has ended with the deaths of all 32 of the the terrorists involved, and unfortunately the deaths of at least 23 hostages. Algeria has a history of dealing with terrorists with military action rather than negotiations.

The article reports:

Immediately after the assault, French President Francois Hollande gave his backing to Algeria’s tough tactics, saying they were “the most adapted response to the crisis.”

“There could be no negotiations” with terrorists, the French media quoted him as saying in the central French city of Tulle.

Hollande said the hostages were “shamefully murdered” by their captors, and he linked the event to France’s military operation against al-Qaida-backed rebels in neighboring Mali. “If there was any need to justify our action against terrorism, we would have here, again, an additional argument,” he said.

There are a few things to remember here. One is that kidnapping and hostage taking is one way the terrorists raise money for their activities. If you follow the link above and read the entire article, you will realize that the terrorists had no qualms about killing any westerner they happened to take prisoner. Another thing to remember is that President Morsi of Egypt (and the Muslim Brotherhood) is pressuring the United States to release the blind sheik.

It was reported in the New York Post today that:

Trapped terrorists made a bizarre offer to end the 3-day-old Sahara showdown: We’ll trade the blind sheik for US hostages.

The lives of two Americans seized in a brazen attack on a remote Algerian gas plant would be spared in return for the release from federal prisons of Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman and a fellow terrorist.

Terrorism needs to become unprofitable and socially unacceptable. Unfortunately that will not happen until the civilized world unites against it. The United Nations is useless in combating terrorism because the Islamic states have formed a voting bloc that prevents the United Nations from acting (also because of the anti-Semitism that seems to have found its way into the United Nations).

As much as I regret the loss of innocent lives, I think the Algerian military handled the situation well. To me, the best example of a successful hostage rescue is the Israeli Defense Forces raid on Entebbe on July 4, 1976. The Israelis did their homework–they knew the layout of the airport and they managed to rescue the hostages with a minimum number of casualties. That example needs to be studied. I understand that there were certain aspects of that raid that could not be duplicated, but we need to learn from our successes.

My condolences to the families of those lost this weekend.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Who Pays For The United Nations?

I am not a fan of the United Nations to begin with–I think it has lost its way from its original purpose and become a forum for thugs and tyrants rather than a forum to promote freedom. Because of this, I really do not like the amount of money America contributes to this organization. But let’s look at who finances the United Nations.

On Friday, CNS News posted some of the details of the United Nations funding. The article reports:

The 193 U.N. member-states’ contributions are assessed according to their relative “capacity to pay,” based on population size and gross national income (converted to U.S. dollars at market exchange rates). The ceiling is 22 percent while the bottom level is 0.001 percent, which over the next three years will apply to more than 30 of the world’s poorest countries.

The United States has paid 22 percent of the total regular budget every year since 2000, and will now continue to do so for the next three years. The U.S. pays 25 percent of the separate peacekeeping budget.

The article reports:

Some developing countries have seen relatively significant increases in their assessments: China, the world’s second-largest economy, will pay 5.15 percent, up from 3.12 last time; the Russian contribution has risen to 2.44 percent from 1.60 percent; Brazil’s 2.93 percent is an increase from 1.61.

China’s year-on-year GDP growth rate last year was 9.2 percent, Russia’s was 4.3 percent and Brazil’s 2.7 percent, according to CIA World Factbook data.

India’s increase in U.N. contributions is more modest – from 0.53 to 0.66 percent – while Japan, Canada and European countries including Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain will contribute a smaller percentage over the next three years than they have over the past three.

The United Nations General Assembly has approved a two-year U.N. budget of $5.4 billion.

I really think it is time to remove the United Nations from New York City and to remove America from the United Nations. If we want an international organization to support peace and freedom, we should form one with the democracies of the world and leave the thugs and tyrants out of it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Some Interesting News From The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted a story yesterday about the current draft of the report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The draft has been leaked and contains one very interesting paragraph.

This is the paragraph:

Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.

I am not a scientist, and to me that paragraph is a foreign language, but Mr. Hinderaker is kind enough to explain what it means.

He explains:

It shouldn’t be a surprise that variations in the Sun’s output are responsible, at least in part, for variations in Earth’s temperatures. The problem is that if you simply do the math on radiant heat, the known increase in solar activity during the second half of the 20th century accounts for only a small portion of the assumed increase in temperature over that period. So the alarmists have denied that the Sun plays a significant role. More recent work has strongly suggested that solar radiation plays a role above and beyond radiant heat, by influencing cloud cover, which is a key factor in temperature. Given the strong correlation between solar activity and temperature, this work has been persuasive.

The bottom line here is simple–we didn’t do it! The progress of civilization is not the major cause of global warming–the sun and the sun’s impact on cloud cover play a major role in global climate.

So what is really going on in the IPCC? The United Nations is no longer controlled by freedom-loving countries. It has been taken over by a block of third-world nations who feel that the developed nations of the world should finance the dictators and thugs running their countries. There is no concern here for science, truth, or preserving the planet. The concern is, “How can I get money to build a bigger house for myself while my people starve?” We saw that in the UN-run food-for-oil program in Iraq. Now we are seeing the same corruption in the blackmail attempts under the guise of combating ‘global warming.’

The entire leaked report (and more scientific analysis) can be found at wattsupwiththat.com. Please take the time to look at the leaked draft before it is changed!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Climate Change Really Is All About Money

This article is based on three articles, one posted at Power Line yesterday, one posted at Tulsa World on Saturday, and one posted at the Daily Caller yesterday. All three articles are related to the United Nations climate conference at Doha.

The article at Power Line quotes Walter Russell Mead in it’s closing remarks:

The Kyoto protocol, the ineffectual walking dead climate treaty, will lurch on for a few more years, toothless and brain dead. The rich countries yet again remain vague about what for most developing countries is the only real point of the whole thing, substituting vague pledges of good well for the annual $100 billion in green gold demand by the third world countries whose clueless militancy turned the General Assembly into a pointless sideshow decades ago.

The inexorable decline of the climate movement from its Pickett’s Charge at the Copenhagen summit continues. The global green lobby is more flummoxed than ever. These people and these methods couldn’t make a ham sandwich, much less save Planet Earth.

The Daily Caller reports:

However, the Kyoto extension — which lasts until 2020 — was only backed by 37 out of 194 countries, accounting for 15 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the German publication FOCUS magazine. There is still no clear deal on how much these countries would reduce their emissions.

Der Spiegel online also reports that only 37 countries have agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2012, but that no reduction targets were specified.

Tulsa World reports some of the background on the United Nations and climate charge:

“Three years ago, President Obama helped create a United Nations Green Slush Fund that would redistribute over $100 billion from developed countries to developing countries,” Inhofe (U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe) said.

“While he has been racking up huge deficits and talking up tax increases, the president has already sent billions of American taxpayer dollars to the United Nations – and he’s managed to do it quietly so that no one will notice.”

The U.S. also subsidizes fossil fuel use – at five times the rate of alternative fuels, according to some sources – in developing countries, but those subsidies do not threaten the status quo.

In his video message to the Doha group, Inhofe quotes U.N. Climate Chief Christiana Figueres as saying her job involves “transformation” directed by “a centralized policy perspective.”

“This is the top U.N. climate chief,” Inhofe said. “She sees herself as the overseer of ‘transforming’ the lives of everyone on the planet.”

This is a worldwide redistribution of wealth program. I would be truly wise of the United States to refuse to cooperate.

Enhanced by Zemanta