The United Nations Needs A History Lesson

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line posted a story about a proposed UNESCO resolution regarding Israel. The resolution is further evidence that the United Nations has lost its way as a peace-keeping organization and has become an outlet for antisemitism around the world.

The article reports:

The United Nation Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) passed a draft resolution on Thursday that failed to acknowledge the Jewish people’s ties to the Temple Mount, raising ire in Israel.

The proposal “strongly condemns the Israeli escalating aggressions and illegal measures against the Waqf Department and its personnel, and against the freedom of worship and Muslims’ access to their Holy Site Al-Aqsa Mosque/Al-Haram Al Sharif, and requests Israel, the Occupying Power, to respect the historic Status Quo and to immediately stop these measures.”

It omits the Jewish name for the holy site—the Temple Mount—and instead refers to it only by its Muslim name—Al-Haram Al Sharif.

One of the things that happened after the 1967 war was that Israel allowed religious people access to their religious sites. Under Muslim rule, that does not happen–Christian churches and Jewish synagogues are destroyed when Muslims control a country along with historic artifacts.

Currently, one of the strongest voting blocs in the United Nations is the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. This bloc is made up of a number of nations that support a worldwide caliphate, Sharia Law, and the destruction of Israel. As long as this bloc is a major player, the United Nations cannot function as an organization working toward world peace.

The article at Power Line includes some of the history of Jerusalem:

David conquered the Jebusites and captured Jerusalem 3,000 years ago. Jerusalem has been the center of Jewish life and worship ever since. Herod the Great raised the Second Temple, where Jesus taught and, according to the Gospels, drove out the money-changers. Jesus was arrested, tried and executed in Jerusalem. The Romans destroyed the Second Temple following the Jewish rebellion not long thereafter. Jews have lived in Jerusalem, and sought to return there from around the world, for millennia. Muslims arrived in the area roughly 1,600 years after the Jews, on the most charitable interpretation of history.

Temple Mount is exactly that–the site of the Second Temple, for sure, and perhaps, as tradition records, the location of Solomon’s temple and, long before that, the place where Abraham almost sacrificed Isaac. To suggest that Temple Mount has no historical connection to the Jewish people, and the modern state of Israel, is ridiculous–precisely the sort of absurdism that international leftists, and especially Arabs, engage in. It would be like claiming that Washington, D.C. has no connection to the American people, only worse, by 2,750 years or so.

The Israeli government has gone to the length of issuing a publication detailing the millennia-long relationship between the Jewish people and the Promised Land. I admire the Israelis’ patience, but in their shoes, I think I would tell the lunatics–the UNESCO resolution was sponsored by Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Qatar and Sudan, and supported by any number of Europeans–to get stuffed.

It is truly time for the United States to leave the United Nations and to evict them from their New York City headquarters. One of my daughters suggested that they might leave voluntarily if we forced them to pay all of the diplomats’ parking tickets. I think that is a really good idea.

One Of The Few World Leaders Who Tells The Truth

Below is some of the speech made by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the 71st sessions of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, September 22, 2016:

Mr. President,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

What I’m about to say is going to shock you: Israel has a bright future at the UN.

Now I know that hearing that from me must surely come as a surprise, because year after year I’ve stood at this very podium and slammed the UN for its obsessive bias against Israel. And the UN deserved every scathing word – for the disgrace of the General Assembly that last year passed 20 resolutions against the democratic State of Israel and a grand total of three resolutions against all the other countries on the planet.

Israel – twenty; rest of the world – three.

And what about the joke called the UN Human Rights Council, which each year condemns Israel more than all the countries of the world combined. As women are being systematically raped, murdered, sold into slavery across the world, which is the only country that the UN’s Commission on Women chose to condemn this year? Yep, you guessed it – Israel. Israel. Israel where women fly fighter jets, lead major corporations, head universities, preside – twice – over the Supreme Court, and have served as Speaker of the Knesset and Prime Minister.

And this circus continues at UNESCO. UNESCO, the UN body charged with preserving world heritage. Now, this is hard to believe but UNESCO just denied the 4,000-year connection between the Jewish people and its holiest site, the Temple Mount. That’s just as absurd as denying the connection between the Great Wall of China and China.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The UN, begun as a moral force, has become a moral farce. So when it comes to Israel at the UN, you’d probably think nothing will ever change, right? Well think again. You see, everything will change and a lot sooner than you think. The change will happen in this hall, because back home, your governments are rapidly changing their attitudes towards Israel. And sooner or later, that’s going to change the way you vote on Israel at the UN.

More and more nations in Asia, in Africa, in Latin America, more and more nations see Israel as a potent partner – a partner in fighting the terrorism of today, a partner in developing the technology of tomorrow.

Today Israel has diplomatic relations with over 160 countries. That’s nearly double the number that we had when I served here as Israel’s ambassador some 30 years ago. And those ties are getting broader and deeper every day. World leaders increasingly appreciate that Israel is a powerful country with one of the best intelligence services on earth. Because of our unmatched experience and proven capabilities in fighting terrorism, many of your governments seek our help in keeping your countries safe.

Many also seek to benefit from Israel’s ingenuity in agriculture, in health, in water, in cyber and in the fusion of big data, connectivity and artificial intelligence – that fusion that is changing our world in every way.

You might consider this: Israel leads the world in recycling wastewater. We recycle about 90% of our wastewater. Now, how remarkable is that? Well, given that the next country on the list only recycles about 20% of its wastewater, Israel is a global water power. So if you have a thirsty world, and we do, there’s no better ally than Israel.

How about cybersecurity? That’s an issue that affects everyone. Israel accounts for one-tenth of one percent of the world’s population, yet last year we attracted some 20% of the global private investment in cybersecurity. I want you to digest that number. In cyber, Israel is punching a whopping 200 times above its weight. So Israel is also a global cyber power. If hackers are targeting your banks, your planes, your power grids and just about everything else, Israel can offer indispensable help.

Governments are changing their attitudes towards Israel because they know that Israel can help them protect their peoples, can help them feed them, can help them better their lives.

This summer I had an unbelievable opportunity to see this change so vividly during an unforgettable visit to four African countries. This is the first visit to Africa by an Israeli prime minister in decades. Later today, I’ll be meeting with leaders from 17 African countries. We’ll discuss how Israeli technology can help them in their efforts to transform their countries.

In Africa, things are changing. In China, India, Russia, Japan, attitudes towards Israel have changed as well. These powerful nations know that, despite Israel’s small size, it can make a big difference in many, many areas that are important to them.

But now I’m going to surprise you even more. You see, the biggest change in attitudes towards Israel is taking place elsewhere. It’s taking place in the Arab world. Our peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan continue to be anchors of stability in the volatile Middle East. But I have to tell you this: For the first time in my lifetime, many other states in the region recognize that Israel is not their enemy. They recognize that Israel is their ally. Our common enemies are Iran and ISIS. Our common goals are security, prosperity and peace. I believe that in the years ahead we will work together to achieve these goals, work together openly.

So Israel’s diplomatic relations are undergoing nothing less than a revolution. But in this revolution, we never forget that our most cherished alliance, our deepest friendship is with the United States of America, the most powerful and the most generous nation on earth. Our unbreakable bond with the United States of America transcends parties and politics. It reflects, above all else, the overwhelming support for Israel among the American people, support which is at record highs and for which we are deeply grateful.

The United Nations denounces Israel; the United States supports Israel. And a central pillar of that defense has been America’s consistent support for Israel at the UN. I appreciate President Obama’s commitment to that longstanding US policy. In fact, the only time that the United States cast a UN Security Council veto during the Obama presidency was against an anti-Israel resolution in 2011. As President Obama rightly declared at this podium, peace will not come from statements and resolutions at the United Nations.

…We will not accept any attempt by the UN to dictate terms to Israel. The road to peace runs through Jerusalem and Ramallah, not through New York.

Israel is one of the few nations in the Middle East that is actually working toward peace. The United Nations is not helping that effort. You can read the entire speech here.

Filling In The Blanks

This is the video of part of President Obama’s final speech to the United Nations. The video is posted on YouTube:

On the surface, cooperation among nations is a really good idea to fight terrorism, but let’s look closely at what he said.

We have to put our money where our mouths are. And we can only realize the promise of this institution’s founding to replace the ravages of war with cooperation if powerful nations like my own accept constraints. Sometimes I’m criticized in my own country for professing a belief in international norms and multilateral institutions, but I’m convinced in the long run giving up some freedom of action, not giving up our ability to protect ourselves or pursue our core interests but binding ourselves to international rules, over the long-term, enhances our security.

Note the words “if powerful nations like my own accept constraints.” Let’s take a close look at that idea. Remember President Obama’s statement, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” One of the major political blocs in the United Nations is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The ultimate goal of the OIC is to institute Sharia Law around the world–on Muslims and non-Muslims alike. They are subtle in their approach to this and began with the Cairo Declaration, which came into play during the United Nations’ work on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Please understand that not everyone has the same definition of Human Rights.

This is the quote from the Cairo Declaration regarding free speech:

Article 22

(a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such a manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.

(b) Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’ah.

The OIC routinely orchestrates a “Day of Rage” when they believe Islam has been insulted. A ‘crisis event’ is chosen, appropriate flags or banners are obtained, rioters are assembled, and the riots begin. What President Obama is saying is that in order to bring peace, Americans may have to give up their freedom of speech, expression, etc. That is the imposition of one of the principles of Sharia Law on a non-Muslim country. The Muslim Mayor of London has moved to ban all scantily dressed models in advertising, citing the concept of ‘body shaming,’ a new word introduced for purposes that will be obvious down the road. Again, the Mayor is beginning to impose modesty standards (a step toward Shari’ah Law) on a non-Muslim population.

The YouTube video below tells us all we need to know:

You have a choice in this election–do you want to continue the policies of President Obama or is it time for a change of direction?

Now The United Nations Wants To Control What We Eat

On June 30th, The Providence Journal posted an article about the United Nations concerns for the heath of the world if people continue to eat meat.

The article reports:

It may be delicious, but the evidence is accumulating that meat, particularly red meat, is just a disaster for the environment – and not so great for human beings, too.

By 2050, scientists forecast that emissions from agriculture alone will account for how much carbon dioxide the world can use to avoid catastrophic global warming. It already accounts for one-third of emissions today – and half of that comes from livestock.

That’s a driving reason why members of a United Nations panel last month urged its environmental assembly to consider recommending a tax on meat producers and sellers. By raising the cost of buying meat, it would ultimately aim to reduce production and demand for it.

Maarten Hajer, professor at the Netherlands’ Utrecht University, led the environment and food report that recommended the meat tax.

“All of the harmful effects on the environment and on health needs to be priced into food products,” said Hajer, who is a member of U.N.’s International Resource Panel, which comprises 34 top scientists and 30 governments. “I think it is extremely urgent.”

First of all, I would like to point out that human beings have canine teeth–they are designed for eating meat. Second of all, I would like to point out that man-caused global warming is a myth. For honest information on global warming see wattsupwiththat.

The United Nations has forgotten its purpose. The United Nations  supposedly originally started to avoid world wars by creating a place for negotiation and dialogue and to encourage the expansion of individual freedom in all countries. However, in recent years, the United Nations has become an organization desiring to form a one-world government and take away individual freedom. Agenda 21 is a prime example of this. If you are unfamiliar with Agenda 21, google it or use the search engine on this website. The United Nations wants to control where you live, how big your house is, how much property you own, and now, how you eat.

The article further reports:

But, governments must soon move to limit major carbon producers, Hajer said. Food companies will naturally be part of that.

The idea of a meat tax has developed over the past 25 years as a “completely obvious” measure to economists and environmentalists, Hajer said, as knowledge of the environmental toll of meat emerged.

Agriculture consumes 80 percent of water in the United States. For a kilogram of red meat, you need considerably more water than for plant products.

Governments are starting to take notice. China, which consumes half of the world’s pork and more than a quarter of its overall meat, announced new dietary guidelines last week that advise the average citizen to reduce meat consumption by half. That country’s meat consumption has increased nearly five-fold since 1982, even though their population has only increased by 30 percent during that time.

Denmark went a little further in May. The Danish government is considering a recommendation from its ethics council that all red meats should be taxed. Red meat accounts for 10 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions, and the council argued that Danes were “ethically obliged” to reduce their consumption.

I am very concerned about the world we will be leaving our children and grandchildren. Junk science is not a basis for extorting money from people who produce or eat a product that has fallen out of favor with the elites. My question is simple, “What are they serving at diplomatic dinners at the United Nations?”

 

Can Anyone Stop This Runaway Train?

Actually, there are two runaway trains–one is federal spending and the other is overreach by President Obama. Yesterday The Daily Signal posted an article that illustrates both of them. The article was written by Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma.

The article reports:

Last week, the Senate passed legislation to address and prevent the spread of the Zika virus. However, the Senate failed to pay for it, and instead approved a $1.1 billion “emergency” spending supplemental bill that is not subject to the budgetary caps that were agreed to last year.

While congressional inattention to the budget crisis is inexcusable, it is even more disturbing that the Obama administration already has the authority to pay for a Zika response from existing agency budgets, but chose not to.

…But an international medical emergency has now become a U.S. budget emergency, a major debt crisis that will impact our children as well.

If there was a way to both respond to Zika and prevent new debt spending, wouldn’t it be reasonable to do that? The Department of Health and Human Services, Department of State, and International Assistance Programs currently have about $80 billion in unobligated funds.

A small fraction of this could be reprogrammed and redirected to respond to the Zika emergency and not add any additional debt to our nation’s children. This is exactly the type of authority the Obama administration asked for in 2009 during the height of the H1N1 virus scare.

…In a floor speech last week, I also shed light on the fact that Congress last December provided the Obama administration with authority to pull money from bilateral economic assistance to foreign countries.

They can use those funds to combat infectious diseases, if the administration believed there is an infectious disease emergency. In the middle of the Zika epidemic, the administration did use their authority to pull money from foreign aid and spend it, but they didn’t use it for Zika.

You might ask—so what did the administration spend the infectious disease money on earlier this year?

You guessed it… climate change.

It gets worse.:

In March, President Obama gave the United Nations $500 million out of an account under bilateral economic assistance to fund the U.N.’s Green Climate Fund.

Congress refused to allocate funding for the U.N. Climate Change Fund last year, so the president used this account designated for international infectious diseases to pay for his priority.

While I understand that intelligent people can disagree on the human effects on the global climate, it is hard to imagine a reason why the administration would prioritize the U.N. Green Climate Fund over protecting the American people, especially pregnant women, from the Zika virus.

The U.N. Green Climate Fund is connected to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which recently accepted the “State of Palestine” as a signatory. There is currently in place a U.S. funding prohibition that forbids any taxpayer dollars to fund international organizations that recognize “Palestine” as a sovereign state. Evidently the Obama Administration chose to ignore that prohibition and also to create more debt that our children and grandchildren will have to deal with. Someone needs to stop this runaway train.

When Their True Colors Show…

Islam is not a tolerant religion–women are stoned for adultery, thieves have their hands cut off, infidels are beheaded, and homosexual men are thrown off the tops of buildings to their death. In an Islamic country, if you don’t fit the Islamic picture of what you are supposed to be, your life can get very complicated very quickly. There was an example of how this principle works internationally this week.

Fox News reported on Wednesday that the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a major voting block in the United Nations, prevented 11 gay and transgender rights organizations from attending a meeting at the United Nations next month on ending AIDS. The OIC was organized in 1969 with the stated goal of “revitalizing Islam’s  pioneering role in the world.” At that time, it was called the Organization of the Islamic Conference. In 2011, it was renamed the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation. The purpose of the organization is to be the voice of the Muslim world and to safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world. Its membership includes 57 countries.

The article at Fox News reports:

In Egypt’s letter, a reason for the OIC’s rejection of the groups was not specified, but Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said the groups appeared to have been blocked for their role in LGBT advocacy.

“Given that transgender people are 49 times more likely to be living with HIV than the general population, their exclusion from the high-level meeting will only impede global progress in combating the HIV/AIDS pandemic,” Power wrote in a letter to General Assembly President Mogens Lykketoft.

U.N. officials told Reuters that the E.U. and Canada also wrote letters to Lykketoft in protest.

“The movement to block the participation of NGOs on spurious or hidden grounds is becoming epidemic and severely damages the credibility of the U.N.,” Powers added.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon – caught in the middle of the battle for gay rights – has been an advocate for LGBT equality but has faced opposition from African and Arab states as well as Russia and China. In February, the countries protested six new U.N. stamps promoting LGBT equality.

The items on the liberal wish list in America are in direct contradiction to Islamic law. It will be interesting to see when the American left wakes up to this fact. When the gay population that supports the agenda of the political left realizes that under Sharia Law they will be killed, they may stop advocating for American courts to accept Sharia Law.

 

Is American Sovereignty Important?

America is now more than two hundred years old. The U.S. Constitution that we began with is still in place. We are still a sovereign nation. Most of us take our freedom and national sovereignty for granted, but what are some of the forces working against our freedom and against our sovereignty and what are we doing to stop them?

Well, one U.S. House of Representatives member has come up with a good place to start. Alabama’s Representative Mike Rogers on March 2, 2015, introduced H.R. 1205: American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2015 into the House of Representatives. The bill has about a 1 percent of being passed, but at least it was introduced. The bill has been referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The bill would end the United States’ membership in the United Nations. Why would we want to do that? Because the United Nations as of late has become a sounding board for tin horn dictators who want to take money from free countries who have earned it and give the money to other tyrants who have not. Part of their objective is to undermine the sovereignty of free western countries and set up a worldwide government that will control everyone and be run be a few elites who will establish the rules but not have to live by them. I just happen to have a few examples of what the United Nations has done in recent years that should be cause for alarm.

Some comments from the Washington Times about the UN Arms Trade Treaty:

The criteria that arms should not be used to “prolong” or “aggravate” instability is troubling. China could use such a provision to label U.S. arms sales to Taiwan as a violation of international law. In 1941, such a treaty would have made illegal the U.S. lend-lease program to aid Britain before Pearl Harbor.

The implication is absurd: If giving arms to an ally fighting a tyrant prolongs the conflict, the only “legal” option for the ally is to surrender.

Another problem is the draft’s invocation of “international human rights law.” Unfortunately, liberal activists often claim that strict gun control is a “human right.” This reference, then, could be interpreted in ways that infringe on Americans’ constitutional right to bear arms.

Why should we care what some U.N. treaty says? Just ignore it, you say, because our Constitution trumps everything. Well, not if the U.S. signs and the Senate ratifies it. At that point, the treaty carries the weight of U.S. domestic law.

Forbes Magazine posted the following about The Law of the Sea Treaty:

Then there’s the currently proposed, Obama-endorsed, Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) which would subordinate U.S. naval and drilling operations beyond 200 miles of our coast to a newly established U.N. bureaucracy. If ratified by Congress, it will grant a Kingston, Jamaica-based International Seabed Authority (ISA) the power to regulate deep-sea oil exploration, seabed mining, and fishing rights. As part of the deal, as much as 7% of U.S. government revenue collected from oil and gas companies operating off our coast will be forked over to ISA for redistribution to poorer, landlocked countries.

The U.S. would have one vote out of 160 regarding where the money would go, and be obligated to hand over offshore drilling technology to any nation that wants it… for free. And who are those lucky international recipients? They will most likely include such undemocratic, despotic and brutal governments as Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Sudan and Zimbabwe…all current voting members of LOST.

Both of the above articles are from 2012. This is not a new thing.

According to the website appinsys.com:

On November 14, 2010 the NZZ Online had an interview with Ottmar Edenhofer (Edenhofer is joint chair of IPCC Working Group 3 and deputy director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and Professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Berlin Institute of Technology).

Mr. Edenhofer stated:

  • …“Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. … One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore … But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

Last night I went to see the movie “Climate Hustle.” There was a lot in the movie that I was already aware of, but it was nice to see it organized and in one place. I don’t know if and when the movie will be shown again, but it is worth seeing.

Representative Rogers H.R. 1205: American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2015  may never get out of committee. That in itself illustrates the need for change in Washington. If we don’t change our representatives in Washington, we may lose our sovereignty as a country and our lifestyle.

No One Likes Being Lied To

No one likes being lied to. However, some lies have greater consequences than others. The Washington Free Beacon posted a story yesterday about an investigation into lies the Obama Administration told Congress about the Iranian nuclear deal. Evidently what Congress was told about the concessions made to Iran actually bore little resemblance to the deal that was finally agreed to.

The article reports:

The concerns come after statements from top officials last week suggesting that Iran is set to receive greater weapons and sanctions relief, moves that the administration had promised Congress would never take place as White House officials promoted the deal last summer.

“When multiple officials—including Secretary Kerry, Secretary Lew, and Ambassador Mull—testify in front of Members of Congress, we are inclined to believe them,” Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) told the Washington Free Beacon.

“However, the gap between their promises on the Iran nuclear deal and today’s scary reality continues to widen. We are now trying to determine whether this was intentional deception on the part of the administration or new levels of disturbing acquiescence to the Iranians,” Pompeo said.

Congress is believed to be investigating what insiders described to the Free Beacon as a range of areas in which administration officials may have understated the breadth of concessions made to the Islamic Republic when trying to persuade lawmakers to sign off on the final deal.

The article goes on to detail the areas where the actual deal does not resemble the information Congress received.

The article notes that Secretary of State John Kerry promised that under the agreement signed with Iran, Iran would be prohibited from carrying out ballistic missile tests.

The article reports:

Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., shifted course last week, refusing to call recent Iranian launches a “violation” in a letter she signed criticizing those launches.

Note to Ms. Power: Iran is not particularly impressed nor responsive to criticism.

The article further reports:

“The Obama administration is involved in yet another sleight of hand on sanctions relief as well as the status of U.N. missile sanctions,” Dubowitz sai. “This is very familiar to those who tracked the Iran nuclear talks and recall the many ways in which broken commitments were justified and redlines were abandoned.”

Iranian allies on the U.N. Security Council, mainly Russia, have defended the missile tests, arguing that resolution 2231 has only “called upon” Iran to refrain from these tests.

Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin recently stated that the newest U.N. resolution governing the nuclear agreement only suggests that Iran stop test firing missiles.

“A call is different from a ban so legally you cannot violate a call, you can comply with a call or you can ignore the call, but you cannot violate a call,” Churkin was quoted as saying. “The legal distinction is there.”

Congressional critics have dismissed the argument and are pressing on the Obama administration to stand up to Iran’s defenders.

“The Kremlin’s absurd legal argument after Iran’s March tests that ‘legally you cannot violate a call’ would essentially allow the Iranian regime to do anything it wants to further develop its ballistic missile program,” the lawmakers wrote in their letter.

The Iranian nuclear deal was a badly negotiated deal. It was something that President Obama wanted to put in his legacy, and he gave away the store in order to get it done. He then added insult to injury by reporting the details, nuances, and intricacies to Congress in a manner that may not have been entirely truthful. Congress may not be unified on much, but they are pretty unified on the fact that they don’t like being lied to.

It will be interesting to see exactly what this investigation uncovers and also to see exactly what will happen if in fact Congress has been lied to. We have about eight months left of the Obama Administration. Get out the popcorn, it is going to be interesting.

From A Friend On Facebook

PolarBearsThe picture above was taken from an article posted at The Federalist Papers.

The article states:

The Journal of Ecology and Evolution published the study conducted by researchers from Canada’s Lakehead University, which concludes that, while evidence shows that there is “reason for concern”, polar bears are not suffering the “climate crisis” that environmental activists would have you believe.

Our perspectives on climate warming and Arctic sea ice decline are developed from an empirical examination of the open-source data on various indicators of these phenomena. We see reason for concern, but find no reliable evidence to support the contention that polar bears are currently experiencing a climate crisis. We suggest that the qualitative projections for dramatic reductions in population numbers and range are overly pessimistic given the response of polar bears, climate, and sea ice to the present.

We show that much of the scientific evidence indicating that some polar bear subpopulations are declining due to climate change-mediated sea ice reductions is likely flawed by poor mark–recapture (M-R) sampling and that the complex analysis models employed to overcome these capture issues apparently fail to provide accurate estimates of the demographic parameters used to determine subpopulation status.

The science of man-made climate change is not a science–it is a religion designed to set up the United Nations as the controller of the world. The goal is to redistribute the wealth of free, wealthy countries to tyrannies that are not economically successful so that tyrants can build magnificent palaces while their people starve. The earth’s climate has been changing since long before we got here, and it will continue to change in the future. I believe that we are obligated to keep the earth as clean as possible and to control pollution. We are also obligated to set up economic systems that allow people to prosper. Those screaming ‘global warming or climate change’ have no intention of actually helping the poor. Their plans are to use the climate as an excuse for wealth distribution.

Don’t Look For This In The Mainstream Media

Investor’s Business Daily posted an article yesterday about climate change scientists and the alarmism that seems to follow people who talk about climate change.

That article states:

If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that they are not working feverishly to hold down global temperatures — they would acknowledge that they are instead consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state.

Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.

For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and doesn’t really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that “the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”

Mad as they are, Edenhofer’s comments are nevertheless consistent with other alarmists who have spilled the movement’s dirty secret. Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said in anticipation of last year’s Paris climate summit.

“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

Please note that Cristiana Figueres, when talking about the Convention on Climate Change, was not talking about climate–she was talking about economic development. Naomi Klein has written a book, “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate.”

The article notes:

“What if global warming isn’t only a crisis?” Klein asks in a preview of a documentary inspired by her book. “What if it’s the best chance we’re ever going to get to build a better world?”

In her mind, the world has to “change, or be changed” because an “economic system” — meaning free-market capitalism — has caused environmental “wreckage.”

The problem with the thinking that free-market capitalism is the cause of poverty is that it ignores some very obvious things and also ignores history. Because of the Charters they carried with them when they settled America, both the Pilgrims and the Jamestown settlers were committed to a communal economy. The land was held and farmed in common–there was not individual ownership and farming of land. That lasted until the first harvest, when the leaders realized that no one was working very hard and, particularly in New England, there was not enough food. When the Pilgrims instituted land ownership and individual farming where farmers sold and bartered crops, the harvest increased noticeably. Free-market capitalism understands some very basic facts about human nature–people work harder when they are rewarded for their work and if people receive benefits for not working hard, they don’t work hard. If people receive benefits for not working at all, they tend not to work.

Global warming or climate change is nothing more than a scheme to redistribute wealth and to bring the governments of the world under the control of the United Nations. Since the United Nations has lost its way and no longer supports freedom, I am not convinced that is a good idea.

Losing Our First Amendment Rights

On December 17, 2015, Representative Donald S. Beyer, Jr., a Democratic Congressman from Virginia, introduced House Resolution 569 into the U.S. House of Representatives.

This is the text of the Resolution (taken from thomas.gov):

RESOLUTION

Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.

Whereas the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes and rhetoric have faced physical, verbal, and emotional abuse because they were Muslim or believed to be Muslim;

Whereas the constitutional right to freedom of religious practice is a cherished United States value and violence or hate speech towards any United States community based on faith is in contravention of the Nation’s founding principles;

Whereas there are millions of Muslims in the United States, a community made up of many diverse beliefs and cultures, and both immigrants and native-born citizens;

Whereas this Muslim community is recognized as having made innumerable contributions to the cultural and economic fabric and well-being of United States society;

Whereas hateful and intolerant acts against Muslims are contrary to the United States values of acceptance, welcoming, and fellowship with those of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;

Whereas these acts affect not only the individual victims but also their families, communities, and the entire group whose faith or beliefs were the motivation for the act;

Whereas Muslim women who wear hijabs, headscarves, or other religious articles of clothing have been disproportionately targeted because of their religious clothing, articles, or observances; and

Whereas the rise of hateful and anti-Muslim speech, violence, and cultural ignorance plays into the false narrative spread by terrorist groups of Western hatred of Islam, and can encourage certain individuals to react in extreme and violent ways: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes;

(2) steadfastly confirms its dedication to the rights and dignity of all its citizens of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;

(3) denounces in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation, violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against mosques, Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslim;

(4) recognizes that the United States Muslim community has made countless positive contributions to United States society;

(5) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all United States citizens, including Muslims in the United States, should be protected and preserved;

(6) urges local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes; and

(7) reaffirms the inalienable right of every citizen to live without fear and intimidation, and to practice their freedom of faith.

We need to be really careful about this resolution. Where is the rule against hate speech against Jews, Christians, Blacks. Indians, etc.? Note that this law makes hate speech a crime. I am not a fan of hate speech, but making it a crime is a dangerous infringement on the First Amendment. Hate speech is speech–not action. If actions follow, they need to be dealt with, but freedom to be an idiot is enshrined in the First Amendment. Just for the record, this law is in compliance with Sharia Law.

Let me explain the history of what is going on here. In 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted under the oversight of Eleanor Roosevelt. The document was an attempt to internationalize the rights that Americans have under the U.S. Constitution. In 1985, Sa’id Raja’i-Khorassani, the permanent delegate to the UN from Iran said the following:

The very concept of human rights was “a Judeo-Christian invention” and inadmissible in Islam…. According to Ayatollah Khomeini, one of the Shah’s “most despicable sins” was the fact that Iran was one of the original group of nations that drafted and approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In 1990, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) drafted the Cairo Declaration. It was introduced to the United Nations in 1993. This document controls OIC policy on human rights.

The Cairo Declaration states in Article 22 (a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely to such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah. Remember that according to Sharia Law slander is defined as mentioning anything concerning a person that he would dislike. Truth does not play into the equation. Saying you love Jesus could be considered slander (or hate speech) under Sharia.

The information in the previous four paragraphs is taken from Stephen Coughlin’s book Catastrophic Failure. It is a book all Americans need to read.

Back to the Resolution. This needs to be put to rest very quickly. It is a direct assault on the First Amendment. Please keep in mind that one of the stated goals of both the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS is to bring non-Muslims under Sharia Law. This Resolution is a perfect example of how that would work.

It Really Isn’t About Climate

On Friday, Investor’s Business Daily posted an editorial about the recent gathering in Paris to scare people about the climate.

The editorial at Investor’s Business Daily explains what is actually going on:

The “Draft conclusions proposed by the Co-Chairs,” distributed on Dec. 5, confirms that the parties of a climate agreement are united in “emphasizing the importance of promoting, protecting and respecting all human rights, the right to development, the right to health, and the rights of indigenous peoples, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable climate situations (and under occupation).”

The draft also underscores the need to promote “gender equality and the empowerment of women, while taking into account the needs of local communities, intergenerational equity concerns, and the integrity of ecosystems and of Mother Earth, when taking action to address climate change.”

Yes, that’s Mother Earth with an upper-case M and upper-case E.

The same document refers as well to “the imperatives of a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs in accordance with nationally defined development priorities.”

All of these issues being “emphasized” and “taken into account” are goals the political left has pursued for decades, and all require more government intervention into private affairs. This is what the global warming scare is about. It’s not about rescuing cities from encroaching seas, saving populations from drought, preventing “dirty weather ” or protecting polar bears.

Although the United Nations began with good ideas, it has been taken over by people who do not support the freedoms Americans take for granted–gun rights, free markets, free speech, or freedom of worship. The people currently running the United Nations are very much in favor or one-world government, which would end national sovereignty. A quick google search of “Agenda 21” will pretty much explain all that they have in mind.

Please check out the website wattsupwiththat.com for honest, scientific information about climate change.

Socialism Can Be Defeated

The Center for Security Policy is reporting today that the voters of Venezuela allocated 99 out of 167 seats to the Democratic Unity Roundtable (MUD) and the governing United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) garnered 46 seats, with the remaining 22 seats still to be adjudicated. This vote represents the end of the socialist regime in Venezuela.

The article reports:

Founding organizations such as the Bolivarian Alliance of the Americas (ALBA), the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), the government propaganda satellite channel Telesur, as well as sponsoring economic partnerships like the Caribbean Petroleum consortium (PETROCARIBE), the Chavez administration curried favor and goodwill throughout Latin America, as other left-leaning governments were elected in Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, and Bolivia.

These institutions were meant to supplant the International Government Organizations regime which has been in place since the end of WWII and led by the United Nations and the Organization of American States.  In fact, Chavez had a very contentious relationship with both bodies, routinely denouncing the UN as a “stooge of imperialism” and the OAS as a “shameful” organization every time his authoritarian and undemocratic actions were criticized.

This is the beginning of a new day in Venezuela.

The article concludes:

The MUD now has its work cut out for them. The first order of business is to determine exactly how many deputies will take their seats in the new session on January 5th.  A super majority of 110 is needed to enact meaningful reforms, especially as the Venezuelan economy has been in a death spiral due to gross mismanagement combined with the decline in oil prices.

Congratulations to the voters of Venezuela for voting for freedom.

Getting Past The Rhetoric

There is a lot being said right now about what to do with the Syrian refugees fleeing their country. The Center for Security Policy posted an article yesterday that shines a different light on the situation.

The article reports:

President Obama made headlines today in reaction to a question from the press regarding the possibility of taking in Syrian Christian and other religious minorities ahead or in place of Syrian Muslims (Syria is majority Sunni Muslim.) The President responded aggressively claiming such a policy was, “… not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.”

The reality however is that the Refugee Resettlement system already has “a religious test of their compassion”, to quote the president. And that’s a test which actively disfavors Christians, according to figures released by the State Department:

Of 2,184 Syrian refugees admitted into the U.S. since the Syrian civil war erupted in 2011, only 53 (2.4 percent) have been Christians while 2098 (or 96 percent) have been Muslims, according to State Department statistics updated on Monday. The remaining 33 include 1 Yazidi, 8 Jehovah Witnesses, 2 Baha’i, 6 Zoroastrians, 6 of “other religion,” 7 of “no religion,” and 3 atheists.

According to the CIA Factbook, Syria has a Christian population of 10%. Approximately between 500,000 and 700,000 Christians have fled Syria–about 16% to 23% of the estimated 3 million Syrians who have fled. Since Christians are one of the main targets of the Islamists, this figure makes sense.

So what is going on here? America does not get to choose her refugees.

The article reports:

As Nina Shea highlights at National Review, The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is typically the deciding agency, and recommends to the United States which refugees will be resettled. So the selection process hits several snags. Firstly, Christian refugees almost overwhelmingly avoid United Nations refugee camps out of legitimate fears of possible violence against them. Reports of attacks on Christians refugees by their Muslim counterparts have been reported, such as when Christian refugees on a boat in the Mediterranean were thrown overboard, and German police have openly urged publicly separating Christian and Muslim refugees, due to attacks. In one case a Christian convert was beaten unconscious by a metal baton.

The second part of the problem is the fact that the United Nations is very much controlled by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The OIC comprises the largest voting block in the United Nations. The OIC is headquartered in Saudi Arabia, where the practice of Christianity is illegal.

The article explains the third part of the problem:

Thirdly, and perhaps most largely problematic, is the appearance of overt anti-Christian bias by the State Department itself. As good friend of the Center, Institute for Religion and Democracy’s Faith McDonnell notes in her recent piece on the state of Christian refugees, the State Department has explicitly declared they, “would not support a special category to bring Assyrian Christians into the United States,” in response to a plan by a private aid group to fund, entirely free of taxpayer dollars, the transport of Assyrian Christians facing extermination by Islamic State.

In other words, even when its free, no cost to them, the State Department has preferred to snub Christians rather than save them.

There is a religious test for refugees. Unfortunately that test is not only against the best interests of America, it discriminates against a persecuted group of refugees.

Showing My Cynicism

The Hill is reporting today that New York Senator Charles Schumer will not support President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. Sorry about my cynicism, but I suspect that decision was made after a careful calculation that the treaty would be approved without his vote. I also expect that if enough Democrats refuse to support the treaty and Senator Schumer‘s vote is needed, he will somehow have a change of heart. Nevertheless, The Hill is reporting that he will not support the treaty.

Meanwhile, Fox News reported yesterday:

The shadowy Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani recently visited Moscow to meet with senior Russian leaders, according to two Western intelligence sources, despite a travel ban and U.N. Security Council resolutions barring him from leaving Iran. 

On July 24, one week before Secretary of State John Kerry testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee and faced questions about the newly struck nuclear deal, Soleimani arrived in Moscow for meetings with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and President Vladimir Putin. It was not immediately clear what the Iranian leader discussed, but the revelation comes as the United Nations and European Union arms embargo against Iran is slated to be lifted in five years as part of the comprehensive nuclear agreement announced July 14 from Vienna. 

No Senator who takes his Oath of Office seriously can honestly vote for the Iranian treaty. However, I suspect it will pass. Democrats tend to stick together, even when it involves jumping off a cliff.

This Isn’t Anything New

From the time of the Iranian revolution in 1978, the goal of Iran has been to restore the Islamic caliphate that vanished with the end of the Turkish Empire. We need to remember that the caliphate existed about a hundred years ago–it is not ancient history. Therefore, the book that has been published by Iran on how to outsmart the United States and destroy Israel should not come as a surprise to anyone. What should come as a surprise is why would the United States negotiate with a country whose goal is to destroy one of our allies and eventually destroy us.

Meanwhile, yesterday The New York Post posted a story about a book called “Palestine,” published by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This charming masterpiece is described in the article:

Khamenei makes his position clear from the start: Israel has no right to exist as a state.

He uses three words. One is “nabudi” which means “annihilation.” The other is “imha” which means “fading out,” and, finally, there is “zaval” meaning “effacement.”

Khamenei claims that his strategy for the destruction of Israel is not based on anti-Semitism, which he describes as a European phenomenon. His position is instead based on “well-established Islamic principles.”

One such principle is that a land that falls under Muslim rule, even briefly, can never again be ceded to non-Muslims. What matters in Islam is ownership of a land’s government, even if the majority of inhabitants are non-Muslims.

Khomeinists are not alone in this belief.

Dozens of maps circulate in the Muslim world showing the extent of Muslim territories lost to the Infidel that must be recovered.

There is a tenet in Islam that says all land controlled by Muslims at any time must be regained to form the caliphate. That tenet has a lot to do with Iran’s desire to have a nuclear bomb.

The article also reminds us that Khamenei plans to eliminate Israel through making life so unpleasant there that the Jews leave and the land goes to the Arabs as a result of demographics.

The article concludes:

Khamenei boasts about the success of his plans to make life impossible for Israelis through terror attacks from Lebanon and Gaza. His latest scheme is to recruit “fighters” in the West Bank to set up Hezbollah-style units.

“We have intervened in anti-Israel matters, and it brought victory in the 33-day war by Hezbollah against Israel in 2006 and in the 22-day war between Hamas and Israel in the Gaza Strip,” he boasts.

Khamenei describes Israel as “a cancerous tumor” whose elimination would mean that “the West’s hegemony and threats will be discredited” in the Middle East. In its place, he boasts, “the hegemony of Iran will be promoted.”

Khamenei’s book also deals with the Holocaust which he regards either as “a propaganda ploy” or a disputed claim. “If there was such a thing,” he writes, “we don’t know why it happened and how.”

This is what Iran’s leaders are preaching to their people and their allies in the Middle East. Do we really want to give succor?

In looking at the nuclear agreement with Iran, one has to consider the Islamic principle of taqiyya, loosely explained as “lying for the sake of Islam.” Taqiyya allows Muslims to issue two statements on any one issue–one to Muslims and one to non-Muslims. I have no doubt that what Iran is telling America about the nuclear deal is very different from what is being told to the Iranians. I pray that the Senate has the courage to turn down the nuclear deal with Iran.

Where Do We Go From Here?

The nuclear deal with Iran is awful. Just as the nuclear deal with North Korea paved the way for North Korea to get nuclear weapons, the nuclear deal with Iran will pave the way for Iran to get nuclear weapons. Because the agreement will go to the United Nations (where it will pass) before it goes to the United States Senate, there will be immense pressure on Senators to agree to the deal. That’s where we were yesterday, but this is today. The deal is getting even worse.

Breitbart.com, is reporting today that now that the deal is on its way to approval., Iran would like to rewrite it. This would be comical if it were not a serious matter.

The article reports:

On Saturday, the Fars News Agency reported that the Majlis threatened to reject the agreement’s provision on ballistic missiles, which call for an international embargo on missile technology to be extended for eight years–a significant, last-minute concession by the U.S.

Iran wants unrestricted ballsitic missile development and access to conventional arms dealers abroad.

“The parliament will reject any limitations on the country’s access to conventional weapons, specially ballistic missiles,” said Tehran MP Seyed Mehdi Hashemi.

In addition, the nuclear deal says that the Majlis will ratify the Additional Protocol (AP) to the Non-Proliferation Treaty–but it does not say when.

The AP is the key to long-term monitoring of Iranian nuclear research and development by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Without approval of the AP, Iran may hide key information about its nuclear activity, and may accelerate advanced centrifuge research immediately when the nuclear deal expires, among other hazards. (Even then, its commitments under the AP will be somewhat voluntary.)

Meanwhile, the economic sanctions will be lifted on Iran so that they can resume supporting terrorism around the world. We have been snookered.

This Is Just Ugly

Yesterday CBS News reported that the deal with Iran negotiated by America, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom and Germany will be voted on by the United Nations Security Council on Monday. Since five of the countries who negotiated the treaty with Iran are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, it is fairly certain the agreement will be adopted.

The article reports:

CBS News foreign affairs analyst Pamela Falk says the resolution will make the Iran nuclear deal international law, but will delay its official implementation for 90 days, to allow for the U.S. Congress’ consideration.

Falk explained that while Congress cannot block the implementation of the deal, if the legislative body votes against it and has enough votes to override a promised veto from President Obama, it is not clear what would happen next.

Whether Congress approves the treaty or not, it goes into effect internationally. Whatever happened to America? First of all, even if Congress votes against the treaty, the treaty goes into effect worldwide. So where is American sovereignty? Second of all, why do we need Congress if the Senate’s role to advise and consent to treaties has been taken out of the equation.

The article concludes:

If U.S. lawmakers were to decide after Monday’s vote that they wanted changes to the terms of the agreement, it would essentially be too late, because it would require the Security Council to propose a new resolution — and there would likely be little appetite for such deliberations among the other negotiating partners.

The chairman of the Senate’s foreign relations committee, Bob Corker, on Thursday wrote a letter to President Obama saying, “We urge you to postpone the vote at the United Nations until after Congress considers this agreement.”

But the chief U.S. negotiator in the Iran talks, Wendy Sherman, rejected that idea Thursday.

She told reporters: “It would have been a little difficult when all of the (countries negotiating with Iran) wanted to go to the United Nations to get an endorsement of this, since it is a product of the United Nations process, for us to say, ‘Well, excuse me, the world, you should wait for the United States Congress.'”

Sherman said the council resolution allows the “time and space” for a congressional review before the measure actually takes effect.

America has become internationally irrelevant.

A Danger To Our Constitution

Today’s Daily Caller posted an article today about President Obama’s plan to deal with climate change. President Obama is planning on unilaterally committing America to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions in the coming years.

Aside from the questionable ‘science’ of global warming, there is the issue of how President Obama is going about this.

The article reports:

In a congressional hearing Thursday, George Mason University law professor Jeremy Rabkin told lawmakers that Obama’s argument that he unilaterally commit the U.S. to a United Nations agreement without Senate ratification was “a real change in our Constitution.”

…“We have certain background assumptions about how our government is supposed to work, that’s why we have a Constitution,” Rabkin responded.

“And what this is fundamentally about is saying, ‘ah, that’s old-fashioned, forget that, that didn’t work for [President Bill] Clinton– we’re moving forward with something different which the president gets to commit us,’” Rabkin added. “That’s a real change in our Constitution.”

This is a problem. Unless Congress has the intestinal fortitude to stand up against this power grab, we will be in danger of losing our Constitution. Because the U.S. Constitution functions as ‘the law of the land,’ at that point we will no longer be a nation of laws. The only way to stop this runaway train is to watch your Representatives and Senators to see what they do, and then vote accordingly in November.

Human Rights?

On Friday, Yahoo News posted a story about  resolution by the United Nation‘s Human Rights Council calling for those responsible for war crimes during last summer’s Gaza conflict to be brought to trial.

Yesterday The Times of India posted an article about the vote. That article reports:

While 41 countries (including most of the European Union) voted in favour of adopting the report, five, including India, abstained. The US was the only country to vote against it. Four other countries who abstained were Kenya, Ethiopia, Paraguay and Macedonia.

Normally I would be in favor of putting anyone on trial who had committed war crimes, but in this case, I think you have to look at the matter carefully.

This is a chart (from Wikipedia) showing the rocket attacks on Israel in 2014 that originated in the Gaza Strip:

rocketattacksonIsrael2014These rockets were not aimed at military targets, they were aimed at civilians. It is also known that Hamas houses rockets in hospitals and other buildings known to house civilians. Hamas is also know to use human shields. I can almost guarantee that the United Nations report will overlook much of this part of the story.

The thing to remember here is that the conflict between Israel and Hamas has more than one dimension. One dimension that should always be considered when listening to stories from the Middle East is the propaganda aspect. In May 2013, I posted a story about the staged death of Muhammad al-Dura, an 11-year old who was used for propaganda purposed after a film was released claiming he had been killed by the Israelis. More details can be found here. Often the propaganda war is more important than actual events on the ground.

Unfortunately, it is very likely that the U.N. investigation will be a sham. The track record on the United Nations in regard to Israel is not good. As of 2015, Israel has been condemned in 62 resolutions by the Council since its creation in 2006—the Council has resolved more resolutions condemning Israel than the rest of the world combined.

We need to stand by Israel. I don’t know why Europe voted for this, but I am glad to see India abstain.

 

Desperation Is Never A Good Thing In Negotiations

On Monday, the Center for Security Policy posted an article about the ongoing negotiations with Iran over Iran’s nuclear policy. The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) released a report on June 11 on the status of the negotiations.

The article reports:

The deadlock stems from Tehran’s refusal to permit inspections of military facilities or answer questions about past nuclear-weapons-related work (known as “possible military dimensions” or PMD in U.N.-speak). With the clock ticking down on a June 30 deadline for a nuclear agreement, the refusal of Iranian leaders to budge on these issues has become a political problem for President Obama, who said in April that Iran has agreed to “the most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime ever negotiated for any nuclear program in history.” Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes has said the nuclear agreement will allow “anytime, anywhere inspections of any and every Iranian facility.”

Unfortunately, Iran has not been willing to agree to those inspections. In desperation, the Obama Administration has begun making concessions.

The article reports some of those concessions:

• The United States has proposed to close the International Atomic Energy Agency’s PMD dossier and forgo actual IAEA inspections of suspect Iranian nuclear facilities.

• Instead, the IAEA would conduct token inspections of a handful of nuclear sites — including two military sites — and question several senior Iranian military officials.

• Inspections of Iranian nuclear sites after the token inspections would be limited to declared facilities.

• Undeclared and suspect nuclear-weapons sites would be monitored through intelligence means.

MEMRI, a well-regarded think tank in Washington, D.C., sourced its report to statements cited in the Iranian press from Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister and head nuclear negotiator, and Hamid Baidinejad, another Iranian nuclear negotiator. Araghchi reportedly said the Iranian negotiating team agreed to the proposed U.S. concession, but the plan was subsequently rejected by Supreme Leader Khamenei and triggered harsh criticism of Iranian officials in the so-called pragmatic camp. Baidinejad claimed the Iranian negotiating team rejected the proposed U.S. concession but agreed to an American request to present it to Khamenei anyway, who rejected it outright.

Somewhere in this charade, we need to remember that Iran is neither our friend or an honest negotiator. Iranian weapons have been killing our soldiers in the Middle East since 2001. Why in the world should we believe that they are at all interested in bringing peace to the region? We need to increase the sanctions on Iran until they stop exporting terrorism around the world.

H.R. 1205

On March 2, H.R. 1205 was introduced and referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. So what is H.R. 1205?

According to Thomas.gov:

American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2015

Repeals the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and other specified related laws.

Directs the President to terminate U.S. membership in the United Nations (U.N.), including any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body.

Requires closure of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.

Prohibits: (1) the authorization of funds for the U.S. assessed or voluntary contribution to the U.N., (2) the authorization of funds for any U.S. contribution to any U.N. military or peacekeeping operation, (3) the expenditure of funds to support the participation of U.S. Armed Forces as part of any U.N. military or peacekeeping operation, (4) U.S. Armed Forces from serving under U.N. command, and (5) diplomatic immunity for U.N. officers or employees.

Passage of this bill, sponsored by Representative Mike Rogers and co-sponsored by Representatives Thomas Massie, John Duncan, Lynn Westmoreland, and Tim Huelskamp. would be a good thing for all Americans.

This is a statement from Representative Mike Rogers about the bill:

(WASHINGTON, D.C.)—Across East Alabama, many of you may agree with me that the United States’ participation with the United Nations (U.N.) should end immediately.

The U.N. continues to prove it’s an inefficient bureaucracy and a complete waste of American tax dollars.

Although the United States makes up almost a quarter of the U.N.’s annual budget, the U.N. has attempted a number of actions that attack our rights as U.S. citizens.

To name a few, these initiatives  include actions like the Law of the Sea Treaty, which would subject our country to internationally-based environmental mandates, costing American businesses more money, or the U.N.’s work to re-establish an international regulation regime on global warming which would heavily target our fossil fuels.

The U.N. has also offered a potential Arms Trade Treaty which would threaten our Second Amendment rights and impose regulations on our gun manufacturers, who are already facing regulations and pressure from the Obama Administration.

Lastly, the U.N. does not support Israel and voted to grant the Palestinian Authority “non-member state” permanent observer status.  

Anyone who is not a friend to our ally Israel, is not a friend to the United States.

Because of these actions among others, I introduced H.R. 1205, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2015.

My legislation would end our country’s participation in the U.N. and any organizations affiliated with them.

Why should the American taxpayer bankroll an international organization that works against America’s interests around the world? The time is now to restore and protect American sovereignty and get out of the United Nations.

We need to elect enough Congressmen who agree with the above statement to get H.R. 2015 passed in both the House and the Senate. The United Nations has been working against freedom and against the interests of freedom for a number of years. If another country wants to support them, that’s fine, but we don’t have to support them or be a member of a group that is against the principle of freedom.

 

 

How Things Work In The Middle East

Today The Blaze posted an article about the rocket attacks on Israel during the past two weeks. Somehow the media and the international community  have remained silent on the issue. Prime Minister Netanyahu pointed out that there will be a lot of media coverage as soon as Israel retaliated–the United Nations and most of the media would come out against Israel.

The article gives a possible explanation for the recent attacks:

The Times of Israel noted that following a Palestinian rocket attack last week, a spokesman for U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called on “all parties to avoid further escalation and prevent incidents that jeopardize the lives of Israeli and Palestinian civilians.”

…The Saturday night launch was the third rocket attack on southern Israeli communities in the past two weeks.

A radical Salafist terrorist group linked to the Islamic State group took responsibility for two of the rocket firings.

The Times of Israel quoted Israeli military sources who said they suspect Omar Brigades, a Salafist group which views the ruling Hamas as a rival, has launched the rockets in order to provoke an Israeli military response against Hamas targets, and thus weaken its rival.

Note that the U.N. statement does not condemn the actions of the group firing the rocket, it just states that things should not escalate. Until the U.N. and the world community begin to condemn the side initiating the rocket attacks, the attacks will continue. Unfortunately, the world community is enabling a bully to continue attacks and condemning the bullied when they defend themselves.

 

This Really Isn’t A Surprise

Reuters is reporting today that Britain has told a United Nations panel in charge of sanctions on Iran that there is an active Iranian nuclear procurement network linked to two blacklisted firms.

The article reports:

“The UK government informed the Panel on 20 April 2015 that it ‘is aware of an active Iranian nuclear procurement network which has been associated with Iran’s Centrifuge Technology Company (TESA) and Kalay Electric Company (KEC)’,” the Panel of Experts said in its annual report. The panel monitors Iran’s compliance with the U.N. sanctions regime.

KEC is under U.N. Security Council sanctions while TESA is under U.S. and European Union sanctions due to their suspected links to banned Iranian nuclear activities.

Iran, which is has been under sanctions for years, has a long history of illicit nuclear procurement using front companies and other methods of skirting sanctions.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. Iran is not an honest negotiator, and America needs to break off talks with them at least until the American prisoners they hold are released.