Space Cadets

Or maybe I should have said “cavemen in outer space.” The Iranian government has announced that its Imam Khomeini Spaceport will be operational by spring of 2013. Missiles for peace and exploration are the focal point. Nothing offensive, of course. Just science for the advancement of mankind. Iran says its goal is to launch manned space flight by 2020, and a manned moon landing by 2025.

I'm reminded of Wernher von Braun's book I Aim For The Stars. Shortly after its publication, comedian Mort Sahl said it should have a subtitle: “But Sometimes I Hit London.” In this case, we could add “sometimes we hit Tel Aviv.” It's a little hard to believe that Iran has peaceful intentions, though the arrogance of the whole program has a small ring of truth. Planting the Iranian flag on the moon would be one helluva big deal.

So far, the Iranian space program has been fairly successful. It has launched a communications satellite. It has sent rats and turtles into space. Unfortunately, the monkey they tried to launch didn't make it. How much more it will be able to accomplish within the time frames it has set itself remains to be seen. The step from sending rats and turtles into space and sending live human beings into space and bringing them back safely is a very large one, even if the program weren't facing huge opposition from the outside.

Unfettered by internal restraints or external sanctions, China has experienced setback after setback in its space program. At the same time, Iran is hampered by moderately effective Western sanctions and opposition to its nuclear program. Before Iran can aim for the stars and “accidentally” hit Tel Aviv, it faces the very likely possibility that Israel will strike at both Iran's nuclear facilities and its missile launch sites.

As recently as this past week, Iran has reaffirmed its position that Israel must be wiped off the face of the map. It is unlikely that Iran would carry out that threat by flying Sopwith Camels over Israel and dropping bombs by hand. The Iranian air force is at best pathetic in comparison to the Israeli air force. But missiles, ah, missiles. Even with the best technology available, short range and intermediate range ballistic missiles are hard to stop once they've been launched. The difference between a missile launching men into space and a missile launching nuclear weapons at a nearby target is minimal.

Even the United States has to take notice of the fact that a missile which can launch men into space has intercontinental capabilities as well. New York, DC, and Los Angeles may be safe now, but for how much longer? During the days of the Cold War, America and the Soviet Union raced into space for national honor and scientific achievement, but were also honing their military capabilities. Still, even the hardliners in the Kremlin weren't suicidal, and mutually-assured destruction (MAD) kept both sides from thinking the unthinkable.

The same is not true of national leaders who believe that to die in the cause of jihad is an automatic entry into paradise, complete with seventy-two virgins awaiting their arrival. Vile, but not crazy described the Kremlin hardliners. Vile and crazy describes the Teheran hardliners. The Iranian people may not be in sync with the leadership on self-immolation, but the ayatollahs look at them as collateral damage.

So far, Iran's missile program has proceeded more successfully and more quickly than that of its Asian counterpart, North Korea. China is highly suspicious of North Korean missile capabilities, but both China and Russia have been exporting missile technology to Iran, in spite of and in defiance of international sanctions. It isn't just Israel and the United States who are leery of Iran's advancement in the missile field. Britain’s Foreign Office said the [most recent Iranian] launch underscored “our serious concerns about Iran’s intentions” and “sends the wrong signal to the international community which has already passed five successive UN Security Council resolutions on Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile program.” Of course, the UN is big on resolutions and nasty notes to crazy tyrants, but lagging seriously in actual action.

So someday soon, somebody is going to decide that Iran's space program is really an earth program and will take action against it. If Iran can't be persuaded to abandon its missile and nuclear programs, the result is not going to be pretty, nor is the outcome certain.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Protecting Minority Voters—Part II

I didn’t have any intention of writing a Part II to my discussion of Eric Holder and his misuse of the Voting Rights Act to pander to Hispanics. That was until I started finding articles all over the place about the fact that the regressives progressives aren’t satisfied with abusing logic and the Constitution to retain power. Why keep it in the family when you can go to the United Nations?

At the same time that the attorney general is using executive orders and the federal courts to squelch the reasonable requirement of possessing a valid state-issued photo ID in order to vote, Holder’s progressive pals are proffering complaints to the United Nations Human Rights Council. According to the progressives (99% Democratic), requiring a photo ID is on a par with other human rights violations such as genocide, torture, dictatorial rule and suppression of religious freedom.

The NAACP along with several other “civil rights groups” claim that the simple requirement of proving you are who you say you are before voting is a violation of the human rights of minorities under international law. These groups obviously understand that there is one organization that is even goofier than the Democratic left, and that is the United Nations. Most of the members of the Human Rights Council represent nations which don’t allow women to vote, oppress any religion but their own, and rig elections to perpetuate their own regimes.

It’s good to know that there are still people who won’t rely on the racist American Constitution to protect minorities. They believe that Holder is doing the right thing, but possibly in the wrong forum. The American people are under the thumb of an oppressive white society, and the courts are rigged to keep minorities in their place. So what better forum to have your case heard in than where the judges are from bastions of freedom and democracy like China, Russia, Iran, Sudan, Angola, Libya, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and Cuba?

It is quite possible that Holder’s order and litigation will finally result in the death knell of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act at the Supreme Court, freeing Southern states to impose the same voter ID requirements as the Northern states. It is also likely that without expedited proceedings, this will not happen in time for the 2012 presidential election.

The NAACP is wise to go to the United Nations, where such ridiculous charges will be met with open arms. The only entity more anti-American than the race-baiting American left is the United Nations. At the United Nations, they don’t care if or how voting is suppressed anywhere else in the world. But when it comes to America, the complaint will be well-received and well-publicized.

The only upside to this moronic behavior is that it’s also likely that Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and the Democratic Senate majority will all be gone in 2013. If the United Nations votes to condemn American voter ID requirements, the new administration can simply paraphrase Andrew Jackson and say “the UN Human Rights Council has issued its order, now let them enforce it.”
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Time To Buy Gun Manufacturing Stocks

Here’s your hot stock tip for the day. Buy Colt. Buy Smith & Wesson. Buy Ruger. Hell, buy ‘em all. Gun sales are surging dramatically nationwide. Barack Obama has stimulated gun sales. A plurality of people buying guns in the last thirty days say that they are making the purchase now because Obama and Company want to confiscate guns during his next administration.

This is not the first time Obama has unintentionally stimulated the gun business. The “Cheaper Than Dirt Gun Store” in Texas reports that gun sales set a record for February, and only the election of Barack Obama in 2008 came close to producing such record-setting sales. Prior to and during that election, Obama made his disdain for private ownership of guns abundantly clear. He swept into office with majorities in both houses of Congress, equally determined to get guns out of the hands of American citizens.

The US Supreme Court in Washington DC declared that gun ownership was a fundamental constitutional right, then took on a Chicago case which expanded on the earlier decision by declaring that gun ownership is an individual right rather than a collective right occasioned by the necessity of a well-regulated militia. The latter decision also established that the fundamental right was protected from state as well as from federal infringement. Those two decisions make gun-grabbing a lot more difficult since the states and the federal government can no longer infringe on gun ownership for anything less than a compelling state interest rather than the previous and easier test of reasonableness.

Since then, the people have seen just how dedicated the Obama administration is to undoing those two decisions. Operation Fast and Furious appears to be a Keystone Kops attempt by the administration to prove how easy it is for criminals to purchase guns, requiring federal and state intervention in gun ownership. It went horribly wrong, and innocent people died as a result. Worst of all, criminals have always found it easy to purchase guns illegally and didn’t need the help of the federal government to prove it.

Two other factors, aside from the fact that Obama has an “odds-against” chance of being reelected, have spurred the current massive increase in gun purchases. First, Obama has daily proven that the law and the Constitution mean little to him and that he thinks the separation of powers is an impediment to efficient progressive bureaucratic government. So he has increasingly relied on executive orders to circumvent Congress and the courts. There’s plenty of reason to believe that he would use one or more of his czars to start using regulations instead of law to prevent citizens from legally purchasing guns.

The other is that he and his gun-grabbing Secretary of State are actively supporting United Nations “arms control” initiatives. Once again, they intend to try to get in through the back door what they couldn’t get in through the front door. Go along with UN gun-grabbing (particularly small arms and handguns), pass a UN resolution, then try to slide a treaty obligation past the Senate in order to bypass the Constitution entirely. It’s highly unlikely that they could succeed in getting the Senate to ratify such a treaty, but they will try mightily. And in that unlikely event, the Supreme Court would be very likely to strike the treaty down for interference with what it has recently declared to be a fundamental constitutional right.

No doubt some of the surge in gun sales is attributable to conspiracy theories and survivalist mentality. But there are plenty of perfectly sane, thinking and fearful Americans who believe that this is no time to risk their family’s safety betting on Obama losing the election and/or abiding by the law or the Constitution if he wins. Hell, the only reason I’m not rushing out to buy a gun is that I already own one and know how to use it (the picture is a .357 Colt Magnum Trooper Mk V revolver, almost identical to my own).

We need to give Obama a round of applause. This is the first stimulus his administration has produced which benefits private enterprise, doesn’t cost the taxpayers a dime, has a proven track record of success, and reinforces instead of diminishing the second item on the Bill of Rights. Take a bow, Mr. President.

On a related note, after this article was originally written, a federal judge in Maryland has struck down the state's handgun permit law. The law allowed issuance or re-issuance of concealed weapons permits only if the applicant could show "good and substantial reason" for needing the permit. The judge proved he understood the Supreme Court decisions which now hold that only a compelling state interest can override the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. The Maryland law did not satisfy that requirement. Put simply, the judge's ruling enhanced the "fundamental rights" issue in the Supreme Court decisions. "One does not need a 'good and substantial reason' to exercise one's First Amendment right to speak freely, nor does one need a 'good and substantial reason' to exercise his Second Amendment right to bear arms." Bravo, Judge.

Food for thought: Once the news of the surge in gun sales gets out in the MSM, how long do you think it will be before Eric Holder starts announcing that gun control is a vital necessity because white folks are buying guns to assassinate the President?
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Barack Obama And The Free Speech Folks

Pictured are three "Friends of Obama" enforcers of free speech on loan from the United Nations. Following the UN Durbin conference on destroying racist Zionism and keeping women barefoot and pregnant, President Barack Hussein Obama invited the Organization of Islamic Cooperation ("OIC") to the White House to discuss implementation of the UN's resolution condemning religious intolerance.

It was vitally important that he do so. With growing Islamophobia in America, including the cold-blooded murder of thousands of Muslims for their religious beliefs in Rhode Island and the mass deportation of Muslims from Iowa, it has become a priority item with the Obama administration. Obama is barely holding the fort against the forces of evil in America. He has pleaded with Americans to reject voter ID since it discriminates against blacks, the poor, the lame, the meek, the mentally-defective, the young, and, oh yes, Muslims.

So what could be wrong with the administration's invite to the OIC? To start with, the organization hardly represents the pinnacle of free speech and religious tolerance. It is certainly not the only world religious organization. Its fifty-seven members don't represent even a majority of the United Nations membership. He invited the group to his palace because there are so many hurt feelings in the Muslim world over intolerance toward Islam. No other religion has ever even been spoken ill of, while Islam suffers daily from the brickbats of bigots and those who question the religion of peace.

The second reason for inviting the OIC is that Islamic rights at the UN are slipping away. For years they have been able to get resolutions passed against defamation of Islam, then defamation of religions, and then vilification of religions. As you can see, a conspiracy of Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists has slowly but surely been chipping away at Islam's status as sole sufferer.

The OIC couldn't even get "defamation of religions" passed as it was blocked by those religious oppressors at the Sixteenth Session of the UN Human Rights Commission back in March. They fared no better at the current Durban Conference. That might seem like a victory for the other side, but it ain't over 'til it's over. The OIC has informed Obama that they intend to reintroduce a specific resolution against defamation of religions as soon as feasible.

For now, they've settled for a less specific freedom of speech resolution, though as recently as August the Islamic News Agency (an arm of the OIC) said that the meeting at the White House would be about implementing the religious aspects of Resolution 16-18. That resolution purports to criminalize incitement of "imminent violence based on religions or belief." That sounds very similar to our very own "clear and present danger" test. But then the wording gets muddier in 16-20, sounding more like the plethora of European-style "hate statutes" that are also being enacted in the U.S. "We hereby condemn any advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence."

"Any advocacy." That wouldn't survive a Constitutional test in the United States. The expression is "vague and overbroad." What is advocacy? With the wording of this part of the resolution, criticism is easily elevated to the level of incitement. "I don't like the violent portions of the Koran" becomes "I don't like Muslims," becomes "Let's go out and kill Muslims." Even advocacy of violence is protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. It is a long-established precedent that even advocating the overthrow of the government by force and violence is protected speech unless the threat is real and has a reasonable chance of being carried out immediately. This is why we can't censor communist drivel.

16-20 was just too much even for the American negotiators. The government, led by Obama and Hillary Clinton signed onto the resolution, but added a reservation to any attempt to enforce the provision relating to "advocacy." In a written statement that sounds a lot like "but we're only fooling," the US government clarified its position for the White House gathering: "The US will work with the UN and OIC in urging states (nations) to take effective measures as set forth in Resolution 16, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents." In other words, every nation should quash any advocacy or harsh language as it relates to religion (read: Islam).

What the OIC and the UN are doing with the assistance of The One is to bring in through the back door what it couldn't bring through the front. In fact, Hillary Clinton's State Department says the administration's cooperation is based on the need to denounce and criminalize offensive speech. That's even broader than "defamation of religions." Her department also says it is dedicated to upholding the God-given right to free expression. I don't know what logic classes they have at Yale, but I don't see any way those two concepts can be reconciled.

Of all the religious and/or political organizations he could have chosen to invite to the White House, Obama invited the representatives of nations which call any criticism of Islam blasphemy, punishable by sanctions up to death by beheading. Nations which almost casually murder Christians and Jews while burning down churches and synagogues. Nations which consider apostasy a capital offense. Nations whose populations have massive rallies declaring "free speech is the enemy of Islam." Nations whose people declare "all infidels who defame Islam must die."

Somehow I don't think that group is going to come up with any good contributions to freedom of speech, religion, or expression. But since that's an American First Amendment issue, and since Obama has never read the Constitution, it's understandable why he would invite the OIC. As for Resolution 16, all that has been done is scramble and soften the words of prior resolutions without making any substantive changes. Same crap, different package.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

More Sucker Bait From China

China now says it's considering negotiating a legally-binding climate pact at the UN talks in Durban, South Africa this coming weekend. I guess they have to wait for the weekend because the rest of the week will be taken up with condemning Israel for its racist human rights abuses.

If China is at all serious about this, it is clear that it's at least partially a ploy to get America to commit to a treaty which will destroy what's left of its economy with global-warming/climate change legislation.

China is now the world's top producer of carbon emissions. It's a large nation with a huge population, but the main reason it is producing so many greenhouse gases is that its industry is booming. In order to take the heat off its reputation for creating massive public works project that destroy the environment and use something resembling slave labor, China has decided to join the junk science parade and help the world save the ice caps and the polar bears.

China likely hopes that by joining the global warming hysteria (publicly, at least), it can shame the Obama administration into producing even more regulations thereby further damaging the American economy. They also hope that the ecoweenies and lefties in the Democratic Party will push the United States into an international global warming treaty on the theory that "China has done it, so shouldn't the United States do it first?"

So here's the Chinese plan: They will consider negotiating a global warming pact, which will include cap and trade provisions, to be finalized some time in 2020. And even that's not a sure thing. Says Su Wei, China's climate negotiator: "We do not rule out the possibility of a legally binding agreement. It is possible for us, but it depends on the negotiations." "Su Wei" in English is "Mr. Obvious." In essence, China wants another nine or ten years to go hell-bent for leather with its industrial expansion and monumental construction projects in order to pull far ahead of the United States on all manufacturing fronts.

And the American suckers are already taking the bait. Says Alden Meyer of the disreputable but powerful Union of Concerned Scientists: "China is signaling that they are trying to be flexible and constructively negotiate over the next week." The Obama/Clinton State Department has been trying to push a Kyoto-style treaty since its first day in office, and some low-level bureaucrats have expressed their joy at the Chinese offer. Officially, however, the State Department is silent. Their "no comment" statement was that they refused to discuss the matter while the negotiations are still under way. Do they mean they'll discuss it after the weekend, or in 2020? Enquiring minds want to know.

Jake Schmidt, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council said: "If Chinese officials agree to negotiate a binding treaty, it will put pressure on the Obama administration which has argued that the details of such a pact still need to be fleshed out." In other words, as an ecoweenie he thinks it's a good thing when Chinese rhetoric about possible negotiations for a treaty that might happen years in the future can force the American government into real action now restricting its already seriously-damaged industrial and economic base.

It is also quite likely that any treaty that includes China (and the United States?) will be interpreted, enforced and implemented by the United Nations. That's like putting a child-molester in charge of a kiddie daycare center. The claimed point of the proposed treaty is that wealthy nations will reduce their carbon emissions and pay poorer nations to do the same thing. Sounds good. Most unworkable schemes with no real solid foundation in fact sound good.

The United States has allowed its out-of-control bureaucratic agencies to slow development to a snail's pace already. With Obama's executive order allowing the EPA to declare carbon dioxide a "poison," coal and oil energy sources are grinding to a halt. Now look at the base year proposed by China. As the United States drifts off into non-productivity without any need for foreign treaties, China will have until 2020 to build its pollution industries. Then, nine or ten years from now, a treaty will be signed that says each industrial nations must reduce its carbon emissions by, say, 25% in five years.

By that time, China will be producing more carbon emissions than the next big three combined. The United States, on the other hand, will already have crippled its industries with regulations and cap-and-trade schemes. China will be heroic and cut its emissions by 25% immediately, leaving them as still the largest polluter on earth. And America will try to figure out how to cut 25% of nothing.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

UN To The Climate Change Rescue!

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon wants to fight the effects of climate change. He's not sure what climate change is, or if humans can do anything about it. But he knows it's bad, and he wants to spend whatever is necessary to prevent it. $100 billion per year would be a good start, he says. I wonder whom he intends to extort most of that money from. Or do I?

Ban has already put the proposal into writing, but intends to make his major presentation at the climate change conference in Durban, South Africa on November 28. Considering what usually happens at those Durban conferences, he may think that most of the money can be used to eradicate the Jews who are causing the climate change. The initial fund was first set up back in December and is called (what else?) The Green Climate Fund. Ban did a test run at a climate conference in Dhaka, Bangladesh, to a warm reception. My suspicion is that Bangladesh won't be providing much of the annual fee of $100 billion.

Ban announced: "Governments must find ways--now--to mobilize up to the $100 billion per annum. An empty shell is not sufficient." When the coin in the coffer rings, the world from global climate change springs. Bangladesh has already put up its $2.73, now it's the turn of the rest of the world. And if history is any indication, the "rest of the world" means America paying 75% and everybody else filling in the remaining 24.9999%.

Lest we miss the message, the Climate Change Vulnerable Forum, representing 30 nations from Africa, the Americas, Asia and the Pacific at the Dhaka meeting made it clear they are seeking "action by industrialized nations to cut carbon emissions and provide technical and financial support." The Forum was originally organized by President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives in November of 2009. When I finish here, I'm going to Google "Maldives" just so I'll know where the hell that is.

The Forum, with Ban's enthusiastic support, will produce its report to the 190 nations attending the upcoming Durban conference. Says Ban: "I will count on the members of this Forum to arrive with a strong and unified voice." That's another way of saying that the countries which will do next-to-nothing toward funding the initiative should be prepared to browbeat and guilt-trip the wealthier nations into handing them boxcar loads of money and assistance.

Ban goes on to say: "In this time of global economic uncertainty, let your commitment to green growth be an inspiration to more developed countries--the major emitters. Even in these difficult times, we cannot afford delay." Well, Mr. General-Secretary, America cannot afford to be funding another UN initiative based on junk science and failed UN policies. You are suggesting (much like your comrade Obama) that we should fund this nonsense "right away." Don't look too closely, and don't worry about how the money will actually be spent. Trust us.

The money-grab aside, the Durban conference will be designed as the replacement for the Kyoto Protocol which expires next year. Since every nation which subscribed to the Kyoto Protocol has failed to reach even the minimal goals, which have been revised several time, it seems strange to be coming up with another pie-in-the-sky proposal that is even more expensive. On the other hand, this is the UN Wonderland, so why not?

Bill Clinton tried to shove Kyoto down our throats, and was soundly rejected by the Senate. It is extremely likely that the current Green Weenie-in-Chief will attempt to do the same thing. After all, how can we resist any initiative with "green" in the title? And why should we resist? Look at the success of Solyndra--and that only cost the taxpayers a half-billion or so. So as soon as the UN members meeting in Durban are done burying Israel, expect a bill from the UN for $75 or $85 billion to get Al Gore back on track.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Mexico And The International Criminal Court

It's not news to anyone who picks up a newspaper or watches TV that Mexico is a mess. Civil law and order have broken down in major parts of the nation, The local law enforcement authorities have given up trying to enforce the law, and the army is taking on the cartels. Yet it's hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys.

A mixed bag of leftists and intellectuals in Mexico think they have found the solution. Citing the fact that "Mexico is living a state of emergency and suffering the most dramatic humanitarian crisis in its recent history," they have demanded that the International Criminal Court (ICC) stop the bloodshed. Whatever the right solution may be, this isn't it.

First of all, the ICC is a judicial body. It can find defendants guilty and order punishment, but there still has to be a law enforcement agency which will carry out the mandates of the court. And who might that be? It's already rather well established that the Mexican police and the military can't handle the internal warfare. So do what? Bring in the UN troops? Given their recent history in Africa (the only arena the ICC has so far addressed in its rulings), the UN troop cure might be worse than the disease. When the UN troops are not being simply inept and ineffectual, they have a habit of joining in the activity they're supposed to be suppressing.

Second, the pleaders have the same disease that intellectuals all over the world exhibit--moral equivalence and lack of focus. Instead of having a clearly identified bad guy (the criminal cartels, for instance) and a cause of action upon which the court might act, the Mexican eggheads want the ICC to conduct a human rights investigation into the roles of, well, everybody. They not only want to discover the truth about cartel leaders such as Joaquin Guzman, but they also want an investigation into Mexican President Felipe Calderon.

In reality, the ICC would be just another feelgood attempt to bring law and order to a nation which can't control its government or its people. I have no fondness for Felipe Calderon, and consider him to be just another political crook in a long line of political crooks who have held the Mexican presidency. I certainly resent him coming before the Congress and telling American states how they ought to be treating Mexican illegal immigrants. But he is a symptom of whatever has infected Mexico, not the cause. He has allowed his army to get out of control, and in some glaring examples, the army units and commanders have gone over to the side of the cartels.

America certainly isn't the answer (even though it's possible it could be). America hasn't had the will or the courage to end murderous banditry in Mexico and across the American border since the days of General Black Jack Pershing. The American governments of the past few decades would not take military action in (not against) Mexico without the approval of the United Nations. Somehow, I don't think we could get that approval. America is now suffering border incursions that can only be described as invasions, yet we continue to treat the matter as purely a Mexican problem. The current administration thinks that doing nothing is the best policy.

By some sort of arcane logic which I don't understand, the Obama administration has found that "political instability" in the Middle East and North Africa is more dangerous than strong men and jihadist militias. But somehow that same administration doesn't see the danger of political instability and civil unrest all along our southern border. The deadly violence has spilled across the border, and much of the recent murderous activity involves weapons sold to the cartels during the insane operation called Fast and Furious.

Instead of taking Calderon out to the woodshed and enforcing the idea that he must get his own house in order or we will, Obama praises Calderon for his views on border control and treats the Mexican president with a deference he doesn't show for his counterparts in England and the European continent. Obama could be offering financial and military assistance with the express condition that Calderon whip his army into shape and make serious headway against the cartels. Instead, we continue to send billions of dollars in aid to Mexico with no strings attached.

I certainly don't have a well thought-out plan for exactly how to effectuate change in Mexico. I'm hoping that some of you might. One thing does seem quite obvious to me however. Given the current status of the world, there are only two countries which can do anything about solving the problem. They are Mexico itself and the United States. With all due respect to the Mexican intellectuals, the ICC would be about as effective a solution to Mexican violence and national turmoil as my recipe for clam chowder would be for curing cancer.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

With Friends Like This . . . .

That's jolly old Hugo Chavez addressing the United Nations concerning the world's greatest enemy--the United States. He was merely one in a long string of dictators and America-haters who have addressed the organization that takes up space on American soil and sucks up American dollars like a giant Hoover vacuum.

Now, a Republican has proposed an amendment to an appropriations bill that would cut off funding to UN members who oppose America. Even though I am not Catholic, I will be praying to St. Jude, the patron saint of lost causes, that something like this could actually happen. Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-South Carolina) inserted an amendment into the House Foreign Affairs Committee markup session which would prohibit any foreign assistance to UN members who oppose the United States position more than fifty percent of the time.

The fact that the amendment is highly unlikely to pass, and that it would be difficult to implement does not deter me from thinking it would be one helluva great idea. To start with, a requirement to track how the member nations vote is already an official State Department function. The tracking includes how each nation votes in the General Assembly and the Security Council. The amendment would require that foreign assistance be cut off from nations voting against the United States position more than fifty percent of the time as determined by the State Department reports, with a waiver available if the President makes a formal determination that invoking the waiver is "important to the national interests of the United States." OK, I know that's a serious flaw, but Obama won't be President forever.

The amendment was passed on a straight party-line vote of the Republican-controlled subcommittee 22 to 18, and by the full committee by a 23 to 20 vote. It has an excellent chance of passage in the full House. But we can all make a pretty intelligent guess as to what will happen when it reaches the Senate and the cold hands of Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada). Still, this is an excellent opportunity to call attention to profligate spending on the UN in a nation awash in debt. Said Rep. Duncan: "We're $14.3 trillion n debt. Why should we pay countries to hate us when they've shown they're willing to do it for free?" I don't have a good answer to that question.

Already in the crosshairs of the amendment are terrorist-supporters Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt and Pakistan. In addition, those nations which promote abortions as state policy would be included (it's the "Mexico City policy" abandoned by the Obama administration). I'd include China on that list, except that any funding we give them we borrowed from them in the first place. There is also a non-waivable provision that would cut off funding to any nation that opposes moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Whether the Organization of American States could be included is iffy, since it is an affiliate rather than a formal member of the General Assembly.

On straight "yes" or "no" votes in 2010, only twenty-seven percent of UN members (53 out of 191) voted with the United States more than fifty percent of the time. Given that the Obama administration is in-sync with many UN initiatives, the percentage of nations voting with us is much higher than it was in 2008 when the Bush administration opposed every single initiative coming out the the UN Human Rights Commission. With recent Supreme Court decisions on the Second Amendment, Obama administration concurrence with gun-grab UN initiatives will likely be good for funding our enemies, but unlikely to reach full treaty status in the Senate.

Of the 53 nations which voted with the United States more than 50% of the time, not a single one is in Central or South America. There is only one in the African region (the Seychelles), and in Asia there are only Japan, South Korea, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, and Palau. The few remaining nations are either NATO members or newly-emerged former Soviet governments in Eastern Europe.

It's probably not necessary to mention that of those nations which support the United States, our strongest major supporter is Israel at 91.8%, exceeded only by the minuscule Palau at 96.5% and Micronesia at 94%. Of those nations which receive immense American foreign aid, the number who oppose the United States is an appalling comment on American foolish generosity. Pakistan voted with the United States a mere 21.3% of the time. Pakistan is followed by Egypt at 31.4%, Kenya at 31.7%, Ethiopia at 32.8%, Nigeria at 33.9%, Jordan and South Africa at 33.8%, Afghanistan at 34.3%, and finally the great exporter of humans and guns to the United States, Mexico at 37.5%.

A separate list is also kept on those issues considered to be of primary importance to the United States. Those are the ones for which the President would have to issue waivers. Among these are the Cuban embargo, human rights violations in North Korea and Iran, the death penalty, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Durban racism process, nuclear missile proliferation and disarmament, and the Muslim-proposed initiatives on "religious defamation."

Of the top American aid recipients, only Israel, Mexico and Kenya voted with the United States in 2010 more than fifty percent of the time on those "priority" issues. Of the remaining top recipients, Afghanistan was at 46.2%, Ethiopia at 44.4%, Nigeria and Jordan at 40%, South Africa at 30%, Egypt at 25%, and Taliban-Al Qaeda-hiding Pakistan at 22.2%.

A fool and his money are soon parted. We have been fools for far too long. If the proposed amendment only shakes up a few of the executive fools and calls attention to the monstrous and dangerous waste of American taxpayer dollars in hard times, it will have been worth it. The only remaining question is how much of this debate will the mainstream media even mention?

Addendum: The Youth Initiative of the United Nations Population Fund just voted to make children's sexual rights a priority to be brought before the General Council. The group defines "youth" as people between the ages of 10 and 24. Here's their goal: “In order to fully recognise young people’s sexual and reproductive rights, especially the right to choose [abortion], we must achieve universal access to safe and youth-friendly sexual and reproductive health care services, including access to evidence-based comprehensive sexuality education, in formal and non-formal settings." It should be interesting to see how that plays out in our scenario, and where the Obama administration will put its vote.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Have An Eggroll, Mr. Goldstone

Goldstone lied, people died. I like the sound of that. But you won't hear that from the left or our friends in the Caliphate. South African Judge Richard Goldstone is the United Nations Human Rights Council member who wrote the outrageous "Goldstone Report" regarding Gaza and Israel starting with events in 2008. The pack of lies and anti-Israel propaganda was used by antisemites worldwide to damn Israel for defending itself.

Worldwide media hailed the report for its honesty and craftsmanship, including all the major American media. Nothing new there. Goldstone ignored all standards of investigation, law, fairness and ethics while condemning Israel and ignoring the acts of Hamas and the Palestinian Intifada. Hamas charged all kinds of horrendous human rights abuses, but Goldstone didn't call a single witness who could actually corroborate the charges. Goldstone had decided in advance, in keeping with UN habit, that Israel was guilty of deliberately killing civilians and committing war crimes.

During the period covered by the report, Hamas and friends lobbed rockets and of mortar shells into Israel, deliberately picking targets in highly-populated civilian areas. Israel responded with pinpoint attacks on Hamas strongholds, knocking out many of the ordnance locations. Hamas and the Palestinians place their armaments in the middle of their own populated areas, and the locals don't bother to get out of the way. So naturally, the attacks on the armaments resulted in a number of civilian casualties. Unfortunate, but also necessary. Hamas targeted civilians, but Israel targeted arms depots and Hamas strongholds, resulting in what is most often called collateral damage. In case Goldstone and the leftists haven't noticed, using civilians as shields and civilian homes as hideouts inevitably leads to unwanted but predictable civilian deaths.

Israel is scrupulous about investigating any possible human rights violation within its own ranks. After conducting an exhaustive investigation of the activities covered by the Goldstone, Israel (along with several neutral investigators) recently produced a counter-report with incontrovertible evidence, proof, and testimony. Unlike Hamas and the Islamofascist murderers, Israel actually found two instances where Israeli defense forces had exceeded the rigid rules of engagement which the government of Israel imposes on its military. Those involved are currently being punished.

The new report was so exacting and so ironclad that it showed the Goldstone Report up for what it actually was--a sham and a UN coverup of Hamas's murderous ways. Whether struck with conscience or merely embarrassed by his incompetent "investigation," Goldstone has now disavowed his own report. Goldstone went public with his non-apology apology in the Washington Post. The fact that the Post even printed it is surprising, since it tends to prove that they have been enabling Islamist lies and supporting a world peace organization that cares not a wit for actual peace (or truth, for that matter).

After admitting that his report was seriously lacking in all the fundamentals of a genuine investigation, Goldstone further stated that he could find no serious flaws in Israel's counter-report. He says he "regrets that his panel did not offer a fuller picture." Oh, his report was full, all right. Full of lies but absent any believable facts. He says that the counter-report proves beyond any doubt that civilians in Gaza were not targeted either intentionally or as a matter of policy. He neglected to mention that it did prove that Hamas regularly, intentionally, and as a matter of policy targets civilians.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is demanding that the UN formally repudiate the Goldstone Report. As he should. But Natanyahu is no fool, and I'm sure he's not holding his breath waiting for the UN or the Council to admit their purposeful defamation of Israel. Said Netanyahu: "There are very few instances in which those who disseminate libels retract their libel. This happened in the case of the Goldstone Report."

Now you know that the left and the Islamofascists are not going to take this lying down. Their former hero is now their demon. Goldstone has been called a "self-loathing Jew," a "traitor," and "an ignoramus who doesn't know the difference between antisemitism and antizionism." Ilan Pappe at Electronic Intifada calls Goldstone's statement a "shameful U-turn." But just like the original Goldstone Report, they offer no proof that he was right then or wrong now.

Note: For those not familiar with musical comedy, "Have an Eggroll, Mr. Goldstone" is a line from a song in the musical "Gypsy."
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

UN Caves To Vicious Defamers of Islam

Last week, the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted its annual resolution concerning religious intolerance. But unlike the past resolutions, the Christian Crusaders and the perfidious Jews bullied the Council into producing a document that encourages tolerance but throws out all language concerning "defamation" of religion.

That's the first time that has happened since the halcyon days of the predecessor of the HRC, the Commission on Human Rights, first introduced defamation into the recipe back in 1999. For those twelve years, the Organization of the Islamic Conference had managed to get the two commissions to include language that encompassed both "defamation of religion" in general and Islam specifically. The only thing that remains of the former Islamic-leaning resolutions was wording that encourages nations to "adopt measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief." That sounds amazingly like America's own "clear and present danger" test.

We can only hazard intelligent guesses as to why the Mad Muslims at the Geneva meeting lost control of the Council's agenda, but there are a few recent events that may have contributed to the change. Pakistan is at the forefront of the debate. Pakistan's draconian blasphemy laws have resulted in the deaths and injuries of countless human beings, ranging from moderate Muslims to Christians, Jews and Buddhists. There was a particular emphasis on apostates. But the murder of two prominent Muslim opponents of the capital punishment provisions of Pakistan's blasphemy laws was a particular spur to reform on the Council. The mass murders and displacement of Christians in Ethiopia and Sudan haven't helped the Muslim cause either.

It appears that the support for defamation of religion resolutions in the General Assembly has eroded seriously. Since 2005, the General Assembly has adopted the Council's resolution without modification. But last year, the resolution was passed by a narrow margin of twelve votes. In 2007, the margin was 57 votes. All signs are that the General Assembly will adopt the new resolution verbatim. This would come after several years of dilution of the language of the ongoing resolutions. Each successive year, the number of references to Islam specifically have been decreased, while such neologisms such as Judeophobia and Christianophobia were added to the ever-present Islamophobia. But this resolution is a landmark in that all moral equivalencies are off the table, and no "phobias" of any kind are included.

Previous resolutions had conflated victim and perpetrator by using language that spoke of "discrimination against Muslim minorities following the events of September 11, 2001." Events? Did they mean the mass murder of 3,000 civilians of all races and creeds by Muslims flying planes into buildings? This time, the resolution is much more in line with the reality that blasphemy laws result in the deaths of political figures who are Muslims themselves. The murder of Pakistani Minorities Minister Shabhaz Bhatt and Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer seemed to put the Council over the top. Both were assassinated for their opposition to religious blasphemy penalties, and both assassinations were followed by massive celebrations of the murders among mainstream Muslims.

A prime mover in the initiative to end blasphemy laws, Human Rights First, summed it up nicely: "This resolution is an important shift away from efforts at the UN to create an international blasphemy code." Shehrbano Taseer, the daughter of the slain Punjab Province governor, spoke for Human Rights First at the Geneva hearings on the resolution. Taseer and the religious rights group contended that ". . . states need to do more to adopt measures to combat violence and discrimination on the basis of religion or belief, as well as address religious hatred without restricting speech." That is a radical departure from the past, and the Council adopted both the words and the reasoning.

Human Rights First documented more than seventy cases in fifteen Muslim nations in which blasphemy penalties resulted in death sentences and/or lengthy prison terms and provoked attacks by murderous mobs. They were even able to cite a western example in that an Austrian writer was convicted of "denigrating the teachings of a legally-recognized religion." She had given lectures on jihad and the horrific treatment of women in Islamic lands, and said that today Mohammed would be considered a pedophile. As for the latter charge, she had merely cited a Koranic Hadith which itself stated that Mohammed consummated his marriage to his youngest wife when she was nine years old.

Giving the devil his due, President Barack Obama allowed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to praise the new resolution. She called the resolution "a landmark achievement which must be followed by sustained commitment." The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom stated more specifically that "tragically, it took the assassination of two prominent Pakistani officials who opposed the country's draconian blasphemy laws to convince the OIC that the annual defamation of religions resolutions embolden extremists rather than bolster religious harmony."

Before we start dancing in the streets over this, we need to be reminded that the heavily American-subsidized government of Pakistan immediately announced to its population that there will be no changes whatsoever to Pakistan's blasphemy and religious defamation laws. We await the State Department's statement on that issue.




[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama Runs Away And Joins The Circus

It took a Barack Obama to put America in the United Nations circus known as the Human Rights Council. And true to his dedication, it has resulted in America being the target of a human rights investigation by the world-renowned U.N. circus clowns. Lead clowns in this farce are China, Cuba, Libya and Saudi Arabia. No wonder kids are scared of circus clowns.

Cirque de Soleil it ain't. Joining the clowns listed above are Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Russia, Algeria, Bolivia and Nicaragua in supporting roles. The closest thing I can think of to compare this with would be Adolf Hitler investigating the Jews for violating human rights in Germany.

It wasn't bad enough that we have been the U.N. sugar-daddy since its inception, but now Obama and his "citizen of the world" nonsense have allowed us to be subject to the jurisdiction of a body that spends its entire time patting itself on the back while creating anti-western agitprop. And the hits just keep on coming. Already, the Cuban ambassador has demanded that the U.S. end its quarantine of Cuba because it is a crime of genocide. Never forget that the United Nations plays fast and loose with words like "genocide," "hate," "war crimes," and of course, "Islamophobia."

North Korea has indignantly admonished the United States about American inequities and iniquities in housing, employment and education. The same country that is starving its own citizens to death while they languish in shacks unprotected from the brutal Korean Peninsula winters has decided that America is just too tough on mortgagees and renters. Libya has hopped aboard accusing the United States of racism, racial discrimination and intolerance. Perhaps they didn't take a good look at the President who got us into this mess before launching their criticism.

Previous to America taking center ring in this circus, U.N. Special Rapporteur Doudou Diene telegraphed what America could expect if it became a member of the Council that the Bush administration had shunned. On his travel to the U.S. which consisted entirely of visiting Islamic terror-supporting groups, Diene reported that "Racism and racial discrimination have profoundly and lastingly marked and structured American society. The historical, cultural and human depth of racism still permeates all dimensions of life in American society." He was particularly appalled at the massive discrimination against people of Arab, Muslim, South Asian or Middle-Eastern descent. Dr. Diene--meet Barack Hussein Obama, freely-elected President of the United States. Doudou indeed.

Oh, and by the way, Diene is from Senegal, a Muslim nation and member of the Saudi-funded Organization of the Islamic conference. In case anyone missed his point, he reiterated to the Human Rights Council that America has now joined that he would specifically charge America with racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance if America ever subjected itself to the dictates of the Council. If Obama had an ounce of sense, he would have seen that joining that council was like Daniel walking into the lions' den, with God on the side of the lions.

But, no matter. Obama doesn't think much of America either. Listening to some of his rhetoric about fundamentally changing America and considering the rogues gallery of advisers he has surrounded himself with, there's no doubt that he figured a big helping of self-flagellation was in order. And the U.N. Human Rights Council is exactly the organization to hand us the cat o' nine tails.

Diene's replacement has gone ballistic over Arizona's immigration statute. Says Githu Migai: "This is the sort of statute that opens a floodgate, equips a policeman or such other law enforcement person on the beat with such immense powers as to compromise the very fundamental human rights that ought to be enjoyed in such and enlightened part of the world as Arizona." You can tell from the "enlightened part" that Migai merely pities America, but doesn't hate it quite as much as Diene.

All the Obama administration has done by joining the Human Rights Council is to give legitimacy to a conference of clowns. He has further guaranteed that the United States will have to sit still for vituperation being poured on its head by virtue of its membership. And just in case the Council missed anything, prior to joining the group the Obamists prepared its own report for the Council including its critique of the Arizona statute while at the same time alleging discrimination against Muslim Americans, Native Americans, African-Americans and (the catch-all) other minority groups. Do I need to mention that Obama's report was first submitted to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) for approval and input before its submission to the Human Rights Council?

And the World Apology Tour continues apace. Joseph A. Klein, author of Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations and Radical Islam sums up Obama's philosophy and willingness to humiliate America extremely well: "We have a president who does not believe in American exceptionalism. Obama believes the United States has historically been too powerful for its own good and bears guilt for its racist past. Don't forget that this is the same man who, back in 2001, criticized our Founding Fathers for 'shackling' the government with 'negative liberties' placing limitations on governmental power rather than specifying what the government 'must do' for its citizens by means of redistributive policies."

I have nothing to add to that.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Second Amendment Traitors Try The U.N.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that neither the federal government nor the various branches of state government can prohibit or severely limit the right of individual Americans to own guns. Although some restrictions will be put in place, since no basic right is absolute, they must be minor, administrative, and serve the high level of court scrutiny of a compelling state interest.

That won't stop the leftists in the White House and Congress from trying an end run. The United Nations, that bastion of freedom, liberty and human rights, has come up with its umpteenth proposal for grabbing non-military small arms from everyone who doesn't work for a government. It's all for a good purpose, you see. Removing the weapons that can halt the progress of a tyrannical regime or merely preserve the right of self-defense is a noble aspiration. And why, you ask? Because confiscation and criminalization of gun ownership will halt terrorism, insurgency, and international crime syndicates. That makes sense, doesn't it? No?

The "Small Arms Treaty" is the newest, bestest, and most-supersize UN gun confiscation program so far. And the Obama administration through its Secretary of State Hillary Clinton couldn't be more on board. The administration that doesn't believe in national borders, or nations for that matter, was bound to do a Pavlovian drool just at the mention of global arms control. The latest version has the usual red herring steps to confiscation--outrageous red tape and arcane requirements for licensing and registration.

Then, the bureaucrats will create a massive list of "prohibited firearms" that includes pretty much anything that isn't a water pistol. Then the proposal will create an international gun registry that makes the old American rigmarole look like simplicity incarnate. And finally, Muslim autocrats, jihadist mass murderers, Russian commissars, Chinese tyrants, South American banana republic presidents-for-life, and Euroweenies will decide that you can't own a gun. Simple, huh? "Progressives" and leftist Democrats actually believe that the world would be just perfect if we only had one world government in charge of everything. And that's not possible as long as the self-centered and evil United States is allowed to continue letting its citizens have the right to shoot back.

This is another one of those Obamist plans to eliminate a constitutional right by moving so fast that its opponents won't have time to organize the opposition. The UN, with Hillary's assistance, plans to ram this treaty through "at the earliest time possible." Then, with a little luck, they can get it past the Senate (which must ratify the treaty) during their lame-duck session.

As most of you know, I don't panic easily, nor am I declaring this a "Chicken Little" moment. But this assault on basic American rights is certainly dangerous enough to require getting the word out that the gun-grabbers are at it again. The treaty can't be accomplished without Senate approval, but complacency and willful blindness on the part of gun owners or simply those who love liberty could allow this to happen by sheer lethargy.

The Senate has proven it has nothing but contempt for the will of American citizens and the Constitution in its passage of Obamist socialized medicine. If enough of those liars and word-twisters can lull America into believing this treaty is not dangerous, they'll go for it. Given the number of gun-control opponents in the Democratic Party who ran to the right of their Republican challengers in the last two election cycles, I see the success of such a ratification as very slim, but not impossible. As a believer in the maxim that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, I think it's important that all Second Amendment supporters be aware of this development, however unlikely it is that the treaty might be ratified.

In addition, we must remember that we have a President whose loyalty to America is highly questionable, and his perverse love for foreign dictators is an ever-present danger. Hillary Clinton is, after all, his Secretary of State. Both recoil at the thought of free citizens owning guns, and both believe the UN knows best. Obama is down, but he's not out, and reaching an international agreement for future gun confiscation would energize his leftist base. They don't like the Second Amendment, they abhor the peasants who elected them, and they think American exceptionalism is the crazed belief held by those who cling to their guns and Bibles.

The President can play on the concept that Democratic Senators shouldn't embarrass the Democratic administration by rejecting an international treaty, thus weakening the resolve of pro-gun ownership Democrats. He certainly proved that moderate Democrats are easily bribed during the health care reform debates. And those who aren't easily bribed are easily intimidated. We also know we can't count on the John McCains and Lindsey Grahams in the Republican Party to do the right thing if it means they'll have to give up their high-profile maverick image. Unlike the last time one of these treaties was roundly rejected, this one could be close.

In order to avoid scaring everyone to death, I should also point out that the passage of the treaty would undoubtedly produce an immediate trip to the Supreme Court. Whenever a treaty could interfere with a fundamental constitutional right, the Supreme Court will be appealed to. Again, I find it highly unlikely that the current Supreme Court would undo its recent strong affirmation of the Second Amendment by allowing an end run to the UN side of the field to defeat the Constitution. But the last time I said something was impossible, it was just before the Democrats brought the vampire health care reform bill back for a vote, and won.

The best defense is a good offense, and if any of our readers have Senators who are shaky on the issue, it's time to make a few phone calls, send a few letters, and take a few public stands. Certain Senators are so solid that we need not worry about them. My Senators are so addled and leftist that it's not worth the effort. But many of you have Senators who might be on the fence and need a good push to get them on the right side. Their job is to protect American sovereignty and the Constitution. Our job is to make damned sure they know we're watching and that we vote.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama Dodges Congress And The People Again

Barack Obama has once again demonstrated his complete disdain for Congress, the Constitution and the American people with a recess appointment for which there can be no reasonable explanation. Recess appointments in the face of strong opposition from the minority party are not unusual nor are they unprecedented. In fact, the liberals are pointing to George Bush's recess appointment of John Bolton to the UN ambassadorship as an example. There is no comparison.

Presidents are known for making recess appointments when their chosen nominee has been vetted by the Senate and turned down or not confirmed by stalling tactics. And so it was with Bolton. Frustrated with the Senate's refusal to confirm Bolton without sound reasons, Bush made the recess appointment. Bolton wasn't pretty enough for the Democrats for starters. More importantly, he was highly critical of the UN's bad habit of wasting billions of dollars on failed projects and thieving officials. His outspoken criticism of the UN's open obeisance to dictatorships and human rights violators cost him support from the party of appeasement. Democrats love the UN because it works so hard to destroy American sovereignty.

In addition, though the United States spends ungodly amounts of money at the UN, the ambassadorship is really not much more than a pulpit for the ambassador to enunciate the policies of the President. Other than threatening to withhold funds, the American ambassador can't do much more damage individually than the ambassador from Zimbabwe or Burqina Fasso. But the UN ambassador doesn't set US policy, nor does he or she have vast power over major segments of the American economy.

Obama, on the other hand, made a recess appointment of leftist Donald Berwick as Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS"). Unlike Bolton's case, Berwick has never been vetted, nor have there been any hearings on his qualifications since the President announced Berwick's nomination. Unlike Bolton's UN, CMS has immense power over a segment of government which affects every single American and has a budget considerably larger than that of the Defense Department. And unlike Bolton's outspoken and public persona, practically nobody outside the confines of the halls of the left had ever heard of Donald Berwick.

Obama wasn't reacting to huge political criticisms of Berwick coming from the opposition party, nor was he trumping a recalcitrant Senate Committee that wouldn't give Berwick a fair hearing. The best that can be said for this recess appointment is that Obama didn't want the public to know the kind of person he would nominate to control much of the health care system. In addition, since there was little public knowledge of the nominee, it is rather apparent that Obama didn't want to embarrass his nominee by having him appear in front of a Senate Committee to answer hard questions about his utilitarian socialist agenda.

Rather than bravely stand up to a Senate which might oppose his nominee, the sneaky and dishonest President simply ignored the process entirely, and installed his boy without any Constitutional provision to back him or thwart him. Two of Berwick's stands on medical care are real beauties, and Obama couldn't risk that getting out before Berwick already held the position of administrator. The first is Berwick's sick and fawning admiration for the miserable failure that is the British National Health Service. The other is his bold advocacy of statistical and fiscal analyses of how much health care any American is entitled to ("rationing health care").

Berwick's admiration for the British NHS sounds more like a schoolgirl crush on the captain of the football team than the reasoned conclusions of a high-level government official. Says Berwick about the NHS: "I am romantic about the National Health Service; I love it. All I need to rediscover the romance is to look at health care in my own country." And if that doesn't turn your stomach sufficiently, consider his view on the British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, which makes life and death decisions about NHS patients. He enthusiastically applauds the British concept that "the decision is not whether or not we will ration care; the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open."

What you mean "we," paleface? That "we" includes the vast majority of Americans, but not the elites such as Congress and, oh, the former CEO of the Institute for Health Care Improvement, one Donald Berwick. Although the IHI is ostensibly a not-for-profit organization, it was able to take in enough cash to pay Berwick $2.3 million dollars in his final full year as CEO, and at the same time write him a lifetime health care plan that even Bill Gates couldn't afford. It's rationing for us, and spare-no-expense for Berwick. "We're all going to suffer through this together, aren't you?" is Berwick's position.

In June of last year, Berwick was interviewed by a specialty magazine called Biotechnology Healthcare. His major thesis for the magazine was "Well, at this point, to have access to a particular additional benefit such as a new drug or medical intervention is so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds. We make those decisions all the time." That was the lead up to his comment about rationing "with our eyes open."

While the mere peasants are treated to the vicissitudes of the miserable Medicare program that has recently gotten even worse after major funding cuts, Berwick and his family won't have to give it a moment's thought. They're covered for everything, literally, and then some. Yet Obama thought that a man so divorced from the daily lives of normal Americans was such an important nominee that he wouldn't even subject him to minimal investigation or Senate hearings.

In fact, it wasn't just those pesky fascist Republicans that Obama was worried about. His socialist agenda and lack of concern for the lives of average Americans has shaken even some of his former Democratic hangers-on. Sen Max Baucus (D-Montana) said "I'm troubled that, rather than going through the standard nomination process, Dr. Berwick was recess-appointed. Senate confirmation of presidential appointees is an essential process prescribed by the Constitution that serves as a check on executive power and protects Montanans and all Americansby ensuring that crucial questions are asked of the nominee--and answered." Even Baucus, who stumped for Obamacare in his home state, can see that his President is dodging the normal process for nefarious reasons.

Obama's genius press secretary danced all around the issue, neither explaining the reasons for the failure to hold hearings nor giving any indication that he saw any reason for holding hearings at all. After all, the President wanted Berwick for the job--isn't that good enough? Asked by CNS News "did the President ever ask chairman Baucus for a hearing?" Gibbs answered, "Not that I'm aware." Gibbs then babbled on about the importance of moving forward quickly on all health care fronts (before the people get any more pissed off?). Those contentious Senate hearings would have slowed the process down, and we can't have that.

Senator John Barasso (R-Wyoming) is one of two doctors serving in the United States Senate. He looked at the rationing argument and the immense power, prestige and wealth of the CMS, and concluded: "Medicare and Medicaid are going to disburse over $800 billion in benefits this year. It is larger than the economies of many nations. This is a position that deserved a hearing. This is a position that deserved a vote."
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The UN Loves Women--No, Really.

You can always tell how much the United Nations likes a subject by how many commissions, committees, discussion groups, confabs, and entities are created to embrace the subject. It wasn't sufficient that they have allowed the repressive regime of Iran on the Commission on the Status of Women. So just in case you didn't think they considered women sufficiently important, the UN is now creating "U N Women."

What is that, you ask? Well, officially it's the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women. Now are you convinced of how much the UN cares? It could be worse, I suppose. Unlike the Commission on the Status of Women which is comprised almost entirely of members chosen by geographical area, the "Entity" will have a slightly higher representation based on the percentage of money contributed to the UN. So the United States and Japan will lead the field of states which get seats based on monetary contributions. But they'll still be outnumbered by the states which get seats based solely on geography.

So why create yet another UN group to study the international condition of women? That should probably be obvious from the divergence in representation on the entity. If there's one thing the United Nations does well, it's to suck money out of the pockets of the western democracies. With Iran and other repressive regimes leading the Status Commission, the only way to sucker the West (America particularly) into funding another meaningless and counterproductive activity is to give them extra seats on a newly-created money burning machine.

Previous American administrations have ranged from mildly complicit to openly hostile to the United Nations bodies which claim to be one thing but do quite another. How much do you think the Status Commission will be doing to improve the lot of women in Muslim and sub-Saharan African nations? But this knowledge slows down the influx of money to the UN. And we are now two years into the "we are the world, we are the people" Obama administration. So let's create another whole new body purporting to stand for women's progress and make sure the big bucks nations are well-represented so they can feel better about throwing more money down another UN rathole.

Presently, aside from the Status Commission, there are several small, less grand-sounding UN entities which cover some of the same ground. But as we know, the UN is all about efficiency. So those entities, which currently cost about $500 million annually to accomplish nothing for women will be replaced by a much grander entity that will spend an estimated $1 billion annually to do nothing for women than was previously done for half the price.

One cannot help but wonder how long after the Western suckers have disgorged their capitalist wealth on the new entity will they discover that somehow the entity has come to be dominated by the champions of women's liberation such as Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran, Sudan and the johnny-come-lately Afghanistan. I'm still waiting for the creation of a multibillion dollar UN "entity" to study the empowerment of gays, lesbians, transgendered and transsexual folks. I'm sure my old home and original site of the United Nations, San Francisco, will be among the first to commit itself to such a chimerical concept.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Ahmadinejad Took The Field

President Obama marches across the White House lawn to the tune of Hail to the Chief at about the same time that Mahmoud Ahmadenijad was calling the tune at the United Nations General Assembly. The sight of the Bearded One from Iran was so inspiring that it caused me to wax poetic. I also found a tune to match the words: American Pie.


A long, long time ago--
I can still remember
How the speeches used to make me smile.
And I knew if we had a chance
That we could make the rubble dance,
And maybe we'd be safe just for awhile.

But May has really made me shiver
With every news that was delivered.
Bad news on the TVs;
The UN loves jihadis.

I can't remember if I cried,
When they didn't know that Mahmoud lied.
But something touched me deep inside.
The day the UN died.

CHORUS:
So bye-bye, Miss American Pie.
Drove my GM to the UN
But those tyrants all lie.
And sad young twerps were drinkin' whiskey and rye,
Singin' "this will be the day that we die.
This will be the day that we die."

Did you write the Book of Hate,
And do you have faith in Allah the Great?
If the Koran tells you so?
Do you have faith in shuck and jive,
Can terror keep us all alive,
And can you teach me how to die real slow?

Well, I know that you're in love with him,
'Cause I saw you smooching in the gym.
You all kicked off your shoes,
So you could hear him twist the news.

I was an older U.S. broncin' buck,
With a flag lapel pin and no pickup truck,
But I knew that I was out of luck,
The day the UN died.

Repeat CHORUS.

Now for nine years we've been on our own,
And world peace sank like a hunk of stone,
But that's not how it used to be.
When the Jester sang for the Middle East,
In a coat made out of Persian beast,
And a voice not made for you and me,

Oh, and while the West was looking down,
The Jester stole its former crown.
The confab was adjourned;
No peace pact was returned.
And while Boris read a book on Marx,
Jihadists practiced in the park,
And we sang dirges in the dark,
The day the UN died.

Repeat CHORUS.

Helter skelter in a summer swelter,
We're all going to need a fallout shelter.
Eight miles high, and falling fast.
His deeds are going to burn your ass,
And it's too late for a bomber pass.
With the Jester leaving town, and real fast.

Now the air vents smelled of sweet perfume,
While jihadis played their marching tune.
We all got up to dance, but we never got the chance.
'Cause the players tried to take the field,
But dear A-Jad he refused to yield.
Do you recall what was revealed,
The day the UN died?

Repeat CHORUS.

And then we were all in one place,
A nation clearly lost in space,
With little time to start again.
So come on Barack, just be quick,
And use a weapon not a candlestick.
Cause fire is that devil's only friend.
And as I watched him on the stage,
My hands were clenched in fists of rage.
No angel born in hell, could break that A-Jad's spell.
And as the flames climb high into the night,
To light the jihad's vicious rite,
I saw Satan laughing with delight.
The day the UN died.

Repeat CHORUS.

I met sweet Hill, who sings the blues,
And I asked her for some happy news,
But she just humphed and walked away.
I went down to the history store,
Where I'd read good speeches years before,
But the man there said that the books there were too gay.

And in the streets, the cowards screamed.
The weak-kneed cried, and the Demos dreamed.
But not a word was spoken,
The West's will had been broken.
And the three men I admire the most,
The Father, Son and the Holy Ghost,
Were banished to the farthest coast
The day the UN died.

Repeat CHORUS.

On the appearance of Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad before the UN General Assembly (with apologies to Don McLean).
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Durka Durka, What A Burqa !

Iran has decided to give up its bid for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council. Whew! We dodged that bullet. But wait! There's more! The Islamic Republic of Iran, as it is affectionately known by Barack Hussein Obama, has bigger fish to fry. With a tough vote facing them for the Human Rights Council, the liberal government of Iran snuck its way onto the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women instead. No, seriously. I mean it. Stop laughing.

Obama and his administration were, as usual, absent without leave when the motion to allow Iran on the Women's Commission was raised. With the help of the non-action by eleven other western democracies, Iran got the seat. Iran's application went entirely unchallenged, which proves that the United Nations is either as totally under the spell of radical Islam as we've suggested a few times, or its members have the most twisted sense of humor in all of human history.

If the U.N. ever creates a Commission on Gay Rights, I'm sure Iran will immediately get the chairmanship. As it is, starting in 2011, Iran will be instrumental in setting U.N. policy on women worldwide for four years. The seating of Iran on the Commission comes about a week after a senior Islamic cleric in Tehran pronounced that "immodest dress and behavior by women is to blame for an increase in earthquakes." Very enlightened, and very scientific. Buckle your seatbelts, ladies, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

Among the issues paramount to the Commission is gender-equality. A group of 200 Iranian women's rights advocates had warned the U. N. in an open letter that Iranian membership "would be a serious threat to the Commission's goals and mission, and would curtail progress and the advancement of women." That sounds like an understatement to me. Had America, Canada, Australia or any of the European nations on the Economic and Social Council which controls the membership of the Commission raised an objection, there would have been a debate followed by a secret ballot in which Iran might not have been so lucky. But at the U.N., as in Anglo-American common law, silence shows consent. So Iran was placed on the Commission by acclamation.

Since there were two seats open on the Asia Regional group, and only two names were placed in contention, Iran and Thailand are now the two happy new members. Iran is a cesspool of male oppression of women, and Thailand is one step away from civil war. Definitely the right choices for the two open seats. Allegedly, the Asian caucus decided on the two nations in order to strike a deal with Iran to drop its bid for a seat on the Human Rights Council. I guess they figured that it was better that Iran be involved in oppressing only half the world's population rather than oppressing men and women equally.

The United States State Department has previously issued papers which state that "Provisions in the Islamic civil and penal codes, particularly sections dealing with family and property law, discriminate against women. Under Iranian law, the testimony of a woman in court is worth half as much as that of a man. Women sometimes (sometimes?) received disproportionate punishment for crimes such as adultery, including death sentences." Not to mention that if a woman is raped, she is still usually treated as a willing adulteress. In order to prove it was truly rape, she must produce the testimony of four men, or three men and two women who personally witnessed the rape. Good luck with that in any Islamic country.

If an Iranian woman appears in public without the proper hijab, she can be sentenced to a brutal lashing, or a fine, or both (usually, it's both). The hijab is de rigeur in Iran. The burqa is a different version of the garb, most often seen in Afghanistan and other stone-age societies. It's not clear how our U.N. delegates or Secretary of State Hillary (I Am Woman, Hear Me Roar) Clinton feel about Iran creating an all new and improved smoked-glass ceiling for women. But of course if any one of them had spoken out at the U.N. selection process, Iran wouldn't be helping to make policy for the next four years.

Professor Mahboubeh Mobasheri, a female professor at a Tehran university, was introduced to the Commission by delegation leader Mohammed Larijani. The university is restricted to proper Islamic women, but that's just a quibble. Clad in the proper hijab so she wouldn't be stoned or whipped, Mobasheri stated "the significant advancement of Iranian women's status since the Islamic revolution is undeniable. Benefiting from the religious teachings and observing the principles of moderation and strengthening the institution of family, the Islamic Republic of Iran has provided a favorable situation, without any legal impediments for women's promotion."

I'm afraid the Iranian women I know here in the States whose families fled Iran would beg to differ. To me, it sounds like the Islamic version of "keep them in the kitchen where they belong, barefoot and pregnant." That attitude has largely disappeared in the United States in the past three or four decades. But now it will re-emerge on the international level, with the assistance of Iran, the blessing of the United Nations, and the silence of the American government. Well done, Mr. Obama. Have you told Michelle yet?
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama Up Against The Wall

On November 9, Germany and the free world will celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. That day on TV Americans saw an event that overjoyed them. East Berliners came pouring over the walls, Germans on both sides of the wall began hammering at it and breaking out huge chunks, and the East German authorities seemed helpless to do anything about it. It was a glorious victory, and the death knell of the Cold War. Within a very short time, Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia and Poland had similar experiences.

The wall has had great emotional impact on the thinking of free peoples since the days it was first being built in the early Sixties. Famous speeches have been made there that gave boldness and courage to those who opposed the communist tyranny. John Kennedy's "I am a Berliner" speech has gone down in history, along with Ronald Reagan's "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." And let us not forget the lofty campaign speech made by Barack Obama when he promoted his candidacy to his fellow citizens of the world (he didn't get lot of votes from Berlin, however).

But for this momentous event, Obama will inexplicably be absent. He claims his duties of office prevent him from going (tell that to the poor slobs in Copenhagen when he had enough time to tout Chicago for the Olympics). It's not as if he hasn't been invited. German Chancellor Angela Merkel considered this to be an event that warranted the presence of the president of the United States. America played a major role, if not the major role, in bringing about the fall of the Soviet Union, the collapse of the Eastern European satellite states, and the end of the wall. Never mind Kennedy, Reagan and the Berlin Airlift, Obama has more important things to do.

Since Obama has already insulted the United Kingdom and France, he must have figured it's Germany's turn. While making nice with dictators in South America, Eastern Europe and the Middle East, and undermining the constitutional internal affairs of Central American republics, it would have been nice if he could have taken a little time out to honor a momentous event in an ally's history.

After all, who could possibly object to an American president going to a major western capital to join that nation's citizens in celebrating the anniversary of the end of the oppression of its people? Well, Vladimir Putin, to start with. Unlike Obama, Putin fully realizes that this celebration is a slap in the face of Russian autocrats. It rejoices in the end of murderous tyranny. Obama may not join Putin in his underlying reasons for avoiding this memorial, but close enough. Obama doesn't feel comfortable celebrating the end of the Cold War since it also equally celebrates the height of American power, prestige and respect throughout the word. A president who has spent much of his time apologizing to the dictators of the world for all of America's wrongdoing, real and imagined, is not the type to find celebrating American triumph very appetizing.

This is a political mistake of major proportions. Other than the leftists, Americans range from mystified to furious over Obama's lame excuses for not going to Berlin. Even those who are reluctant to praise America's great accomplishments throughout the world still saw the celebration as an opportunity for Obama to lay out America's hopes and dreams of a world without oppressive dictatorships. Those of a more patriotic bent find this to be another example of Obama's disdain for all things American. And overseas, this certainly doesn't strengthen our relationship with the new struggling democracies and the older successful democracies who want America to be at least a major partner in maintaining freedom worldwide.

Obama's complete ignorance or misreading of American history leaves him unable to understand how very much the Soviet-dominated Eastern European nations had looked to America for guidance, inspiration and support. How could any nation revere a country so badly flawed as the United States? At the United Nations, Obama said "no one nation can dominate another nation." If he were to go to the celebration and even half-heartedly participate, it would necessarily mean that the captive nations were right in their rejection of Russian domination. And you know who wouldn't like that.

Chancellor Merkel has tried to put a good face on the matter. But the disappointment and hidden anger is palpable throughout Germany. I read the international Deutschland Nachrichten in German from time to time to see if the English versions of German news match up with what they are saying in German. The differences are subtle, but today's edition can barely disguise the contempt that Merkel and her people feel for getting Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and whoever else ends up there on the November 9 instead of the "leader of the free world." Germany is proud of its ability to finally throw off the yoke of the Soviet Union, but they are also very open about the fact that America was instrumental in helping to bring down that wall. Obama's failure to join in the celebrations seems to Germans to indicate that Obama is not so sure that the fall of the dictators was really such a good thing.

Considering his deference to dictators and oppressors throughout the world, the Germans may very well be on to something. He will meet with Putin to surrender American power in Eastern Europe. He will meet with president-for-life Chavez to promote dictatorship in the western hemisphere. He will meet with Ahmadenijad after failing to raise a peep about the violent rigged elections in Iran. But he won't join Chancellor Merkel and the Germans for one brief day to celebrate the end of the Evil Empire, largely because it would offend one of his favorite dictators. Does anyone wonder why they're extremely nervous in Prague, Budapest, and Warsaw?
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Through The Legal Looking Glass--The Goldstone Report

Those of us who grew up comfortably with our constitutional form of government and limitations on the prosecutorial powers of the state should become educated quickly on international law. The Goldstone Report (more correctly known as The Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Commission on the Gaza Conflict) was recently approved by the U.N. Human Rights Commission on a 25-6 vote. Naturally, it condemned Israel on every level for its "oppression" of the "Palestinians." But it is not the pro forma hatred of Israel that matters. It's the implications for future actions in international legal forums that is truly at issue.

The press worldwide has been feeding lies and half-truths and moral equivalencies to the willing fools who read them for years. So why was the Goldstone Report not simply another opportunity to blacken the name of Israel? There is a genuine and sinister reason for the issuance of the Report. Unlike the newspaper and television calumnies, the Report sets real things in motion. And the most important of those is that it provides an official excuse for domestic courts worldwide who are in bed with the Islamists to exercise otherwise tenuous jurisdiction over Israelis who have committed alleged war crimes. This is the doctrine of "universal jurisdiction" which is totally unacceptable to Americans (whether it is unacceptable to Obama remains to be seen).

The theory (like so many bad theories which lead to horrendous unintended results) is that if a citizen of a nation commits a war crime, and that nation is unwilling to prosecute the alleged war criminal under ordinary rules of jurisdiction, then any nation which agrees that a crime against humanity has been committed can arrest and try the alleged human rights violator. Of course, this being a rule that applies in places without the concepts of Anglo-American jurisprudence, little niceties such as due process and separation between prosecutors and trial courts are simply not worth discussing. Universal jurisdiction is only supposed to be applied when very particular circumstances are present (e.g., a "lawless" nation with no firm rules on what is legal and what isn't). But if a nation with a commonly-accepted system of law has decided that no law has been violated within its territorial boundaries, then the universal jurisdiction of the various nations and the International Criminal Court have no independent right to pursue prosecution.

But there's a catch. Who gets to determine if a nation has a commonly-accepted system of law? Well, the U.N., of course. Although the Goldstone Report does not specifically state that Israel lacks that commonly-accepted system of law, its 650 pages make it clear that by the standards of the U.N., Israel either lacks that system, or has inhumanely chosen to ignore those standards. And since legal niceties don't bother the U.N., that's good enough for them.

The whole report was a monumental set-up. The fix was in before Goldstone ever lifted a finger. He concluded that no amount of argument was ever sufficient to justify Israel's use of operational necessity, self-defense, or military attacks on areas where the Palestinians launch attacks and use civilians as shields. Any civilian killed was considered to be an "intended victim." The Report dismisses all those acts as "premeditated crimes."

The next step was to determine that Israel's operation in Gaza during the missile strikes being launched by the Palestinians into Israel was a systematic effort to oppress the Palestinian people. Goldstone's phony investigation concluded that the incidental razing of a chicken farm that produced eggs for Gaza and the Israeli shelling of a sewage system were clear war crimes, but called the Palestinians' use of Gazan human shields to be mere speculation. The anti-missile operations in Gaza were therefore a systematic policy of repression that has systematically deprived people in Gaza of their freedom.

And finally, because Israel refuses to acknowledge that any of this nonsense has any legal meaning at all after hundreds of civil and military court investigations of Israeli Defense Forces, the report concludes that Israel has shown itself to be unwilling to respond to the repression. Therefore, "The Mission supports the reliance on universal jurisdiction as an avenue for States to investigate violations of the 'grave breach' provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 to prevent impunity and promote international accountability."

Simply put, the Report allows such nations as Libya, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Iran to declare open season on any Israeli who happens to wander within their territorial limits. They, you see, are nations of law--unlike Israel. And our brave President Obama, though not endorsing the Report, was instrumental in approving of the investigation in the first place, and has steadfastly refused to disavow the Report or support our longtime ally, Israel. Since Obama and his Attorney General don't much care for or know about American constitutional due process, why should they concern themselves with foreign jurisdictions?
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...