Tag Archives: UN

Senate to Hold Hearings on Controversial UN Treaty

senate

WASHINGTON, Nov. 5, 2013 /Christian Newswire/ — The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is on the move again as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has confirmed that it will hold hearings on the treaty starting today. The treaty was defeated on the Senate floor last year after it failed to receive the required two-thirds vote, largely because of strong opposition from parental rights and disability rights advocates.
President Obama signed the treaty in July 2009, but opponents were quick to point out the dangers this treaty presented to disabled persons in the United States.

“We all want to show our love and care for people with disabilities,” said Michael Farris, founder and chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA). “This treaty, however, is not the way to do it. This treaty will give United Nations and government agents, not parents, the authority to decide all educational and treatment issues for disabled children. All of the rights that parents have under traditional American law, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act will be undermined by this treaty.”

Farris pointed out that, while supporters of the treaty say that it will not override American law, a recent decision in Hungary showed exactly how the treaty will look if ratified in the United States. The Hungarian constitution did not allow intellectually disabled persons to vote if they were under legal guardianship, but the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities called this law unjust, citing Article 29 of the CRPD as reason to overrule the Hungarian constitution.

“Determining a policy for allowing those with profound intellectual disabilities to exercise the right to vote is a complex and sensitive issue,” Farris said, “but what we know for sure is this: America’s legislators — and not a UN committee — should make this kind of policy decision.

“Parents in the United States are finding that homeschooling benefits their children with disabilities in more ways than a one-size-fits-all approach can ever achieve. The CRPD puts those rights at risk,” he said.

“We know that the eyes of the nation will be on the Virginia and New Jersey elections, but we can’t ignore the imminent threat posed by today’s hearing on Capitol Hill. We are urging people to call their senators and voice their opposition to the treaty,” said William Estrada, the Director of Federal Relations at HSLDA. “This is especially important if your senator is on the Foreign Relations Committee.”

The following senators are on the Foreign Relations Committee: Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), Tom Udall (D-NM), Edward Markey (D-MA), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Edward Shaheen (D-NH), Christopher Coons (D-DE), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Bob Corker (R-TN), Ron Johnson (R-WI), James Risch (R-ID), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), John McCain (R-AZ), John Barrasso (R-WY), Rand Paul (R-KY), Marco Rubio (R-FL). Senators Paul and Rubio have already shown strong opposition to the treaty.

Judge Napolitano: ‘A Treaty Cannot Trump An Expressed Right In The Constitution’

fox_ff_napalitano_treaty_130926c-615x345

YouTube Description:

On Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry signed the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, designed to regulate international weapons trade. It immediately caused some, however, to worry that it could take away parts of our own Second Amendment rights.

“The fact that John Kerry signed the treaty is just symbolic,” Judge Andrew Napolitano said on Fox and Friends on Thursday. “The treaty would have no effect on the United States unless and until it’s ratified by two-thirds of the United States Senate, which is a near impossibility.”

Napolitano also added that what could be impacted by the treaty includes the ability of importers to import certain amounts of ammunition and weapons from other countries.

What it could not affect, however, is a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms.

“A treaty cannot trump an expressed right in the Constitution,” he said.

So, why all the worry? The judge explains.

Obama willing to meet Iran’s Rouhani at UN

Official_Photo_of_Hassan_Rouhani,_7th_President_of_Iran,_August_2013

Official_Photo_of_Hassan_Rouhani,_7th_President_of_Iran,_August_2013

The White House has expressed the President Obama is willing to meet with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani at the UN, offering the possibility of warming relations between the two nations that have been at odds since the 1979 revolution in Iran. This is undoubtedly in response to a less militant veneer that Rouhani has brought to his office, since the end of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s departure. The change in posture in Iran has been credited to Rouhani being more “moderate” than his predecessor, however as far as Iran’s nuclear aspirations are concerned, it is important to remember that he had been instrumental in advancing the nuclear program in that nation for years.

While Obama may be open to trusting the new leadership in Iran, Israel is not so sure. The Israelis are acutely aware of Rouhani’s history in regard to Iran’s nuclear program, and are assuming that the new president is going to attempt to use a softer touch to get what the leaders in his nation want – nuclear capability. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also pointed out that Rouhani’s claims that he does not intend to continue work on acquiring a nuclear weapon are “deceptive”.

“The Iranians are spinning stories in the media so that the centrifuges can keep on spinning,” Netanyahu said in a statement. “The true test is not in Rowhani’s words, but in the actions taken but the Iranian regime, which—while Rowhani is giving interviews—continues to push its nuclear program.”

What Global Warming?

global-temperature-trend-chart

For anyone to not be skeptical of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) at this point can only be ascribed to gullibility, or a desire to believe in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. To not be a skeptic is to deny the very science they profess such profound faith in. The appellation used for years against the skeptics can most appropriately be applied to those who still bitterly cling to their empirically unverifiable belief, their Al Gore global warming book, and reject the inconvenient truth – they are themselves “flat earthers.”

global-temperature-trend-chartIn case you’ve been wondering why the AGW alarmists have been so reticent in recent years, except clueless politicians, is because global mean temperatures have not increased for the past two decades. In February, Rajendra Pachauri, the AGW alarmist who heads the U.N.’s climate panel, the IPCC, admitted that the Hadley/CRU temperature record shows no warming for 18 or 19 years. In fact, Remote Sensing System (RSS) satellites validate that there has been no global warming for 23 years. Not one of the IPCC computer models had predicted that.

Global temperatures have flat-lined in spite of the fact that roughly 60 billion tons of manmade carbon dioxide (CO2) has been cumulatively added to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. According to the scientists who track such emissions, that represents about one-quarter of all the carbon dioxide put there by humans since 1750, according to The Economist in March.

That sounds like a lot of manmade CO2, but we’ve got to look at it in context to see how relevant it is. Scientists tell us that our atmosphere is composed roughly (by volume) of 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0-4% water vapor, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases.

Now, let’s put carbon dioxide into perspective. The atmosphere, oceans, and land biomass contain about 750 billion tons (GT) of CO2 and manmade emissions contribute about 6 GT. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously which means that the addition by humans is incredibly small, amounting to .00159% of the total, and .0083% of the atmospheric carbon dioxide.

To provide a point of reference for comparative purposes, the average household bathtub holds about 42 gallons of water. If you filled your tub and then poured in an additional half-a-teaspoon of water, that would be the equivalent of our CO2 contribution to the atmosphere. And remember, CO2 makes up just .039% of the atmosphere, which under other measuring systems would constitute no more than a “trace amount.” Water vapor is by far the most prevalent component accounting for as much as 85% of the greenhouse effect.

The theory, as advanced by AGW alarmists, is that there’s a causal relationship between manmade CO2 emissions, and rising global temperatures during the 20th century. The earth’s atmosphere warmed about 1 degree during that time, as manmade emissions were growing exponentially. The disconnect between actual emissions, and satellite global mean temperature data, invalidates the causality they have bitterly clung to.

One explanation climatologists like Dr. Roy Spencer suggest is the increasing body of research that indicates the atmosphere responds differently to higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in ways that had not been recognized before. Evidence suggests that the atmosphere simply releases much more CO2 into space than previously thought, like it’s own safety valve. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and if trapped entirely within the atmosphere, the global mean temperatures would likely increase.

Dr. Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and former U.S. Science Team Leader at NASA, reports, “real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.”

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show. There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans,” Spencer stated in a peer-reviewed article two years ago.

Spencer’s research team said that not only is there much less heat being trapped in the atmosphere, than projected by alarmist models, but that the NASA satellite data show that the atmosphere begins releasing the excessive heat and CO2 into space much sooner, and in much larger quantities, than IPCC computer models have predicted. Spencer indicates that’s the most significant reason why all of the UN models are erroneous in their projections.

Two months ago, a group of 20 former NASA scientists, published the results of a year-long exhaustive study of all of the AGW research they could get their hands on. They arrived at several conclusions, but the most salient to this discussion, were, ”The science that predicts the extent of anthropogenic global warming is not settled science,” and “There is no convincing physical evidence of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming; most of the alarm results from output of invalidated computer models.” And finally, “Because there is no immediate threat of global warming requiring swift corrective action, scientists have time to study global climate changes and improve prediction accuracy.”

For Obama to declare AGW to be “the global threat of our time,” as he did in Berlin this week, is to ignore the real science that he pretends so much to respect. The only thing that will be accomplished by executive order directing the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions, will be the fulfillment of his campaign promise four years ago, that energy prices would “skyrocket” under his policies. To do this under the pretense of saving the world from AGW, is much worse than wishful thinking – it’s a lie.

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board.  He can be reached at [email protected].

Gun Control Works

guncontrolworks


Preaching to the choir here on gun control in general, however this is meaningful especially now. As the UN is preparing to enforce worldwide disarmament of citizens, it is important to remember these statistics, and remind our lawmakers about them. In the coming weeks, there is no doubt that there will be many requests and petitions circulating around about this issue. While it’s probably not possible to participate in all that come along, it is important to do at least one thing: go to the House and the Senate websites, look up your people in Washington, and let them know that you believe it is important to protect our Second Amendment rights from being trampled by anyone – states, citizens, cities, and especially the UN.

The incompetence and corruption at the heart of the United Nations exposed

UN_exposed

This is the trailer to U.N. Me, a “harrowing, yet often hilarious, trip through the farcical world” exposing the United Nations as nothing but a criminal organization.

Israel Video Network says:

the U.N. is “…an organization created to ennoble mankind actually enables chaos and global discord. As disturbing as the picture painted by U.N. Me may be, Horowitz manages to keep us laughing throughout the film. And just when you’re left shaking your head at one outrage or another exposed in U.N. Me, Horowitz reliably enters with comic relief.”

Contraceptives are a right after all

°Florian (CC)

Liberals all over the country must be breathing a sigh of relief, because they have been vindicated. Apparently the Sandra Flukes of the world don’t just reside in the US. Well, they sort of do, at least in NYC, because they have taken up residence in the UN.

°Florian (CC)


Yes, that monument to everything that liberals hold dear has come out of the contraceptive closet, and stated that birth control is a right for women worldwide. Their contention is based on the theory that women should be able to control when they have children – in poor nations. Of course, given our current economic problems, one can wonder whether or not the international body thinks the US is included in that number.

Now, before we let the liberals in this country get ready to organize birth control orgies, remember two things. First, this statement is from the UN, and has no effect on national laws whatsoever. Second, it says nothing about giving birth control away free of charge, per se. The UN merely states that there should not be financial barriers for women to obtain birth control. As mentioned before, this is primarily in the context of poor nations, where the $15 or so to buy birth control could feasibly feed a family for months. Contrary to what liberals might want to believe, there is no conservative agenda to stop access to birth control. We simply don’t want to pay for it for every woman in the nation.

UN To Monitor America’s Elections

The Hill has reported the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), a UN affilate, will send monitors from several nations to the United States to observe and report on the November 6th election.

When the ACLU, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and the NAACP met with the UN group this week, members complained about voter integrity laws and right-leaning organizations. According to the Hill report, the leftwing “civil rights” groups sent a letter to senior official Daan Everts which read in part that the monitoring was necessary because of “a coordinated political effort to disenfranchise millions of Americans — particularly traditionally disenfranchised groups like minorities.”

The Hill report fails to confirm who within the federal government approved the request to have the OSCE monitor the United States’ November election, though the group has been monitoring member states’ elections since 1990.

As Minnesota has recently been exposed as a very easy state in which to commit voter fraud, and because there is a heated battle between left and right over whether or not the state should institute photo identification at the polls, the following was sent to Secretary of State Mark Ritchie office for comment.

The Hill reported today that the international monitors will be at US polling locations (as they have done in the past) on November 6th.

1. How does Secretary Ritchie feel about the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), a UN organization, monitoring elections in the US?

2. Wille there be any monitoring by the OSCE in Minnesota? Which precincts? Will that information be made public so that poll watchers and election judges are aware?

3. The report indicates that the UN group will also be monitoring other aspects of the election process. If in Minnesota, will the monitors be accessible to media? Will surrogates for candidates, campaigns or political parties be allowed to monitor the international monitors?

4. Is Secretary Ritchie satisfied with the current system in Minnesota and confident it is devoid of fraud, election integrity issues and/or voter suppression?

Despite both email and telephone attempts, no reply has been received.

Think voter fraud is a myth? Click here.

To learn more about the James O’Keefe undercover investigation into widespread voter fraud, Watch the video here.

To read the story of a woman registered to vote in 2 states, click here.

Netanyahu and the Battle of Style Over Substance

benjaminnetanyahu

As usual, the mainstream media is not paying attention to the actual substance of a story, opting for focusing on the style in which it was delivered. When Benjamin Netanyahu said that the world needs to draw a red line between two levels of nuclear material development in Iran, it was deadly serious business. In all honesty, the line should have been drawn months ago, and Iran shouldn’t have been permitted to enter into the second stage of nuclear weapon development. But, that is a hypothetical debate that serves absolutely no purpose at this point.

IsraelinUSA (CC)

What does matter is that while the press, including FoxNews, is running around babbling about the cartoon-style bomb Netanyahu used to illustrate his point on the floor of the UN, the real issue is being ignored. It is highly unlikely that diplomacy will hold the solution to the Iranian nuclear problem. That is being kind, in that I’m suggesting that diplomacy has any chance whatsoever at this point. The reality is that by this time next year, unless there is some major change in the status quo, Iran will have a working nuclear weapon for use against Israel, the U.S., or anyone else that happens to anger their leaders at any given time. I am not engaging in exaggerations here. Netanyahu was absolutely correct when he pointed out that the “mutually assured destruction” that prevented nuclear war with the Soviets will not work with the Iranians. They prize death, and look forward to paradise in a hereafter if they are martyred for their cause – they want to die. And no matter how much Obama and his supporters would like to deny it, our president is fully aware of that because he was exposed to that mentality at an early age.

Yes, I am pointing out what should be repeated time and again when it comes to foreign policy decisions made by this administration. Obama was raised to be a Muslim, for at least part of his childhood. I am not saying anything about radical Islam here, but I am saying that we have to stop allowing this president to have a pass for being incompetent on these issues. As Netanyahu was pointing out the dangers of radical Islam, Obama was claiming that this world has no place for individuals that insult Mohammed.

Now, we can debate out the finer points of Obama’s love affair with Islam all we like, but at this point, it can be likened to Nero celebrating while Rome burned. The fact is that Netanyahu’s suggestion for dealing with Iran probably will not work at this point. It is unlikely that anyone will find anything short of military action that will induce that nation to stop the production of nuclear material. But, Netanyahu was absolutely right about one thing – a nuclear-armed Iran is no different from a nuclear-armed al-Qaeda. So, the question for everyone now is, do we keep babbling about cartoon bombs, or do we start talking seriously about preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon? We’re sitting in an interesting time, when social media makes it possible for the people to speak directly to leaders, media, etc. The media has essentially stopped playing watchdog over our government, and there has been talk of boycotts against advertisers, and other things like that. Maybe instead of boycotting businesses, we need to start telling the media what we really think – by contacting them directly via social media, and by getting the message across through the television ratings. Advertisers will leave when there isn’t an audience, after all. So, maybe start with this one issue. Take a moment, and tell your favorite (or least favorite) mainstream media personality that you want real news on Iran, and not fluff about cartoon drawings. And pass it on.

In Deep with Michelle Ray – Yaron Brook, Free Market Revolution and the UN

When: Thursday, September 27th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: In Deep with Michelle Ray on Blog Talk Radio

What: Join Social Media Director of ConservativeDailyNews.com, Michelle Ray (@GaltsGirl) as she discusses the issues that impact America.

Tonight: Yaron Brook (@YaronBrook), executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, talks with us about his new book, “Free Market Revolution. How Ayn Rand’s Ideas Can End Big Government” and we mull over the implications of Obama’s UN address.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on Blog Talk Radio

Romney-Obama: Two Speeches, Two Views

Romney-at-Clinton-Global-Initiative-2-jpg

Despite recognition by virtually everyone but the Oval Office that the White House trumpeted anti-Islamist video trailer has next to nothing to do with violence in the Middle East, and that it is simply a re-election distraction ploy that deflects blame from Obama’s failed foreign policy; in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly Barack Obama continued to blame the video for Mid-East riots and violent demonstrations.

Obama used that narrative as the backdrop for saying there is “No speech that justifies mindless violence.  There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents” and “No video that justifies an attack on an embassy”.  Obama also said that the video “is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well.”

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-condemns-violence-tied-anti-muslim-film-145204587–election.html

How is the exercise of free speech by an American an insult to America?  Is Obama ever going to make a similar statement about artists who dip Crucifixes in urine?

Obama also said “I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that.”

So Obama recognizes that UN member states do not share American views on the protection of free speech by the U.S. Constitution.

What is Obama doing about it?  Recognizing that Islamists will continue to launch military assaults upon American embassies and consulates around the world while he continues to lay the blame at the feet of Americans exercising their right to free speech?

GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, giving an address before the Clinton Global Initiative’s annual conference, made the case for the inherent strength and endurance of the private sector and the dignity derived by individuals reaping the rewards of their own labor.

“That must be at the heart of our effort to help people build economies that can create jobs for people, young and old alike. Work builds self-esteem. It transforms minds from fantasy and fanaticism to reality and grounding.  Work will not long tolerate corruption nor quietly endure the brazen theft by government of the product of hardworking men and women.”

Romney said if he wins the White House, he will “remind the world of the goodness and bigness of the American heart.  I will never apologize for America. I believe that America has been one of the greatest forces for good the world has ever known.  We can hold that knowledge in our hearts with humility and unwavering conviction.”

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-jokes-clinton-influence-2012-election-143506618–election.html

Two candidates for one high office offer distinctly differing world views.

Obama’s view is to preach moral equivalence while shrinking from defense of the U.S. Constitution and the God given rights it protects for all Americans.

Romney’s is to stand up for America and its economic system while celebrating the prosperity and good America has both created and symbolized for over two centuries.

Does the distinction need to be drawn more clearly?

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/romney-obama-two-speeches-two-views/

Bad News for Globalists

European business activity fell in May, nearing a 35-month low, according to a survey by Markit. Its survey, based on European manufacturing and service sectors, fell to 45.9. The euro fell to a 22-month low against the dollar in response. Disagreement at Wednesday’s summit between European leaders about how to solve the dilemma did nothing to boost confidence.

Chris Williamson, chief economist for Markit, said research indicated the downturn had “gathered further momentum in May. The survey is broadly consistent with gross domestic product falling by at least 0.5% across the region in the second quarter, as an increasingly steep downturn in the periphery infects both France and Germany,”

Economic reports show that concerns over Greece are having a broader economic impact than originally expected. “It clearly indicates that the evaporating sentiment that we have seen in recent weeks, as the Greece crisis has intensified, is having a big impact on the economy” said Peter Dixon from Commerzbank.

Socialist President Hollande wants France to increase spending; a plan Chancellor Angela Merkel says Germany will oppose until there is more budget discipline across Europe.

Facing the reality that sovereign nations will retain and defend their own national views, interests and sovereignty is bad news for Globalists. New World Order proponents saw Establishment of the European Union and eurozone as an important step in the march towards their grand vision of One World Government.

Theorists within the “progressive” movement have envisioned such an eventuality since the early Twentieth Century. Woodrow Wilson, after winning re-election in 1916 on the campaign slogan: “He Kept Us Out Of War”, entered WWI in order to involve the United States in world affairs, thereby creating justification for his desire to establish the League of Nations.

While in Paris after the war, Wilson engaged in creation of the League of Nations while also helping shape the Treaty of Versailles. The Versailles Treaty resulted in economic devastation within Germany, leading to the rise of Adolph Hitler’s Nazi Germany. In 1919, Wilson and a Republican controlled Senate fought over giving the League of Nations power to force the U.S. into a war, a clear violation of Article One, Section Eight, Clause Ten of the United States Constitution, which assigns Power to declare War to the U.S. Congress. To the credit of Republicans in the Senate, they stood for U.S. sovereignty, rejecting the Treaty of Versailles, and voting against U.S. entry into the League of Nations.

Although the League of Nations proved completely impotent in the prevention of WWII, that didn’t deter “progressive” Globalists from forming the United Nations. The original aim of the UN was to keep peace throughout the world, develop friendly relations between nations, to help eliminate poverty, disease and illiteracy, stop environmental destruction and encourage respect for rights and freedoms. These aims were based on, among other principles, that all member states would have sovereign equality and that the UN was not to interfere in the domestic affairs of any country.

Pending before the United States Senate today are threats to U.S. national sovereignty:

The Convention on Biological Diversity, the Law of the Sea treaty, the International Labor Organization Convention No. 111, the Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and other Related Materials, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.

Additionally, there’s Agenda 21, which dictates action to be taken globally, nationally, and locally in every area where humans directly affect the environment. If the Agenda 21 agenda doesn’t clearly describe the UN interfering in America’s domestic affairs, what would? The Law of the Sea treaty, if ratified, would grant the UN mineral rights within U.S. territorial waters. If that’s not a violation of national sovereignty, what is? Were the firearms treaty to be ratified, the UN would then have control over arms within the United States, an open violation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

It’s time for Americans to stand up for national sovereignty and kiss the UN, Globalists and One World Government “progressives” goodbye. The best way to accomplish this is to do what Americans did in 1920 after Woodrow Wilson’s early attempt to violation American sovereignty. Elect Republicans in a landslide.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/bad-news-for-globalists/

Look Who’s Jet-Setting on the Taxpayer Dime This Week

800px-Gulfstream_Aerospace_G200_-_Ole_Simon

While many Americans are cutting back on household budgets to put $4.00 a gallon gasoline in their vehicles to get back and forth to work, a couple of Obama-appointed government employees have been caught jet-setting to Paris and Tokyo recently. Just like Obama claiming that his current taxpayer-funded reelection campaign blitz and fundraisers are “policy speeches,” when the news about these lavish jet-setters taxpayer-funded trips to Tokyo and Paris reaches the American public, they can expect numerous phony excuses as to why they are supposedly on “official business.”  Rob Bluey, of Hot Air.com outed these two taxpayer-abusing, elitist jet-setters as follows:

While many Americans were filling up their tanks with $4 gasoline this week, Energy Secretary Steven Chu was enjoying Major League Baseball’s opening game on a taxpayer-funded trip to Tokyo. Taxpayers were also footing the bill for Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson to spend a few days in Paris.

Chu was outed by The Washington Gaurdian’s John Soloman when he discovered a picture sent by Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s official taxpayer-funded twitter account of a baseball game in Tokyo Japan. Meanwhile, Lisa Jackson, she of this EPA-fame, was in Paris France, to “meet with environmental leaders from more than 40 nations to discuss the Agency’s international efforts on urban sustainability.”  Global government, when coupled with so-called urban sustainability and climate change fear-mongering propaganda, are basic anti-capitalistic stealth forms of Socialism, which is dependent on the Marxist principles of wealth redistribution through the overthrowing of established governments to enact social justice fraud.

Lisa Jackson, the lifelong global warming political activist fits right in with the urban sustainability pimps of Europe, which by the way, is in the middle of the worst economic crisis in modern history. All of these anti-capitalist mandates coming out of these types of U/N European Socialistic programs are dependent on one thing for survival: The blatant theft of American wealth to be “redistributed” to the less productive societies of the world through dishonest fear-mongering from globalists and environmental terrorists posing as green-earth saviors. Thus the Obama administration uses taxpayer dollars to fund Jackson’s lavish Paris gig… to further undermine American sovereignty and take away her freedom that has made American freedom the envy of the world for centuries.

Do Americans really want four more years of watching Obama-appointees fly around the world to promote the injection of these types of freedom-robbing European Socialism here in America?  When Americans go to the polls in November they have a simple choice: Either vote for American freedom and prosperity through voting for proven conservative politicians, or vote for Obama and the Democrat’s poverty-inducing European Socialism-style insolvency.  The choice is that simple.

 

 

Greece Secures $170B Bailout in Round 2

The E/U plutocracy also known as “The Troika” has approved a second round of bailouts for Greece early Tuesday in Brussels. The details include supposedly bringing down the Greek debt to GDP ratio to 120.5% by the year 2020 by asking private creditors to take substantially bigger losses on their Greek debt holdings in the form of a 53.5% loss on the face value of their bonds. Greece is also given a break on the interest they were required to pay on the first round of bailouts, as euro-zone countries agreed to lower the interest rates to 1.5%, down from 2 to 3 points currently,  in a move the E/U says will cut the Greek debt load and thus lower the need for future bailouts. Many European economists reject the seemingly bloated projections about the latest bailout package, and believe that Greece will in fact require another bailout, and that these projections will fall far short of the stated goal of reducing Greece’s debt to GDP ratio to 120.5 % by 2020.

From The Guardian we see the following statements concerning the viability of the Greek bailout package 2.0:

Michael Hewson, senior market analyst at CMC Markets: “After hours of tortuous negotiations Greece was finally granted its second bailout in the early hours of this morning and thus now will be able to meet the €14.5bn bond payment in March, and  avert a messy default. It has come at a cost though, after an IMF/Troika report laid bare the problems facing the Greek economy, and it now rests on whether markets think the programme is even remotely credible, or achievable for that matter, as Greece seeks to rebuild its broken economy. While the package may buy more time it remains highly debatable whether it will achieve the measures it is designed to, given the magnitude of the problems in the country.”

Once again the appearance of reaching a deal to solve Greece’s debt-load problems is seen by many as just another episode of “kicking the can down the road” instead of any real solutions being enacted. While the latest Greek bailouts do buy the E/U more time to try to help Greece dig out from under decades of big government debt-spending, some economists believe this bailout package will fall far short of it’s stated projections.

Sony Kapoor, managing director of economic think-tank Re-Define: “Based on what we have seen today, Greece will almost certainly need another bailout. The Troika have had to do some arithmetic gymnastics in order to make the numbers add up but their optimistic assumptions are unlikely to hold. The mechanism for the contribution of profits on central bank holdings of Greek bonds is unnecessarily complicated and creates additional uncertainty and future potential disagreements. If haircuts had been imposed to private holdings of Greek bonds when debt restructuring was first discussed in 2010, the situation for Greece would undoubtedly have looked significantly better now. One can’t help but get the feeling that everyone involved is going through the motions, doing what they feel they have to do, rather than what they want to or what they believe in. Confidence in the success of what has been agreed is rather low.”

Of course the “strictly confidential” debt sustainability report drawn up by the E/U also paints a completely different picture of whether or not the latest bailout package will actually lower the Greek debt to GDP ratio, as Gary Jenkins of Swordfish Research exposes: “The Troika has agreed to lower the bailout loan rates, the private sector bondholders have agreed to take a larger write-down than was previously agreed (53.5% of face value rather than 50%) and the ECB has agreed to give up its profits in order to reduce the debt/GDP figure to 120.5% by 2020. The figures are the EU’s baseline numbers but according to a ‘strictly confidential’ debt sustainability report, under a slightly more pessimistic ‘tailored downside scenario’ debt/GDP will only fall to 160% by 2020 and Greece would need considerably more bailout cash. Obviously other risks are that the Greek people turn against the austerity measures and that at some stage the Greek politicians decide that a default is the only option.”

Notably absent from the recent “successful Greek bailout package 2.0,” announcements are just what added austerity measures will be forced onto the people of Greece, such as further tax increases, cuts to public sector workers who have been taught that they have a “right” to unsustainable salary and benefits packages, and any viable proposed solutions to Greece’s current 20%+ unemployment rate problem. Much to the chagrin of the E/U plutocracy media managers, this “deal” appears to do nothing more than shuffle the Greek debt around in a never-ending charade of protectionism against any E/U country actually ponying up the cash needed to move Greece’s economy forward. While the UN ramps up it’s call for global income equality and more power to impose worldwide wealth redistribution, the Globalists at the UN  were eerily silent about demanding help for the poor and middle Greek citizens that are being crushed under the weight of the E/U plotocrat’s austerity measures.  Apparently their “hypocrisy knows no bounds’ as the late Doc Holliday once proclaimed after gunning down Johnny Ringo while wearing a sherrif’s badge in the all-time great movie Tombstone.

For a more thorough understanding of what caused the Greek debt crisis please see, http://conservativedailynews.com/2011/11/greek-debt-crisis-steeped-in-social-mania-style-hope-and-change-politics/.

 

A Palestinian State?

Obama and Palestinian Statehood

President Barack Obama pressured Israel and the Palestinians, on Wednesday, September 21, 2011, to resume peace talks. Obama’s Middle East peace policy, which accomplished very little, is now on the edge of diplomatic disaster. Obama, on Wednesday while he was at the United Nations, made a plea for the Palestinians to drop a statehood bid. He followed his speech with separate meetings with Israeli and Palestinian leaders, seeking to coax both parties back to direct peace talks. “There is no short cut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades. Peace is hard work. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations,” Obama said. But Obama also said, “One year ago, I stood at this podium and called for an independent Palestine. I believed then, and I believe now, that the Palestinian people deserve a state of their own.”

But… Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas asked the United Nations (UN) on Friday to accept Palestine as a member state. In doing so he defied US and Obama requests that application not be made. “It is near impossible to return to conducting business as usual,” Abbas said, referring to Israel’s building of settlements on land claimed by Palestinians. If the issue reaches the UN Security Council, the US has vowed to veto the Palestinian statehood proposal. Shortly after Abbas presented his proposal, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told UN assembly that he was again extending the hand of peace to all of Israel’s neighbors. “I extend my hand to the Palestinian people, with whom we seek a just and lasting peace,” the Israeli leader said.

Who Are The Palestinians?

The idea of a “Palestinian people” with a language, culture and nationality of its own, is a creation of Yasser Arafat and the PLO, along with the Arab League. The “Palestinian people” are a mixture of Arabs whose mother tongue is Arabic, whose religion is Islam, and whose culture is shared by most of the 22 surrounding Arab countries. There simply is not nor has there ever been a distinct Palestinian national entity. The term ‘Palestinian’ has historically applied to anybody living in the area, even Jews. The name “Palestine” is the Romanized version of “Philistine,” which was assigned, by the Romans to the region in the first century AD. The name of Palestine today refers to that region of the eastern Mediterranean coast from the sea to the Jordan valley and from the southern Negev desert to the Galilee Lake region in the north. The word itself is derived from “Plesheth”, a name that appears frequently in the Bible and has come into the English language as the name of “Philistine”. Plesheth was a general term meaning rolling or migratory. The ancient Philistines were not Arabs, nor even Semites, but were most closely related to the ancient Greeks originating from Asia Minor. The word Palestine (or Palestina) originally identified the region as “the land of the Philistines.”

Palestinian State

A UN vote will not create an actual Palestinian state. It was the lack of solidarity in 1948, the unwillingness to subordinate personal interest to the collective good, that accounted for the collapse and dispersion of Palestinian Arab society. The UN will be doing the Palestinians a disservice by accepting the corrupt and dysfunctional Palestinian Authority as its newest member. It is a tragedy that the two leaders who determined their national development of Palestine during the 20th century – Hajj Amin Husseini and Yasser Arafat – were more interested in destroying the Jewish national cause than leading their own people. As far back as 1978, Arafat told his close friend, Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, that the Palestinians lacked the traditions, unity, and discipline to have a successful state. Once given control of parts of the West Bank and Gaza, Arafat’s regime quickly became oppressive and corrupt, launching the second intifada, the bloodiest and most destructive confrontation between Israelis and Palestinians since the 1948 war. The two factions dominating Palestinian life, the Hamas and Fatah, remain armed groups, and active practitioners of terrorism. Palestinians in east Jerusalem, who are entitled to Israeli social benefits and are free to travel across Israel’s pre-1967 borders, would rather become citizens of the Jewish state than citizens of a new Palestinian state.

The call by Abbas for recognition by the UN violates the spirit of the Oslo Accords, which commit both the Israelis and the Palestinians to addressing their differences through negotiations. The Montevideo Convention of 1933 explicitly provides that the existence of a sovereign state is independent of recognition by other states, and further provides that a state must have a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. The Palestinians arguably have none of those things. The Middle East is again on the cusp of crisis, with the UN about to stoke the flames, and the Obama administration caught in a self-imposed impotence.

Destroy Israel, Have a Jewish-Free State?

Palestinian expert Pinchas Inbari believes even after the UN approves a state of Palestine based on 1967 Israel borders, it’s not the end of the story. “There is a consensus that we are now on the stage of the destruction of Israel,” he stated. As the UN prepares to vote on a Palestinian state, Inbari says they might not realize what they’re voting for. “They don’t know what the Palestinians are talking among themselves. It’s all about abolishing the state of Israel.” Itamar Marcus, who monitors Palestinian media controlled by Mahmoud Abbas, has heard a consistent message. “Everything that he controls – books, his media, his religious leaders, his ministers in government – are all saying the war is a religious war until the end of Israel.”

Mahmoud Abbas told a delegation of U.S. congressmen, including Sen. Steny Hoyer (D-Md), in Ramallah he envisions a Palestinian state free of Jewish “settlements,” based on pre-1967 borders with east Jerusalem as its capital.

Where Are We?

I think Michael Raymond says it best in his excellent article, “Only in Bizarro World does years of terrorist activity lead to an organization becoming a ‘respected’ partner for peace when their very own charter calls for the destruction of the other ‘partner’.”

But that’s just my opinion.

« Older Entries