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.”

°Florian (CC)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/

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/

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.

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/.

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.

When you hear the word treaty you would normally assume that two or more countries in conflict with each other had reached an accord to end the conflict. Take the proposed “small arms treaty” from the U.N. There is no doubt that the rights and freedoms that our forefathers secured for us, scare many of the world “leaders”(for lack of better word).

Most of the “civilized” nations in this world have banned private ownership- or have at least passed stringent laws strongly restricting the private ownership of firearms. Americans have had their rights paid for with over 200 years of freedom loving patriots giving life and limbs for our freedoms and rights. We have fought tooth and nail and paid that same high price to give that same gift to many others around the globe.

“Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty.”-Ronald Reagan

With many of the world’s citizens allowing their politicians to pass laws prohibiting or restricting the private ownership of firearms they have given up their last line of defense against tyranny. The proposed “treaty “, if passed would most likely impose harsh restriction on the buying and selling of firearms and create a national firearm registry. The first steps leading to the confiscation of privately owned guns, leaving the citizen at the mercy of the criminal and the government.

It has been proven time and again that when the citizen is disarmed, the crime rate skyrockets. The criminals already reject following the law, so the government just makes it easier for them. When a politician starts out at the state or local level most all will state that they want to lower the crime rate. This cannot be accomplished by disarming the law abiding citizen, from any government level.

Now is the time to raise our voices and be heard. Let our senators and representatives know that we will not tolerate them signing away our freedoms and rights under the guise of a “treaty”.

_______________________________

For those of you that own firearms, train hard and well and teach those that do not know how. Be good stewards of the right to bear arms, for we are the last line of defense against tyranny.
-Benjamin Wallace

Keep an eye on where this goes through the NRA-ILA.

____________________________

Information Source:

Forbes.com

As I have stated before, I am fairly new to the “political scene”. The fact that I am actually writing about politics and researching political candidates absolutely blows my mind!

I’m one of those that I gripe about now. I had my head in the sand for years. I honestly did not care to know, because my thought process was, “Hey, I can’t change things anyway, what’s the point?” Unfortunately, too many people have had that attitude in the last 4 decades or so, and I firmly believe that is why we are in the position we are in.

What changed things for me was the 2008 election. I was appalled at the comments from women who said they were voting for Obama because he was “cute”. Well, looks are subjective, so I will not even comment on that side of things. However, I knew that this man was not good for our country!

My husband is a Political Science major, so when we married almost 9 years ago I got quite the induction into politics. Let me just say I did not go willingly! Then, as I said, the 2008 election came along. Things really did not change for me until Sarah Palin came on the scene. I was so disgusted with having to once again choose the lesser of two evils. I had even told my husband and my dad that I was not even going to vote. Oh, I’m sure you can imagine the outrage from both of them!

So, with all this being said, I knew John Bolton as a Fox News commentator. My husband has tried to give me a “crash course”, so to speak, to catch me up on “who’s who” in politics, what positions they’ve held through the years, the good that they’ve done, the bad that they’ve done, and all other information in between. My husband is a very “black and white” kind of guy- no grey areas! He’s very objective in his views. It’s quite a unique for me- a woman- who is obviously more “emotional” in my opinions. Hey, it’s just a fact ladies, our emotions play a major role in our decisions.

I’ve always like John Bolton’s commentaries on the various Fox News shows, but I would not have thought of him as “Presidential” material. However, I have determined that what many consider “Presidential material” are found lacking in many areas. So…. maybe it’s time we look outside what we see as normal “Presidential material”. Maybe John Bolton fits that bill!

Let’s explore the facts about Mr. Bolton and then decide!

PERSONAL INFORMATION

John Robert Bolton was born November 20, 1948 in Baltimore, Maryland. He is the son of a fireman, and the family grew up in a working class neighborhood in Maryland.

Family
Mr. Bolton is married to Gretchen, and they have one daughter.  They currently live in Bethesda, Maryland.

Religious Affiliation
Lutheran

Education
1966- Graduated from the McDonogh School in Owings Mills, Maryland
1970- Graduated with a B.A., summa cum laude from Yale University
1974- Graduated with a J.D  degree from Yale University

Early Political Activist
1964- In high school, Mr. Bolton ran the school’s Students for Goldwater campaign
Member of the Yale Political Union

College Classmates and Contemporaries
Clarence Thomas
Bill Clinton- at Yale Law School
Hillary Rodham- at Yale Law School
A “protege” of Conservative North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms

Military Career
Mr. Bolton supported the Vietnam War and enlisted in the Maryland Army National Guard, but avoided serving in Vietnam. He later said that by the time he was graduating it was clear to him that the opponents of the war had made sure we could not prevail.

When I read this fact about Mr. Bolton- that he purposely avoided the war, though he supported it, it made me pause. My dad tried to enlist, but had a couple of health issues going against him. Number one, he was underweight. He drank milkshakes twice a day trying to gain weight to enlist. Now we tease him that he would probably love to go back to those days where he was trying to gain weight!
Also- my father-in-law did go to Vietnam. He had a grenade blow up right next to him and he now has permanent hearing loss in one of his ears from it. Oh, he was lucky, I know! Well, let me rephrase that- luck had absolutely nothing to do with it! I know without a doubt the hand of God Almighty was on his life.
Too many men lost their lives in Vietnam. It is a war that we should have never been in! Or, as the politicians of the day put it, a “police action” we should have never been in! (can you see me rolling my eyes from here?!)
I absolutely agree with Mr. Bolton- it was very clear that the opponents of the war had made sure we could not prevail. However, to purposely avoid going when he supported the effort, war, police action, or whatever else you want to call it- it just makes me a bit uncomfortable. By no means am I saying that his life is not worth something- that he should have gone and gotten killed. All I am saying is that a lot of young men went and did not come back- or for those who did come back their lives were never the same. There’s just something about this that makes me very uncomfortable.

Professional Career
1974 to 1981- Associate at Covington & Burling law firm
1983 to 1985- Returned to his position as Associate at Covington & Burling law firm
1993 to 1999- Partner in the law firm of Lerner, Reed, Bolton & McManus
Former Executive Director of the Committee on Resolutions in the Republican National Committee
Senior Vice President for Public Policy Research at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
Current Positions:

• Fox News Channel commentator
• Counsel to the law firm Kirkland & Ellis, in their Washington D.C. office.
• Involved with a variety of conservative think tanks and policy institutes, including the following:
  Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA)
  Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
  Institute of East-Wet Dynamics
  National Rifle Association (NRA)
  U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
  Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf (CPSG)
  Council for National Policy (CNP)

Political/Government Career
1981 to 1982- General Counsel, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
1982 to 1983- Assistant Administrator for Program and Policy Coordination, USAID
1985 to 1989- Assistant Attorney General at the Department of Justice
1989 to 1993- Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs at the Department of State
1999 to 2001- Served on the board of the Committee for International Religious Freedom
2001 to 2005-  Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security
2005 to 2006- U.S. Ambassador to the UN
The rumor is Mr. Bolton is considering a run for the office of President in 2012

Public Policy
1997 to 2000- Mr. Bolton worked pro bono as an assistant to James Baker in Baker’s capacity as Kofi Annan’s personal envoy to the Western Sahara.

2003- He was part of the State Department’s delegation to six-party talks on the North Korean nuclear program, but was removed from the delegation after describing Kim Jong-il as a “tyrannical dictator” and adding that life for the North Korean’s under  Kim’s rule, “life is a hellish nightmare.”

Served as Senior Vice President for Public Policy Research at the American Enterprise Institute
Formerly involved with these conservative groups:
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
Federalist Society
National Policy Forum
National Advisory Board
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research
New Atlantic Initiative
Project on Transitional Democracies

Major Accomplishments
Mr. Bolton led the successful effort to rescind the 1970′s UN resolution that equated Zionism with racism.
Mr. Bolton played a major role in obtaining UN resolutions endorsing the use of force to fight Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.
In his position at the Justice department, he was involved in the Iran-Contra affair.
He also helped lead in the judicial nomination process for Antonin Scalia.
Mr. Bolton was a key-figure in derailing a 2001 biological weapons conference in Geneva convened to endorse a UN proposal to enforce the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention.

His Reputation
Mr. Bolton has the reputation of being hawkish on his foreign policy views. He is also described as neo-conservative, but he personally rejects the term, reminding people that he has been a conservative since high school.

He is known to be highly successful in pushing his agenda, but his bluntness has earned him many enemies.
He has been accused of trying to spin intelligence to support his views and political objectives on more than one occasion.
The Economist wrote that Mr. Bolton was “the most controversial Ambassador ever sent by America to the United Nations.”
David Kopel praised Bolton as “Horatio at the Bridge, saving the Second Amendment from a full-scale assault at the United Nations.”

I love the fact that Mr. Bolton is “blunt”. I cannot stand someone who does not “say what they mean and mean what they say”. We’ve got more than enough mealy-mouth politicians in Washington, we most certainly do not need any more!
On several occasions I’ve seen Mr. Bolton’s “bluntness”, and I appreciate that! I would LOVE to have a President that did not mince his words! I have no doubt that Mr. Bolton would have no problem accomplishing that task!
I am also very encouraged by the experience Mr. Bolton brings to the table. This is a definite positive, especially with how vigilant he is with addressing the issues that need to be addressed.

His Happiest Moment
Mr. Bolton has said that his ‘happiest moment at State was personally ‘unsigning’ the Rome Statute,’ which had set up the International Criminal Court.

On The UN
Mr. Bolton has been a strong critic of the United Nations for much of his career. He has said,

“There is no such thing as the United Nations. there is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United states.”

On A Possible Run For President in 2012
In an interview with Politico, he said:

“As I survey the situation, I think the Republican field is wide open. I don’t think the party’s anywhere close to a decision. And stranger things have happened. For example, inexperienced senators from Illinois have gotten presidential nominations.”

And in an interview with National Review he said:

“Individual liberty is the whole purpose of political life, and I thought it was threatened back then”-in 1964 during the Goldwater campaign which he describes as “my formative political experience”-”and I think it’s threatened now…..I write, I give speeches, I appear on television-but the only way in contemporary American circumstances to make those issues as salient as they should be is to run for president.”

One thing is for certain- the Republican field is DEFINITELY wide open! There is one candidate that is actually running right now that I can see myself voting for with confidence. There are a couple of others that intrigue me, but only one stands out as definitely someone I would campaign for. Only time will tell who all the candidates will be, and if Mr. Bolton will be in the line-up.

On The Web
John Bolton on Twitter
John Bolton on Facebook
In His Words- War-Powers Crisis

_________________________

Sources:

Wikipedia

      First of all I find it quite intriguing when the only congressmen talking about this situation so far are all from New York, where the U. N Headquarters just happens to be located. They seem to be on the frontlines of this attempted cover-up.

     Rep Peter King (R-NY) gave us his insight about this situation when  the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee said the issue affected the safety of New Yorkers and the thousands of tourists who visit the landmark building. he then topped off the fear-mongering with: ”The fact is this is a disaster waiting to happen,” said King, who broke with his Republican colleagues in opposing the bill. So did another New York Republican, freshman Rep. Michael Grimm. Since we are talking national security here with the new chairman of The Homeland Securtity Committee,  why are we only hearing from New York politicians? Could it be that the State of New York has an interest in sweeping this situation under the rug? Apparently so , as we will see further on in this article. This was the first clue to me that something isn’t right here, and this needs to be looked into bigtime.

    We catch a glimpse of why this bill failed with a vote of  259-169 as it needed a 2/3 majority to pass, in an article from the AP on Yahoo News* here:

” The House on Wednesday rejected a Republican-led effort to force the United Nations to give back $179 million in overpayments, falling short in the face of Obama administration arguments that much of the money already had been designated to boost security around an international headquarters susceptible to terrorist attack.”

    The United Nations has its own security counsel that is paid for out of their general funds, of which the U. S.  is the biggest contributor by far. Where did this extra money go?  We have some people saying this money has already been spent, and the President saying it has been designated to boost security. Maybe someone should ask the folks over at the U. N. to weigh in on this matter, and they did, as further on in the AP* article we have this:

“ At the United Nations, spokesman Martin Nesirky declined to comment on the House vote. He noted that the United States was obliged to provide security as host country of U.N. headquarters, but said ultimately it was up to the U.S. to decide how to spend the money in the fund.”

    So here we have the U.N spokesman saying we have the money, and we have a U.S congressman saying we need to take it back from the U.N, and we have a President that says it has already been “designated.”  If this doesn’t show how incompetent our government has become, I don’t know what does here. I do know, that if you follow the money you eventually get at the roots of the corruption/malfeasance/or cause of incompetence in any situation. How did we come to “overpay” the U. N in the first place?  When people give answers and reasons for situations like this that do not make sense, it usually points to a cover-up, designated solely to hide the truth. We as American citizens need to demand the truth today, and it is our duty towards securing our future freedoms.

    Thanks to the tireless work of Ros-Lehtinen, this issue isn’t over by a long shot. This will be voted on again, and much more intense scrutiny will be given, as the people start demanding answers.  To sum this all up in her own words,  “”This is not about security,” said Ros-Lehtinen, who argued that the U.N. and the administration were looking for another excuse to avoid making tough choices.”  The State of New York and N.Y. City in particular seem to have gotten the biggest chunk of this money. They are also high on the States most likely to file bankruptcy list. Coincidence?

   In these times of economic crisis, I agree with defunding the UN entirely. They accomplish very little for the billions they rake in every year, mostly from the U. S. taxpayer. Case in point? Where are the blue helmets of the vaunted UN Peacekeepers in Egypt, Tunisia and across the globe today? Sure are lots of riots, and governments are being toppled today without any discernable U.N. action.  No more U.S. taxpayer dollars should go to the United Nations, period.

* http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110209/ap_on_re_us/us_un_money_congress_2