Tag Archives: United Nations

U.N. Assistance requested for Detroit water bills: what it really means

Detroit asks for United Nations helpNews agencies across the continent today reported that more than half of Detroit’s residents were refusing to pay their water bills. In response, the politicos have requested the United Nations to intervene.

Now, a collection of activists has requested that the United Nations aid Detroit citizens who are being left without access to water.

While access to the necessities of life are certainly a basic human right, getting them without work, effort, payment or any measure of .. well .. anything .. is NOT!

Many of the residents are actually choosing not to pay their bills as Detroit Water Department Spokesperson Curtrise Garner said, “once we shut water off, the next day they are in paying the bill in full.” That’s strange, they aren’t destitute, they just were using the money for other things until someone threatened to take away the water.

People can work for food, have the right to purchase food or raise food for themselves. There is no inherent human right that says that free food must fall from the sky, appear at the door or be shat from magical ducks. Freedom allows one to pursue food, water, clothing, housing, medical care, cable TV, wi-fi or just about anything else. It does not give a guarantee that they will get any of those things. Nothing can do that.

This is the odd argument of the left – all humans need things and therefor should have them – regardless of effort or sacrifice. It is the foundation of “from each according to ability to each according to need.” An ideal proven failed over, and over, and over, and over. If it worked, more able citizens would have stayed in Detroit to provide for the needy ones. Instead more needy appeared from every corner while the able fled for areas less destitute.

When those unwilling to sacrifice or put forth effort are afforded the necessities of life anyway – why should they expend their limited resources on the necessities of life? I mean, seriously, if housing is free, spend your government check on an iPhone. If food is paid for, spend more of your resources on things like a new video game, a flat screen TV or a trip to the coast. Now.. if water is also free, just imagine what else someone could spend their money on.

Consider if your house was paid for, food provided and cell/internet included? That’s a lot of money not going to pay for services that you are consuming – free lunch! Except… someone must be paying for them…

The problem in Detroit is that after the progressives ran the city into the ground on Utopian promises, tremendous over-spending and crony politics, all the people with real resources left. Now, as Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once put it, they have “run out of other people’s money.”

So we have the intersection of Socialism’s failures with Socialism’s promises. When Socialism is in trouble, who do you turn to? Obama isn’t getting much of anything done and at this point doesn’t seem to care. Harry Reid is too busy catering to his cronies and the right is bickering over amnesty.. or something.

Bring in the United Nations .. to the United States… to straighten things out.

Which city or state will request U.N. help next? California, Cumberland, MD, Harlingen, TX?

The real question is what the heck happens once the U.N. is given authority to act on American citizens?

Senate to Hold Hearings on Controversial UN Treaty

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’

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.

An Obama Scheme

So, today, as Secretary of State, John Kerry, reeled off the reasons that the United States should find itself embroiled in a civil war in the Middle East, as Vladimir Putin weighs his responses, and as Obama declares that the U.S. will go it alone if they have to, the world waits. The world seems to split into a few different camps .

Some wonder who actually used the poison gas that killed thousands of Syrians (despite Kerry’s swearing that he is positive it was Assad’s men, not rebels). Some wonder, why now? Suddenly, gas is a thousand deaths too far? Yet others may wonder why there is not more pressure on the U.N. to provide peacekeepers, or to investigate if it was actually gas used, or to hold a vote, in the face of an assured Russian veto, to allow nations to intervene.

Here at home, there are any number of Obama administration scandals that a person could point to, that would easily take a backseat to a brand new war. While the country is war-weary, the men that do the fighting are fathers, sons, and brothers, and using them as some sort of executive strike force would lose far more respect for the president than allowing most of the scandals to run their course. Of course, that takes for granted that this administration still has respect left to lose.

As it seems now, any Syrian actions will revolve around the use of tomahawk cruise missiles, which cost around $1.4 million per launch. The odd thing about a new attack (or kinetic military action, as they are now known), is that the president may have waited so long to act, he has excuses no matter the outcome. Perhaps that is what the delay was all about – coming up with explanations to describe what has happened, no matter what happens.

Plan A: Obama orders $140 million worth of missile strikes (probably a very low total estimate of what strikes would actually cost), and they will have little to no effect on the man who Obama intends to punish, Bashir Assad. Assad has already had plenty of time to move the missiles and other weapons that Obama would ostensibly target. So, the missile strikes would amount to little more than another giant waste of money and manpower, and accomplishes nothing…Except anger Russia and Iran. For his part, Obama stresses how he only had the most positive outcome in mind. He was trying to do the right thing.

Plan B: Obama orders his strikes, and through either bad intelligence or some other missile snafu, a strike hits a Russian or Iranian-owned building or other concern. In that scenario, I would anticipate a quick reaction of the administration to be to throw money at the problem, to quickly make it go away. For Russia or Iran’s part, they could probably take the issue to the United Nations, and seek to shame the United States. As a result, the U.S.’s standing in the world gets tarnished again. Obama says it was an unfortunate event, (and without mentioning the payoff) he is glad that the country who suffered the loss decided against any “rushed actions”, and that the countries have something to build on now.

Plan C: Obama orders more extensive actions than just a missile strike. This not only entails aircraft, both fighters and bombers, it also risks pilots’ lives – something that missiles do not do. One can only guess how an angry Assad, unjustly attacked (in his eyes) would treat a downed American pilot. In that case, who does Obama turn to, being allied with Al-Qaeda elements and France, for diplomatic channels to get the pilot released? Once he figures out the magic word (or amount) I would expect Obama to spin the achievement of his State Department.

When you are a Teflon president, there is little worry of having a scandal or war failure attach to you. With the ongoing scandals having little effect on Obama so far, it may have only emboldened him to act more brazenly than he might have previously. With so many yes-men in place, willing to fall on a sword for you, what is the your source of critical thought or reflection of your actions? Having only been told positive things about your actions, while having a press that minimizes negativity, warranted or not, is not good for a leader. Of the many things that Barack Obama has done, and has taken upon himself to enact via executive order, this should truly bear the title of Obama’s War, regardless of outcome.

Kerry states US will sign UN arms regulation treaty despite legislative objection

Hugh Nelson (CC)

Hugh Nelson (CC)

Secretary of State John Kerry stated Monday that the Obama Administration intends to sign a U.N. treaty that would restrict trade of conventional weapons, despite opposition from the Senate. Fox News reports:

“We look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official translations is completed satisfactorily,” he said. Kerry called the treaty “an important contribution to efforts to stem the illicit trade in conventional weapons, which fuels conflict, empowers violent extremists, and contributes to violations of human rights.”

The treaty would require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers, but it will not explicitly control the domestic use of weapons in any country.

Still, gun-rights supporters on Capitol Hill warn the treaty could be used as the basis for additional gun regulations inside the U.S. and have threatened not to ratify.
Last week, 130 members of Congress signed a letter to Obama and Kerry urging them to reject the measure for this and other reasons.

Since ratification of a treaty will require a 2/3 vote from the Senate, it is unlikely that the administration will succeed in getting ratification. This by no means implies that gun rights activists should rest on their laurels on this issue. If the President decides to sign this treaty, everything possible must be done to guarantee that the Senate will not ratify it. As for when the treaty could be signed, it could be any time – either in the near future, or months from now.

Troops Ordered To Kill All Americans Who Do Not Turn In Guns

This is from July, 2012, concerning the United Nations gun ban, which has been rejected, but is sure to come back to center stage for Barack Obama and Joe Biden with their push to ban guns after the Sandy Hook shooting.

From the YouTube Description:

Monday, July 16, 2012
The UN Arms Trade Treaty that has been identified by observers as a flagrant threat to the second amendment and which Barack Obama is determined to sign has its roots in a 1961 State Department memorandum which explains how the United Nations will oversee “complete disarmament” of the American people under the ruse of preventing war. The UN Arms Treaty has caused so much controversy because it outlines a plan to target “all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons,” according to Forbes’ Larry Bell.
Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton also warns that the agreement “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

A letter sent last month by 130 Republican House members to President Obama argued that the treaty should be rejected because it infringes on the “fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms”. The letter adds that “…the U.N.’s actions to date indicate that the ATT is likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy, and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.”

Using the rhetoric of the threat post by terrorists, insurgents and “international crime syndicates,” the UN is busy trying to imply that all weapons are somehow involved in illegal activity on a global scale and should therefore be controlled and regulated by a global authority.

This is precisely the same language used in a 1961 U.S. State Department briefing which outlined a long term agenda to carry out a “Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.”

Invoking the threat of nuclear warfare, the document spells out a plan to create a “United Nations Peace Force” that would “enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds.”

While the document initially focuses on scrapping nuclear weapons, it later makes it clear that the only groups allowed to own weapons of any kind would be governing authorities, “for the purpose of maintaining internal order,” and the UN “peacekeeping” force itself, which would require “agreed manpower.”

“The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes,” states the document. While the memorandum outlines a broader mandate to destroy national sovereignty, eviscerate national armies and institute the UN as the planet’s supreme authority with a world army, the document serves as a stark reminder that the plan for the United Nations to oversee the abolition of the second amendment has been in the works for decades.

As Bell points out in his Forbes article, the threat of the Obama administration relying on a UN treaty to do what successive administrations have tried but failed to accomplish — taking a huge bite out of the second amendment — is by no means far fetched.

After all, a plethora of UN treaties and international agreements have already stripped the United States of its sovereignty and its power to decide its own laws. The power to authorize U.S. involvement in wars and conflicts has now been almost completely stripped from Congress and handed to the United Nations.

The incompetence and corruption at the heart of the United Nations 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.”

U.N. to recognize Palestinian state despite Western opposition

United NationsThe Palestinian State is set to be implicitly recognized by the U.N. General Assembly on Thursday despite threats by the U.S. and Israel to hold back assistance to the Palestinian Authority.

Similar to the Kosovo, Taiwan and Vatacan City, the Palestinian State would be re-classified as a non-member observer state. Formerly, the Palestinian State was only recognized as an “entity”. The new classification will grant the West Bank government access to international criminal court and other international bodies.

The Palestinians unsuccessfully sought full recognition as a U.N. Member State last year mainly due to U.S. and Israeli opposition. The current effort will succeed despite threats from those same nations. Both the U.S. State department and Israel have warned that they would reduce economic assistance to the Palestinian Authority should they seek recognition by the U.N.

The United States and Israel oppose the U.N. move as they believe it will undermine the peace process. On Wednesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that “The path to a two-state solution that fulfills the aspirations of the Palestinian people is through Jerusalem and Ramallah, not New York.”

The Palestinians have reportedly been working with the EU and Arab states to replace the lost funding should they agree to the new classification.

The Resolution only needs a simple majority in the U.N. General Assembly, 130 votes, which they are likely to get. Germany, the Czech Republic being the only two nations other than the United States and Israel to announce that they would be voting against the resolution. Thirteen European countries have already voiced support.

Palestinian President Abbas on the Road to Destruction

The Israeli Embassy in DC recently released the following video illustrating the danger of Palestinian President Abbas attempting to get observer status in the U.N. While it is amusing, it points out the folly of trying to side-step meaningful negotiations with the Israelis about the future of a Palestinian state. While the intentions of Abbas to get recognition from the U.N. are fairly clear, the statements from U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon on a two-state solution are not necessarily cut and dry. He has specified that there must be a lasting peace, but was not exactly clear on how to get there – most importantly, he did not seem to specify whether he was for or against the Abbas bus ride to statehood via the U.N.

Cyber Monday Alert: U.N. Plans May Change Your Online Future

It’s Cyber Monday – the online equivalent of Black Friday. As you prepare to take advantage of online deals and revel in the marvel that is modern technology, it’s a good time to keep in mind that next month the UN will meet to put into place it’s first step in global Internet regulation. The meeting of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) will begin on December 3 in Dubai. The 11-day meeting (11 days?It’s terrifying to think what 11 days of UN meetings could produce) will address such issues as spam and fraud, according to the ITU. However, there are other issues of concern tucked into the agenda. On the table will be proposals that could grant wider accessing power to dictatorships like China and Iran, putting bloggers and online freedom activists further at risk for censorship and punishments. The ITU will also propose ideas to impose fees on providers and platforms like Google and Facebook. Those companies would pay fees for anyone who accesses their sites across borders. The money raised from those fees would then go to the UN to provide Internet access in underdeveloped countries. ITU Secretary-General Hamadoun Toure (why are there so many black communists named Toure these days?) has already announced Internet access should be considered a basic human right and the U.N. is hard at work to enshrine that right across the globe.

Companies such as Microsoft, Google and Amazon are already warning their customers of the potential threat to what is now referred to as “net neutrality” and plan to attend the conference to protest. In an online statement, Google had this to say: “Engineers, companies and people that build and use the web have no vote. The billions of people around the globe that use the Internet, the experts that build and maintain it, should be included” in the decision-making process.

Naturally, the ITU claims it has no plans to restrict online expression (no, not the U.N.! They would never seek to censor anyone, ever) but that they simply want to adjust outdated international responses to changing technology. ITU’s Toure says he expects “a light-touch regulatory approach”. The United States is expected to resist any regulations and will send a 123 member delegation to the meeting next month.

123 members of one nation to attend an 11-day U.N. meeting in the most expensive place on earth – that sentence alone is everything that is wrong with the United Nations. It is an organization run by thieves and despots. These are the same people who want to regulate what small arms we own as American citizens and what parental rights we have when it comes to our disabled children…but we’re supposed to believe they will take a “light-touch regulatory approach” to what has been the biggest boon for freedom and free markets in the history of mankind.

This is one time where I wish the liberal narrative of “big business” were true. I wish Google and other Internet giants were all-powerful like they are in Hollywood and could just use their Illuminati-fueled powers to destroy this nonsense once and for all. Unfortunately, just like nearly every other liberal premise that one is mostly fantasy. Hopefully the amount of money those companies add to the U.S. economy will be enough to motivate Obama’s delegation to resist any attempts at international control of American communications. For our part, we can call our representatives and let them know we know about this and are concerned and we can also spread the word about what will be happening in Dubai. Share this blog and other stories about the conference. Check in with Google, Amazon and others to sign their petitions and find out more about how you can make yourself heard.

The Internet has opened the doors to freedom, free communications and prosperity across the planet. It is no wonder that the dictators and whack jobs in the U.N. feel moved to control it. It’s in their nature. That is in the nature of communist/socialist believers – the idea that we humans are and should be in control of everything. It is a dangerous idea and it is on our doorsteps. Don’t forget that as you support the economy online today.

 

crossposted at kiradavis.net

Should Ohio and Texas Election Officials Prosecute United Nation Election Observers

The New Black Panther Party, ACORN and NAACP have engaged in voter Intimidation and fraudulent tactics – not Republicans

The state of Ohio and Texas along with Florida and Wisconsin are on the United Nation’s Election Day hit list when it comes to their officials showing up at state polling locations.  It seems that these United Nations officials have the mistaken belief that they have the legal right to intervene in how Ohio and other states are running their Election Day activities.  Their organization the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe is showing up because the nearly impotent NAACP and the discredited ACORN organization requested that they oversee possible voter suppression.

 

The fact that outside countries can use the guise of the United Nations to come into sovereign states and cities like Cleveland, or Columbus, Ohio, or Houston Texas, or any other city in America is without merit.  If one single United Nation’s official illegally steps within the 100 foot limit of a polling precinct they will become quite familiar with American jurisprudence.

 

The Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has already publically stated that if a United Nation’s official breaks Texas law by interfering with its election process within the 100 foot limit, he will have them prosecuted to the full extent of Texas law and justice.  Jay Sekulow, head of the American Center for Law and Justice affirmed this and other similar developments around the nation, on Fox News, Friday, November 2nd.

 

First and foremost is the erroneous notion that a foreign nation has the purposeful audacity to believe it can set one soiled boot on Ohio, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin state soil.  Could these so-called officials of the NAACP or ACORN be that incompetent about how state government and the U.S. Constitution actually work?   The United States Constitution is still the law of the land, as is the 10th Amendment, which clearly states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”  This includes election law.

News flash, nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it say that state election officials should bow, submit,  or be subject to interference by the United Nations.  Foreign governments do not dictate terms to the United States of America or states about how and what it does regarding elections or any other sovereign action.  In other words, United Nations officials take your pens, pads and notebooks to the nearest motel room and watch the election results like any other person.

 

What is disturbing about this entire misleading scenario is how the United Nations could ignore due diligence in taking a letter from organizations that offered them no legal proof of voter suppression or intimidation.  Before the United Nations started snooping into America’s business, why not go over legal proof of voter suppression and intimidation legal cases from the U.S. Justice Department?  What about the states they are targeting?  Oops, that would be a big negatory since no proof of voter suppression or voter intimidation by Republicans exist!

 

Why did this so-called finder of fact committee set up by the United Nations not investigate the organizations that made the request?  Take ACORN, which had officials engaging in voter fraud in Cleveland in 2008, who were illegally signing up voters multiple times.  One voter even testified that ACORN voter registrars signed him up 72 times to vote.  Their voter fraud activities are legendary.  In Missouri in 1986, 12 ACORN members were convicted of voter fraud. Also in 1986, in St. Louis, six ACORN volunteers plead guilty to a myriad of election law violations.

 

The NAACP which also requested United Nations intervention into suspected Republican voter suppression has election fraud skeletons in its own closet. The organization made up fraudulent claims in 2000 against then Governor George Bush about voter intimidation and the lack of prosecution of a fatal attack on a black man.  In addition, in 2011, NAACP Tunica County, Mississippi executive committee member Lessadolla Sowers was convicted on 10 counts of fraudulently casting absentee ballots in a substantial voter fraud scheme. So much for integrity!

 

Then of course there is the infamous voter intimidation case in 2008 against the New Black Panther Party, which openly intimidated white voters in Philadelphia.  The Obama U.S. Justice Department refused to prosecute the case, despite overwhelming evidence, and an actual video which captured their thug-like tactics.

 

Where is the voter intimidation?  Where is the voter fraud?  The answer is real simple and it lands squarely at the feet of the NAACP, New Black Panther Party and ACORN.  They engage in these divisive tactics to intimidate, threaten, and if nothing else works, cry racism while attempting to steal elections.  Well, legally appointed poll watchers in Texas, Ohio, and Florida and at other state polling location will have their camera phones and they will be recording on Election Day.  This will prevent United Nation officials and their NAACP, ACORN or New Black Panther Party comrades in arms from disrupting the legitimate business of voting.

 

In the end, the lesson for the unwelcome United Nations visitors is clear and it should be convincing.  America is a sovereign nation which has a system of justice that is based on the U.S. Constitution, and not on some third-world dictatorship masquerading as a legitimate democracy.  You cannot bully nor can you intimidate America or any sovereign state.

 

So, UN officials take the hint, if you step within that 100 foot limit in Cleveland, Ohio, Houston, Texas, Tampa, Florida or any other voter precinct on the sovereign soil of the United States of America, you will get the full taste of what it means to break the state’s laws.  It will definitely be at your peril.

 

This is America and when its officials insist to you to “get off of my land,” Americans do not take kindly with having to remind you twice.   ( Click and let me know what you think  )

 

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.

Allen West responds to Obama’s U.N. address

Earlier today, President Obama addressed the United Nations General Council in New York. Amonsgst other things, Obama addressed the “Innocence of Muslims” Youtube video, supposedly responsible for the recent anti-American uprisings in the Middle East. Obama stated “The future must not belong to those who slander the propher of Islam,”

Watch the comment in context below:

And Florida Congressman Allen West, never one to mince words, responded with outrage, stating his response  to the uprisings would be in the form of an “Angel of Death in the form of an American Bald Eagle,”

Read the note, posted to his Facebook page, in its entirety below:

In his speech today to the United Nations, President Obama stated six times that the attacks across the Islamic world are attributed to a silly video. Furthermore, he refused to use the words terrorist attack in referring to what occurred in Benghazi Libya at our US Consulate on the 11th anniversary of 9-11. He continues to offer up apologies instead of defending our hard earned First Amendment right to freedom of speech and expression. There is no message to this silly video trailer, and it is beneath the dignity and esteem of the Office of the President of the United States to mention it at all. When tolerance becomes a one way street it leads to cultural suicide. I shall not be tolerant of the intolerant. I know about the UN Resolution 1618 which would make any statement deemed by the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) “offensive’ to Islam a crime…..NOT ON MY WATCH FELLAS!

My statement to the United Nations would have been, “The future does not belong to those who attack our Embassies and Consulates and kill our Ambassadors. The Angel of Death in the form of an American Bald Eagle will visit you and wreak havoc and destruction upon your existence”

My Address To the United Nations on Behalf of Americans

President Obama will address the United Nations this week and reports are that he will once again address the YouTube video that is supposedly fueling the anti-American riots across the Middle East. Whatever he says, I know I will be underwhelmed and disappointed. I decided to provide my own address to the United Nations. This video is what I would say if I had the opportunity to address the United Nations as a representative of the American people. I’m sorry for the poor audio. It’s just me and the webcam so quality is limited but as my friend Lee Doren says, don’t sweat it and don’t be afraid. Just turn on the camera and talk. A transcript is also posted beneath the video.

Despots, traitors, authoritarians, totalitarians, thieves, war criminals, genocidal maniacs, dictators and the precious few rest of you who actually carry the mantel of freedom, welcome to the United States and New York City, where you’ll remember over 3000 of our innocent citizens between here and Washington DC were murdered 11 years ago as many of you danced in your elaborate golden palaces, many of which are lined with the tears and blood of your own people. We are so privileged to have you here. My fellow citizens and I find no small measure of entertainment in watching you eat and drink the bounty of our land and enjoy the privileges of comfortable luxury appointments, all of which are provided to you by the very freedom you pledge to murder wherever and wherever possible.

By now it has come to our attention in no small manner that many of you and your people have been gravely upset by a YouTube video that purportedly disparages Islam. So upset, that your proxies who claim to represent Islam have murdered our ambassador and overrun our sovereign embassies in defiance of hundreds of years of international tradition and diplomacy. Apparently the 98 people with internet access in your third world dictatorships were so outraged by this YouTube, I repeat, YouTube video they saw fit to rape ambassador Chris Stevens before killing and photographing his body in the streets of Libya. Now I know that to many of you, this is not a shocking allegation as you have very fond feelings for the act of rape. But here in America we consider that the ugliest of violations toward any human being. It’s a shame that YouTube video, I repeat, YouTube video was ever produced at all. Forget the content, the quality is most offensive to those of us who actually value freedom. Most Americans could have probably done a better job with some bedsheets, Halloween hair coloring and tanning lotion, and done so without insulting what so many of our own citizens believe to be a holy book and prophet. However, that is the unfortunate price of freedom. The freedom to make good choices is also the same freedom to make poor choices. How else do you explain Glee and Matt Damon? Two things we do sincerely apologize for. We also apologize for not telling you sooner that your determination to condemn your citizens to a 12th century existence in a 21st century world is no longer our problem or our concern. If this never-ending war in Afghanistan has taught us anything it’s that too many of you have placed little or no value on the lives of your own citizens, your own women, your own children. You have traded the message and basis of freedom for greed, corruption, selfishness, cruelty and evil at the expense of those you pledged to care for when you took, or stole leadership. We apologize to the citizens of Iran and Egypt who truly do want freedom and progress, and whom we abandoned under our own President when they needed our support the most. That is a genuine source of grief and shame for many Americans who long to see you free and prosperous as well. We are so sorry for that. We also apologize for emboldening some your state sponsored terrorist organizations by perpetuating the lie that these attacks on our sovereign embassies over a YouTube, I repeat, a YouTube video and not calling this what it really was from the beginning: an attack on American interests and values to commemorate the anniversary of September 11 in the United States. We apologize for our President, who has clearly abandoned the message of freedom and achievement that has made our country the greatest country on the face of the planet in all history forever and ever in favor of a message of appeasement; appeasement to you dictators who give not a moment’s thought to the suffering of your own people while you live lives of ease and luxury upon the dollars and earnings that you have outright stolen at the end of a gun.

What we don’t apologize for and will never apologize for is our own citizens exercising their own God-given right to free speech (no matter how ugly or poorly produced) on our own soil, using our own technology, to reach our own people. American values have not and will not ever be dictated by a small group of fascist demons with daddy issues  who hate the idea of freedom so much that they have pledged, sworn to eradicate the only free, successful society among them, that being Israel. Americans will not apologize to anyone outside of our borders for what we do inside our borders. It’s our business. If we’re ever in the mood for stonings, beheading homosexuals, or wiping our butts with our hands we’ll come visit you and subject ourselves to your national dominion. However, until then we’ll continue to do as we please with our own rights in our own country provided to us by our own Constitution and our God. There aren’t many of us who are truly excited about the content of this YouTube video, I repeat, YouTube video; but we all understand that freedom of speech is not truly free unless you have the freedom to say things that might offend others. What true freedom also produces, is a general common sense among the masses that offensive speech does not and should not produce massive violent attacks.

We are Americans, and our right to free speech is one of the most valued rights we have; indeed most of our other rights flow from that one concept; the idea that every human should be able to speak their mind without fear of retribution or physical harm. It is no coincidence that we are the freest, most powerful country on earth. That too is directly tied to our freedom of speech. But I think you know that, and that is why you work so hard to censor us within our own borders from within your own borders. You understand that the only way to truly break the American spirit that has been responsible for so much prosperity and yes, so much peace is to destroy our freedom of expression. But I’ve come to tell you today that will not happen. We will not bow or capitulate to your warped ideas of morality. Ideas that advocate killing over people over a YouTube video, I repeat, a YouTube video, but have no issues with treating women as property, cattle, or less. Sorry, we’re just not going to do that. so while we agree that this YouTube video, I repeat, YouTube video really sucks, we also understand that it has the right to exist and suck.  It’s not always pretty, but that is price of freedom and whenever I sit down to enjoy my daily meals, running showers and household technology I do believe it is an appropriate price to pay for plethora of blessings we have.

In summary, we’re Americans and we love freedom and we always will so suck it.

Thank you and enjoy your taxpayer funded stay.

crossposted at kiradavis.net

Dueling Constitutions: US Individual Rights or UN Human Rights?

When the difference between Communism and Capitalism is who holds the deed, details matter. Human rights and Individual rights are ideologies that hold similar comparisons. Human rights and Communism work hand-in-hand where a collective society is managed. On the other hand, Capitalism works with a representative government in protecting individual rights so individual’s decisions are protected. We should seek an America that gets back to a Constitutional Republic rather than a Declared Democracy.

The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights is the antithesis to the United States Constitution. For over 60 years, these two documents have be sublimated into our culture causing cognitive dissonance…conflicting ideologies. Most advocates of a Constitutional Republic who argue these rights are labeled as anarchists but quite the contrary. They seek a small but strong government to protect minority individual rights from a democratic mob, such as corporations, community organizations, unions and even governments.

With Human Rights, governments act as a separate entity. They develop processes for implementation, test / poll, alter where necessary and control the environment to provide, monitor and protect human rights. These processes create communal responsibility and stymies growth and innovation while allowing the politically connected to manipulate the masses.

The impact of American Exceptionalism on mankind cannot be disputed. This is because a representative government protects individual rights. People in pursuit of their own ideas, innovations and invention without the approval of the politically connected (known as capitalism &amp). Henry Ford would not have revolutionized the automobile industry, Steve Jobs the computer industry or Thomas Edison if they needed approval of bureaucrats. If George Washington, Martin Luther King or Susan B. Anthony needed the approval of government, Americans, blacks and women would not enjoy the individual rights that once were suppressed.

Local governments follow laws and grant qualifications passed to them from other entities. Predetermined agendas are pushed by bureaucrats and trained facilitators who lead the masses to pursue a consensus. When that solution is not met, the agenda is tabled for another day. Stakeholders are solicited even though they do not have any collateral at stake. Once implemented, these plans and ordinances are impossible to change. Stakeholders advocate and connive to protect their self-interest, pitting neighbor against each other. With Human Rights, it justifies racism, sexism or just discrimination as the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. This is known as Utilitarianism.

Advocates who pursue “separation of Church and State” or secular religion are advocating for United Nations Declaration of Human Rights true democracy where freedom of worship is pursued.

When you hear a Constitutional Republic advocate, they wish you to make the decisions necessary to help yourself, your family and your community. You will not need the consensus of the community to farm your land, to build a factory or apartment complex or run your local business in servicing the community.

Next time you hear Human Rights, they are telling you that they wish to lead you in a world where predetermined solutions are made. They seek communal consensus in managing society from a politically-connected top-down structure.

It’s a shame that our elected officials hardly use Individual Rights and the U.S. Constitution. No wonder the teaching of our Constitution in our schools have been removed and labeled as religious.

It is nothing about religion. It’s about freedom!

« Older Entries