Tag Archives: UN

MAKING SOME THINGS UNANIMOUSLY CLEAR

Hillary Clinton held a press conference today were she sought to re-confirm once more again the various positions the Obama administration holds on Libya. “Let me be clear,” she said “we are not seeking regime change in Libya. We just want Qadafi (sic) to step down and let the rebels run the country so we can find out who they are.” The Secretary added “I also want to assure you that Barack and I are more or less in complete agreement on that. I want to refudiate the contrary insinuendo that’s coming from the right wing conservative conspiracists, before it becomes a rumor.”

In other news, the Senate, Obama and all the czars have agreed to accept the Republican budget proposal, subject to UN approval, of course. Russia and China indicate they will vote in favor of the measure, saying it will help set America on the path to austerity. However, the Ambassador from England said “NO” to the U.S. request, “Not after the way you returned our bust! We aren’t too happy with the way Michelle patted our Queen on the rump, either.”

Later in the day, the President went to the White House gym to dribble, and shoot a few hoops. He winked and said “It relieves the stress, you know.”

For more photoshop images, visit FreakingNews.com

AS OBAMA ABDICATES AMERICAS LEADERSHIP POSITION, WHO WILL STEP IN? FRANCE? RUSSIA? GABON?

The world has lost its strong voice. The Americans have abdicated their position of leadership. The action and inaction by our President is working toward bringing an end to the period of American exceptionalism that he believes never existed in the first place.

Europe is as rudderless and wimpish as ever. They took the lead in starting military action in Libya because we didn’t. Now they are shirking responsibility for it. Germany was like John Kerry, they were for it before they were against it. No one has any idea what to do next or how to carry out a final game plan. It doesn’t appear anyone even has a final game plan.

Obama justifies our participation with the same rationale the neo-cons employed to justify the invasion of Iraq, that is, to bring Democracy to a nation whose leader is a killer of his own people. That’s not a move to the center; it’s a move by a socialistic president in accordance with the agenda of elements of the far right.

The “conservative” token at the New York Times, Ross Douthout says our participation in the war in Libya is ”a stark departure from the Bush administration’s more unilateralist methods”. Yet Bush sought and received the clear approval of Congress before taking military action; while Obama never even consulted Congress, let alone seek their approval. Democrats are led in revolt by Denis Kucinich who has asked why Obama should not be impeached for acting alone. Douthout is the Times’ vision of condescension into conservative thought. So much for the New York Times.

Both Bush and Obama sought UN approval. Obama yielded to the limitations imposed by the UN as to how the world wants the war to be fought. .Bush acted in what he saw as the best interests of the United States, not in deference to the Security Council dominated by Russia and China.

At home, Obama assigns Joe Biden to deal with the Republicans on the budget while he shoots a few baskets and vacations in Rio de Janeiro.

U.N. RESOLUTION TO DEFINE FREE SPEECH

Extracted verbatim from The Post American Presidency by Pamela Geller, pgs 9-11

In October 2009, the Obama administration cosponsored with Egypt an anti-free speech resolution at the United Nations. Approved by the UN Human Rights Council, the resolution calls on states to condemn and criminalize “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.”

What could be wrong with that? Everything.

There is, after all, the First Amendment, which preserves Americans’ right to free speech and freedom of the press.

“Incitement” and “hatred” are in the eye of the beholder – or more precisely, in the eye of those who make such determinations. The powerful can decide to silence the powerless by classifying their views as “hate speech.” The Founding Fathers knew that freedom of speech was an essential safeguard against tyranny: the ability to dissent, freely and publicly and without fear of imprisonment or other reprisal, is a cornerstone of any genuine republic. If some ideas cannot be heard and are proscribed from above, the ones in control are tyrants, however benevolent they may be.

Now no less a personage than the President of the United States has given his imprimatur to this tyranny.

In 2008 the Secretary General of the OIC, Ekmeleddin Ihsanglu, issued a warning. “We sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed” regarding free speech about Islam and terrorism. And he reported success: “The official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.”

No American president has ever taken more seriously his “responsibility” to restrict the freedom of speech and bow to Muslim demands than Barack Hussein Obama.

Pamela Geller

WOMEN’S RIGHTS, U.N. STYLE

The United Nations arm for overseeing women’s rights is the Commission on the Status of Women. Right off the bat, if you permit me the vernacular, there is a problem with the title. It is not propagandic. It is straight forward and honest. The commission is not about promoting equality for women, it is about the status of women, that’s all.

For a look beyond the title we go to the Commission’s own website where we find their mission statement which says,

[The Commission is] dedicated exclusively to gender equality and advancement of women. It is the principal global policy-making body. Every year, representatives of Member States gather at United Nations Headquarters in New York to evaluate progress on gender equality, identify challenges, set global standards and formulate concrete policies to promote gender equality and advancement of women worldwide.

Well, that’s better; “policies to promote gender equality”, good. At least the ethics missing from the title are present in the mission statement. Perhaps I should soften my view of the U.N., but wait. I see a recently appointed member of the very same Commission was preparing to stone a woman to death for an alleged indiscretion. Sharia (Islamic law) calls for the young mother to be buried to her shoulders then stoned to death. It has been deferred, deferred mind you, not canceled.

Should the Commission call for an equal number of men to be stoned? That is a very sick joke. So is the United Nations.

Bob B