U.N. to Investigate Voters Against Obama

Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

U.N. racism investigator to visit the U.S. May 19-June 6, 2008.

The "investigator," of course, is the representative of a predominantly Muslim country, Senegal (h/t to No Sheeples Here).

This piece by Stephanie Nebehay at Reuters, reports:

"The special rapporteur will...gather first-hand information on issues related to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance," a U.N. statement said on Friday.

Nebehay appears to offer her own opinion (unless quotation marks have gone astray),

Race has become a central issue in the U.S. election cycle because Sen. Barack Obama, the frontrunner in the battle for the Democratic nomination battle, stands to become the country's first African American president.

The U.N. Special Rapporteur has also "investigated" America's bias against Islam, our courts' application of the death penalty, (which, of course, is also biased, according to the U.N.), and our "hate" crimes (display of hangman's nooses).



Technorati Tags: U.N., U.N. Human Rights Council, Human Rights, U.N., 2008 Elections, Barack Obama

U.N. Human Rights Council Kicks-Up Its Policy of Abusi

Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

One of the most important issues of our time is America's membership in the United Nations.

If you take comfort in the existence of the UN's Human Rights Council, or any confidence that world human rights are protected by this Council, then you are deaf, dumb and blind, or you hate freedom.

Lorn Gunter at the Calgary Herald has put together a very important piece about the U.N.'s Human Rights Council. Gunter states the central issue:

The fascinating aspect for me is how many of Freedom House's "worst of the worst list" ["worst" human rights record] have also been elected by the UN to be voting members on its human rights council.

The U.N.'s inhumanity to man, woman and child goes on:

On May 21, 15 of the 47 UNHRC seats will come up for election or re-election. Along with UN Watch, an organization that analyzes UN activities, statements and programs, Freedom House has declared that five of the 15 candidate countries -- Bahrain, Gabon, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Zambia -- are entirely unfit for membership because of their rights records. All but one of them (Bahrain) is already a member of the commission. This goes to show how useless the UN is at protecting human rights.

Please read this important piece at The Calgary Herald

Related Reading:
UN Weakens Freedom of Expression to Coddle Islam
United Nations Seals the Condemnation of Israel
UN Watch: Up Against UN Human Rights


Technorati Tags: U.N., U.N. Human Rights Council, Human Rights

It’s Either McCain Or . . .

Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

As for party crasher, Ron Paul, or the latest Libertarian to throw a hat into the ring, forget about it!

Here’a an excerpt from Ron Paul Hopes to Crash McCain's Party

“ . . .In recent primaries, as many as 25 percent of Republican voters chose a different candidate, with many pulling levers for Paul and former GOP candidate Mike Huckabee, who snagged 27 percent of the vote in the Pennsylvania primary.

A similar phenomenon also occurred in 2000, when 33 percent of Republicans voted against Bush in the Colorado primary though Bush was the presumed nominee by then.”

As for the chance of a Libertarian snagging the presidency - NOT! According to Southern Political Report

“There are at least six candidates, including Barr, who have announced for the Libertarian nomination, but in theory a candidate who kept all the others from reaching the 10 percent level could stand on the stage alone.”

So it’s quite clear that a vote for anyone other than the Republican candidate, John McCain, would effectively split the Republican party. And a vote for any of these others would insure that a Democrat wins the presidency!

Do conservatives really want that to happen?

Many conservatives, including myself until recently, have been so upset with McCain’s stance on immigration that they just haven’t been blogging much about McCain, nor have they quickly jumped on to the McCain bandwagon.

But, like it or not, both Obama and McCain are concentrating on the Latino vote for one good reason. Neither can win without it!

According to UPI May 11th

“Latino voters play an influential role in this year's presidential cycle, the Times said, with Democrats courting the Hispanic vote in GOP strongholds like Nevada and New Mexico while Republicans work for the same in California.”

Tuesday morning I listened as one local “conservative” talk show host spent a great deal of time talking about Obama’s advantage over Hillary while mentioning several times that the McCain’s campaign is woefully short of funds. Well not exactly. According to UPI May 11^th, Obama has raised $240 and McCain has raised $80 million. Not bad for a candidate who hasn’t gotten much media coverage unless it’s in the form of an age related joke!

Some half-baked conservatives are actually willing to concede the presidency to a Democrat in the vein hope that conservatives will have a better chance in 2012. Really??? Not hardly!

One of the very important things a conservative president can do when Democrats control congress is to appoint federal judges. If leftist Democrats control both the presidency and congress, by 2012 we could have an irreparable disruption in the balance of power caused by the appointment of leftist “legislate from the3 bench” judges who will serve for life.

Here’s what McCain had to say about his judicial philosophy, about these renegade judges, and what John McCain pledged to do on May 6, 2008.

“ . . .There is one great exception in our day, however, and that is the common and systematic abuse of our federal courts by the people we entrust with judicial power. For decades now, some federal judges have taken it upon themselves to pronounce and rule on matters that were never intended to be heard in courts or decided by judges. With a presumption that would have amazed the framers of our Constitution, and legal reasoning that would have mystified them, federal judges today issue rulings and opinions on policy questions that should be decided democratically. Assured of lifetime tenures, these judges show little regard for the authority of the president, the Congress, and the states. They display even less interest in the will of the people. And the only remedy available to any of us is to find, nominate, and confirm better judges. . .”

“I will look for accomplished men and women with a proven record of excellence in the law, and a proven commitment to judicial restraint. I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist -- jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference. My nominees will understand that there are clear limits to the scope of judicial power, and clear limits to the scope of federal power. They will be men and women of experience and wisdom, and the humility that comes with both. They will do their work with impartiality, honor, and humanity, with an alert conscience, immune to flattery and fashionable theory, and faithful in all things to the Constitution of the United States.

There was a day when all could enter the federal courthouses of our country feeling something distinctive about them -- the hush of serious business, the quiet presence of the majesty of the law. Quite often, you can still find it there. And in all the institutions of government there is nothing to match the sight of a court of law at its best. My commitment to you and to all the American people is to help restore the standards and spirit that give the judicial branch its place of honor in our government. Every federal court should command respect, instead of just obedience. Every federal court should be a refuge from abuses of power, and not the source. In every federal court in America, we must have confidence again that no rule applies except the rule of law, and that no interest is served except the interest of justice. Thank you very much.”

Hear all the Remarks By John McCain on Judicial Philosophy.

The best argument for voting for John McCain comes from Rick Santorum’s article “The Elephant in the Room: Why conservatives should support McCain”

Here's an excerpt:

Anyone who knows me knows that I don't shy away from offering my two-cents on the issues of the day, particularly in presidential races. And anyone who has heard me talk about the presidential race over the last few months knows that I've had, shall we say, some serious reservations about John McCain's candidacy. . . .

McCain is clearly the candidate with the capacity, judgment, experience and will to confront America's enemies. He's served our country honorably - heroically - in war. I served eight years with him on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and I can assure you he knows our military. Importantly, he also knows our enemies. He understands their capabilities and their aims. He will not sugarcoat the human or financial commitment and cost needed to defeat this enemy. . . .

On judges, McCain has repeatedly made clear that he will, as his Web site states, "only nominate judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their opinions through judicial fiat." Sounds good to me. . . .

This is but one example of McCain's character - the kind of character I want in the person who answers 3 a.m. phone calls at the White House.

Those conservatives who still question whether they can support McCain should remember this: The next president will make more than 2,700 political appointments, those who really set policy, across the bureaucracy of our government. I, for one, will sleep better at 3 a.m. if Republicans are in the cabinet and in White House positions that make so many critical decisions. The idea of "Attorney General John Edwards" and "Energy Secretary Al Gore" should cause some sleepless nights for Republicans or conservatives - and those in a U.S. manufacturing sector now struggling to stay afloat.

Here's my final argument for John McCain. He's not Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. . . .

As for the Reagan Axiom, given his opponent, McCain is close enough to 80 percent for government work. That is why I am going to vote for my friend - John McCain.

Yup - close enough for government work!

Digg It!

Technorati Tags: politics,John McCain,Ron Paul,Libertarians,Barr,Rick Santorum,judicial philosophy,federal judges

Trackposted to Rosemary's Thoughts, third world county, Conservative Cat, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Homegrown Terrorists for President; Part I

By Jim Simpson

Much has been made in recent days of Barack Obama’s associations with really questionable people, for example former Weather Underground bombers William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, and Obama’s racist, agitator “pastor” Jeremiah Wright, who in addition to his charming hate speech, apparently supports the terrorist group, Hamas.

But this is truly baffling. If the national media is so foursquare behind Obama’s candidacy, as they seem to have been up to now, and are genuinely concerned with Obama’s radical roots, why on earth didn’t they long ago expose Hillary Clinton’s much deeper, lifelong commitment to, and involvement in, virulently anti-American, radical leftist groups? Why aren’t they doing it now?

For that matter, why did they dredge up the information on Obama at all? Everyone knows that advancement in today’s Democrat party requires making the rounds in leftist circles, paying homage to prominent leftists and cultivating the active support of movement radicals like Ayers. It's a rite of passage. These days, if you aren't a radical leftist, you aren't really a Democrat, as all those "moderate" Democrats elected in the 2006 cycle have since discovered.

Radical communist chic has been "mainstreamed." Politicians like Obama, Hillary, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, to name but a few, all attend cocktail parties with the Bill Ayers of the world. They all think Danny Ortega’s communist Sandinistas are swell guys. They all think we can “do business” with Hamas, Syria and Iran. They all still think the North Vietnamese communists liberated South Vietnam! They all think America is the bad guy!

And for the most part, our national news media heartily agrees with them!

To be criticized for carousing with terrorists is just silly! NBC’s Brian Williams even suggested our own founding fathers were terrorists. Michael Moore called Zarqawi’s Al Qaeda in Iraq “Minutemen!” So what’s the big deal? The title of a Chicago Sun-Times article on the subject says it all: "Obama's Ayers Connections Never Bugged Anyone." They don't care. They really don't!

So, if it’s not their concern about Obama's terrorist connections that has the media raking him over the coals – and I assure you it is not – then what is it?

The scrutiny Obama is receiving has nothing to do with his radical roots, but rather the leftist media's recognition that an Obama candidacy, floating tenuously as it is, on nothing more than flowery rhetoric (hot air, in other words), could well sink Democrats' chances to regain the Presidency.

Despite his recent win in North Carolina, and yet more death knells for Clinton's candidacy, I will go out on a limb and repeat: the fact is Hillary is and always has been the more electable Democrat. Maybe the media is finally realizing this.

An even more cynical view however, is that the media artificially inflated Obama’s candidacy specifically to make for a heated race, thereby giving all Democrat candidates a lot of free publicity. Whatever the case, one can argue that this race has generated an unprecedented amount of press.

And while it appears the Democrats are tearing themselves apart now, leftists know something many of us overlook: the public generally has a very short memory.

I like Rush Limbaugh, but this time, I am afraid Rush may be all wrong. His “Operation Chaos” and other Republicans’ efforts to single out Obama are playing into the hands of the Democrats’ endgame. I believe the endgame is and always has been a Clinton candidacy with Obama as V.P.

Are you laughing? Hear me out first.

This idea has been repeatedly floated by the Clinton camp. And while Obama haughtily spurns such overtures, do you really doubt he would pass up the opportunity if he realized his prospects were otherwise doomed? Obama, like Clinton, is a leftist Democrat, which means practically everything he does and says is pure posturing.

Bait and switch; that is the essence of the leftist political tactic. Bill Clinton was a master, but they all do it. In order to woo conservative Pennsylvania voters, Hillary Clinton recently even went so far as to claim she supports the Second Amendment! What kind of idiots does she think we are? Pretty big ones, apparently.

And with justification, for today Hillary Clinton is considered, even among Republicans, as the more moderate candidate! This is truly Orwellian. The entire notion is preposterous, yet because she made the one calculated move of supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom in the beginning, she is now hailed as a "Reagan Democrat!" Democrats change like chameleons to suit their immediate needs, and usually the mass media works overtime to cover for them.

So I ask you, would Obama have thrown Rev. Wright under the bus if the media never mentioned him? Would he have pretended not to know William Ayers if the connection had not been revealed? Obama, like Clinton, will turn on a dime if his political fortunes are at stake – and make it sound just as convincing as all the other contradictory statements he has made. So why would you believe he is serious in spurning Hillary while being skeptical of his refutation of Rev. Wright?

A Clinton/Obama presidency would bring an abrupt end to all the internecine fighting, heal all wounds and create a ticket all democrats could enthusiastically support. The media meanwhile would go head over heels in their fawning for this "dream ticket" and quickly forget Obama's inconvenient, radical "past." After all, they never cared about it in the first place!

A Clinton/Obama ticket would be difficult to beat. But their victory would be certain if they somehow enticed a third party candidate to enter the race and split the Republican ticket, as Bill Clinton did with Ross Perot, twice. Remember: TWICE! And they may just have gotten their deliverance from an unlikely source: Conservative Georgia Republican Bob Barr has recently announced his candidacy on the Libertarian ticket. While he will probably not pull a lot of votes, the election promises to be tight for McCain in the best of circumstances. Bob Barr may yet become what Ralph Nader was to Al Gore in 2000.

A third-party-candidacy repeat of 1992, with a Hillary/Obama “dream ticket” has always been my nightmare, and I am afraid I am watching it unfold, praying nightly that I am wrong.

I know this entire theory sounds pretty outlandish, but the duplicity and Machiavellian calculations of todays' Democrat Party cannot be exaggerated. Furthermore, Hillary is so deeply entrenched in the radical leftist movement that has captured the Democrat Party that pretty much anything is possible.

While Obama is a radical leftist with many communist and other unsavory connections, Hillary is clearly the more dangerous of the two. She has been deeply involved with subversive movements since college, and knows all the major players. Her election would spell an unprecedented disaster for this country, a disaster from which we may never recover.


Part II of this column will explore Hillary's radical connections in depth.

A partial list of good reading:
AIM Report: Hillary Clinton's Biggest Cover-Ups
Discover The Networks: Hillary Rodham Clinton
Peter Paul Lawsuit – Hillary’s Senate Campaign Fraud
Peter Paul Clinton Video
Safire on Clinton Lies
Zeifman Exposes Hillary Duplicity in Nixon Impeachment

Jim Simpson is a freelance writer and former White House budget analyst and economist, who worked under Presidents Reagan, H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. His articles have been published in the Washington Times, American Thinker, FrontPage Magazine, DefenseWatch, Soldier of Fortune, Military Magazine and others.

Cross-posted from Truth and Consequences

The Day After Mother’s Day

This short video is one of the funniest I’ve seen in a long time. One of my sons sent it to me on Mother’s Day. If you’ve raised more than one child – you will absolutely love it!!!



Check out more of Tucker and Brad’s humor at Barats and Bereta

Digg It!

Blogs4Borders Video Blogburst 051208

Are 'sanctuary city' policies deadly? We investigate.

Our interview with Andrew McCarthy, author of the new book Willful
Blindness, on the nexus between terrorism and illegal immigration.

100% Preventable! Americans continue to pay the bloody price for open
borders. When will the madness end?



Download the show for
your Ipod here

Make sure to check out this weeks
sponsor...

This has been the Blogs For Borders Video Blogburst. The Blogs For
Borders Blogroll is dedicated to American sovereignty, border security and
a sane immigration policy. If you’d like to join find
out how right here. To sponsor a show send us an email here.

Technorati Tags: illegal
immigration, deportation, open borders, invasion, insanity, gary weiss, steven hough, amy bartelmay,
mario cadena,
indiana, pedro ortiz, pedophile, child
molester, sanctuary
city, nick erfle, guadalupe, arizona, joe arpiao, anarchy, crime, maywood, california, lawlessness, andrew
mccarthy, willful
blindness, an
old broads ramblings,

How Obama’s Supporters Will Sabotage Obama

Yesterday, Steve Stockdale, a teacher at Texas Christian University and member of the Star-Telegram Community Columnist Panel, wrote a S-T guest article But what if ...?

Calling it a “missed opportunity,” the article questions the wisdom of the March decision by the executive committee of TCU's board of trustees to ask Brite Divinity School to move the Rev. Jeremiah Wright awards dinner off campus.

“ . . .Those two weeks began with a discussion about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy and Sen. Barack Obama's speech on race in America. Then we talked about the decision of TCU and Brite Divinity School to move the March 29 portion of the Fourth Annual State of the Black Church Summit off campus. (Brite is on the TCU campus but is an independent institution.) For a year, Brite had planned the summit for the last weekend in March and had a long-standing invitation to Wright to attend and receive an award recognizing his 40 years of service to his church and ministry.”

With the twisted rhetoric that only a seasoned leftist semantics teacher could master, Stockdale called the decision “self-congratulatory” while following-up with “It was a good call – prudent if not profound.”

“With Wright's explosive emergence on the national airwaves, it would be understandable for Fort Worth and TCU to embrace in a collective, self-congratulatory sigh of relief for not letting that circus come to this town! It was a good call -- prudent if not profound.”

Stockdale was looking for something more profound. So he invited some TCU insiders to share the decision making process with his class. Stockdale’s class would focus on “the history of racism in America.” Well, not exactly the entire history of racism in America. His focus certainly didn’t include the more recent history of Black racism in America as typified by the good “Rev.” Jeremiah Wright.

“We learned something about the history of racism in America by viewing clips from Todd Larkins' documentary The N Word: Divided We Stand and segments from the PBS series on the civil rights movement, Eyes on the Prize.

We studied the distinction between the words people use and their behavior. Is it more appropriate to examine a person's behavior within a specific context or environment rather than focus on whether this word or that word is used? Do actions speak louder than words? What if the action is nothing but words?” (emphasis added by me)

Let me interject here a quote from Obama’s infamous “Just Words” speech that he “borrowed” from Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick when he was running for office two years ago:

“Don’t tell me words don’t matter,” Obama said. “‘I have a dream.’ Just words? ‘We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.’ Just words? ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Just words? Just speeches?”

H/T/ Fox News: Click here to watch Patrick’s Oct. 15, 2006, “Just Words?” speech.

But I digress. Here’s more of the balanced educational fare Stockdale offered to his class:

“In The N Word, rapper Chuck D recognizes this distinction between word and behavior: "Words are words, but what comes right after the word is the activity. And the activity of being treated like a nigger is always in the air."

We listened to the song You've Got to Be Carefully Taught from the musical South Pacific. We heard that children must be taught to be afraid "of people whose eyes are oddly made, and people whose skin is a different shade .... to hate all the people your relatives hate."

To conclude our discussion on the controversy surrounding this event, I invited Star-Telegram columnist Bob Ray Sanders and University Christian Church's senior minister Tim Carson, one of Brite's trustees, to talk with the class. On April 3, we were fortunate to hear their unique "insider" perspectives.”

Somehow I doubt that Stockdale actually played any “in context” clips from Wright’s infamous 9/11 sermon for his class, or even provided an “in context” transcript for his rhetoric class to dissect. Wouldn’t that have been a novel idea considering that Wright’s sermon was the focus of the class study of racism in America?

Stockdale could have found the “in-context” sermon easily on the internet as early as March 22nd. See Jeremiah Wright’s 9/11 Sermon “In Context,” which includes the in-context video and transcript.

Stockdale concludes his article with an admonishment that Fort Worth and TCU gave up the opportunity for a national conversation about race . . . if only Wright had been given a receptive, respectful venue.

"But what if ...? What if the original plans for March 29 had been kept? What might these students have learned if the TCU trustees' executive committee had heeded those oft-stated calls for a national conversation about race? What if that conversation had actually begun here, in Fort Worth, on March 29?

What if Wright had been given a receptive, respectful venue at which he could respond to the public condemnations hurled at him? What might he have said then, rather than what he has pronounced after stewing in his self-imposed silence for another month? (ephasis added by me)

This community had an opportunity to go beyond talking about talking about race. We could have started the conversation. Instead, we passed to avoid the front page, content to be merely a footnote.

Those who write history will determine whether this fortnight was just another two weeks in just another year, or whether it helped usher in a new season in the great American experiment of self-governance.

Or maybe this fortnight was just another two weeks of a 400-year winter that might never graduate to spring.”

Ok, so how does the above article relate to the title of today’s blog? We have to make a few assumptions about Stockdale. First, the article makes it fairly clear that Stockdale doesn’t believe that Wright is a racist. Clearly Stockdale isn’t even remotely moderate in this thinking. Second, Stockdale believes that Wright should have received a receptive and respectful venue at TCU. Third, Stockdale totally ignores Obama’s own words about the importance of words. Fourth, Stockdale ignores Obama’s distancing himself from Wright. Fifth, if Stockdale doesn’t support Obama, what presidential candidate would Stockdale support given his far left stance?

Most conservatives, independents, and even moderates would have to conclude that if Stockdale is still ranting in support of Wright, other Obama supporters probably share his stance. Do they actually believe that Obama distanced himself from Wright? Or more to the point, don’t they really believe that Obama was just using “words” in political double-speak context to distance himself from Wright when in fact Obama may feel otherwise?

It would appear that Stockdale’s answer to his class can be easily digested by reasoned people. His spin is but the usual leftist political excrement.

“Is it more appropriate to examine a person's behavior within a specific context or environment rather than focus on whether this word or that word is used?” (emphasis added by me)

Reasoned thinkers would say “No” as they are left to wonder if Obama doesn’t actually share Stockdale’s perspective. History will determine whether Obama’s words were fortnight or merely IN CONTEXT political spin!

“Just words???” Thanks to Stockdale for reminding us!


Trackposted to Stop the ACLU, Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, Democrat=Socialist, third world county, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, and Stageleft, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.