|
All in a simple days work of infamy at The U.N. abetted by Obama.
Helen Keller was not as blind as many liberal Jews.(See 1 and 1a below.)
---
In the latest issue of Forbes, Peter Ferrara on pp 40 discusses how Obama lied when he stated at a recent press conference" Federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any President in almost 60 years."
Ferrra points out that Obama attributed GW's 2009 budget which called for a 3% expansion but was expanded by Pelosi and Reid with concurrence by Obama to an increase of 17.9% for 2009, all to GW.
You can do just about anything with numbers and Obama and his Democrat friends like Pelosi and Reid are masters at cooking the books and then lying about it. The dolts in the press are generally too uninformed to catch the chefs at their skulduggery.
---
And then there is the truth which often gets lost in political arenas. (See 2and 2a below.)
---
Charlie outdoes himself! Click on:
Attachments
---
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1)Conrad Black:
The end of Canada’s love affair with the UN
Denis Balibouse/Reuters
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay
It is disappointing that the recent outrageous criticism of Quebec by the United Nations Human Rights Council has not led to a serious debate in Canada about the country’s almost slavish veneration of the United Nations. The basic problem with the UN is that almost no one has used it for what it was ostensibly intended for: To produce equitable co-operation, or at least civilized exchanges, between all the countries of the world. It was devised by Franklin D. Roosevelt to help convince his previously isolationist countrymen that the world was less dangerous than they feared, and to disguise through international organizations and U.S.-directed collegiality the blunt fact that the United States effectively ruled the world except for what was under direct occupation by Stalin’s Red Army.The permanent members of the Security Council were the five principal allies in the Second World War, (though Canada made a greater contribution to victory than France or China); all were countries that were heavily indebted to the United States for war-time — and, it was assumed, correctly in most cases — post-war assistance. Roosevelt reckoned that the docile Latin American republics, the traditional Commonwealth dominions, and the European countries liberated by the Western Allied armies would provide a durable pro-American majority in the General Assembly, and that Britain, France and China would be reliable Security Council allies. Even after the communist victory in China in 1949, this calculation was correct through the 1950s (and the People’s Republic of China did not occupy China’s place on the Security Council, in place of the Nationalist government of Chiang Kai-shek that fled to Taiwan, until 1971). The American isolationists were routed, and the U.S. had no real difficulty consistently outvoting the Soviet Union at the UN.
President Eisenhower proposed the internationalization of the atom with his Atoms For Peace program, in which atomic science would be pooled under the auspices of the United Nations, in 1953. The U.S.S.R. rejected it, and in some respects, the U.S. was able to continue the imaginative program unilaterally with no military aspect. The United Nations performed some useful services at Suez and in the Congo. The U.S. ambassador to the UN, Henry Cabot Lodge (who was given cabinet rank to show that Eisenhower took him and his mission seriously) had the idea of a UN peace-keeping presence to cover the debacle of the Anglo-French invasion of Egypt, supposedly to promote peace after they had incited Israel to seize the Sinai while they took back the Suez Canal. Lodge gave it to Lester Pearson, then Canada’s minister of external affairs, as he thought it would be better received from a less controversial country, rather than the U.S. itself. (Pearson was rewarded with the Nobel Prize for Peace, the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada two years later and election as prime minister five years after that).
It all became more complicated in the 1960s, after the talented UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold died in a plane crash in 1961, Fidel Castro stirred up pro-communist agitation throughout Latin America, Gaullist France created a raft of new member states from its former African colonies and staked out a policy at sharp variance with the Anglo-Americans in support of the Arabs (after he had abandoned Algeria, and two million French and pro-French Algerians fled to France), and the United States became mired in Vietnam. For the past 45 years the United Nations has become steadily over-populated by poor states, failed states, petty despotisms and militant Muslim counties chiefly preoccupied in diplomatic matters with the harassment and denigration of Israel. Most of the agencies have become sink-holes of patronage and corruption for poor countries paying themselves with the contributions of rich countries and polemically biting the hands that feed them.
It has become a source of payola windfalls for corrupt agency officials as well as a substitute for theatre and psychiatry for many of the world’s most disreputable regimes. Muammar Gadaffi’s Libya was elected to the chair of the Human Rights Commission (precursor of the present Human Rights Council), and the whole hierarchy of the UN was implicated in the scandalous misappropriation of many millions of oil dollars supposedly destined for humanitarian purposes in Iraq. The chief humanitarian beneficiaries were Saddam Hussein and crooked UN officials. Many of the peace-keeping missions are staffed by unqualified soldiers from very poor countries, which rent themselves out to the warring factions for cash; and thereby increase, rather than control, local violence.
Unfortunately, Canada was, for most of the UN’s history, far too indulgent of it. First, as a victorious ally and charter member, it was part of the Anglo-American governing consensus. Then, after Lodge gave Pearson the Suez peacekeeper idea (and Pearson forgot that it wasn’t his originally), the foreign policy establishment in Ottawa began to view the UN as a way for Canada to distinguish itself from the U.S. at little cost, and to allow itself, with a modest foreign aid budget, to pander to Third World countries without seriously annoying our traditional allies. This gradually developed into the Chrétien government’s endorsement of “soft power,” a phrase originated by former U.S. president Bill Clinton’s national security adviser Joe Nye, which was a soft alternative to the use of American military might. It is a concept that has any validity only when there is a hard power option, which Canada did not possess. As practised by this country, soft power was a fraud, it was just more softness.
Despite Canada’s long championship of the United Nations, the UN high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay (a Tamil South African from Durban and notorious anti-Western racist), still saw fit to criticize the absence of human rights in Quebec last week, lumping Canada in with Syria, Mali, Eritrea and North Korea. (The first three of those countries have been wracked by civil wars, replete with tortured political prisoners and executions; and the fourth is the most severe totalitarian state in the world.) Pillay was the chief author of the Durban declaration against racism in 2001, itself a militantly racist document, and she has disputed the legality of killing Osama bin Laden and ostentatiously supported Iran’s lunatic president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. In her recent comments, she praised the Arab Charter on Human Rights, which makes all rights subject to the law of Shariah. She did not recognize that the Quebec law on the right to assemble and demonstrate has not led to general violence, is not violently imposed and is subject to review by an independent judiciary and to revocation of the government by voters in free elections.
At the Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva on June 22, there was a parallel meeting held by Hamas and other radical Palestinian organizations, with the blessing and publicity of the United Nations, in which Israel was subjected to the customary flood of blood libels. More than 40% of the Council’s own resolutions are devoted to the pathological Jew-baiting and anti-Zionism of radical Islam and its secular espousers.
Undoubtedly, there will be those in Canada who decry the Harper government’s comparative friendliness with Israel and call for appeasement of Pillay and her foaming claque. What we should do instead is lead agitation for a massive transformation of the United Nations — back to the defence of Eleanor Roosevelt’s Universal Declaration on Human Rights (which is not subject to Shariah law or any other such barbarities), jettison the antiquated Security Council and propose a variable system of voting in the General Assembly, where votes are accorded to countries and groupings of countries according to a combination of their population, economic strength and objectively assessed respect for human rights.
Canada is well placed to organize the support for such measures by the countries that pay most of the UN’s bills. This would be a much more appropriate stance for Canada, now that it has been so unjustly pilloried by the anthill of bigotry of a Human Rights Council, than continued reverence for this citadel of hypocrisy. The United Nations is both a mad cow and a sacred cow; it is in desperate need of radical reform.
National Post
1a)Obama Turns His Back on Israel at the U.N.
This article by Anne Bayefsky appears today on National Review Online.Today, at the United Nations, the Obama administration is turning its back on Israel. For the very first time, the U.N. Security Council has invited the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights to “brief” the Council specifically on the subject of Israel and the commissioner’s list of trumped-up sins. Though the U.S. is a veto-holding power, the extraordinary move has full American approval, despite the fact that the global soapbox will be handed to Navi Pillay, a notorious anti-Israel partisan.
Moreover, the American-backed action exposes President Obama’s profound weakness on the international stage. It turns out that the deal to sponsor an Israel-bashing session at the highest levels was a trade-off for having the high commissioner brief the Council on the subject of Syria.
The Security Council has not acted on Syria since an April 21, 2012, resolution, which sent unarmed observers over to watch the bloodshed. France wanted a high commissioner briefing on Syria to generate more noise. Council member Pakistan said no, unless Israel was on the chopping block, too. The Russians also said no, unless Libya was on the table. Russia seeks to use the mess in that country to obstruct stronger measures on Syria.
At this point in the diplomatic game, the Obama administration could have insisted that Israel not be sacrificed as the quid pro quo for paying due attention to the Syrian carnage. Instead, they caved, agreeing to a spectacle which casts Syria and Israel as moral equals.
Team Obama’s only caveat? The Syrian briefing should be in the morning and the Israel briefing should be in the afternoon so that the briefings — by the same person — can be labeled “two” meetings and the trade-off will be less visible. Obama’s U.N. ambassador Susan Rice can then run to the cameras before the afternoon session and claim the Council’s consideration of Syria was a “success.”
The betrayal of Israel is especially outrageous in light of what the administration knows about Navi Pillay. She’s the U.N. official who questioned the legality of the killing of Osama bin Laden within hours of his death. She’s the lead champion of the Durban “anti-racism” declaration and conferences. She’s the human-rights aficionado who sat glued to her conference chair — while democracies walked out en masse — when speaker Iranian president Ahmadinejad questioned the veracity of the Holocaust.
Only last month, when Pillay sought a renewal of her term as high commissioner, the administration lobbied (ineffectively) against it, in part precisely because of her anti-Israel bias. But a month later, Obama officials are welcoming her into the U.N.’s inner sanctum as a supposed expert on Israel’s inequities and legitimizing her message.
Pillay’s lecture is eminently predictable. Back in July 2010 when she was asked to address the Security Council on the general subject of the “protection of civilians” anywhere in the world, she managed only two pleas, and both were directed at Israel. She “urged” the Council to force Israel to lift the blockade of Gaza — notwithstanding the obvious anti-human-rights consequences of creating an Iranian arms depot on the Mediterranean. And she “urged” the Council to support the infamous Goldstone report.
Last November, when she was asked to brief the Council on “the protection of civilians in armed conflict,” she placed alleged “violence perpetrated by Israeli settlers” alongside ending impunity for “summary executions, rape and torture” in Cote d’Ivoire, “brutal violence” affecting “tens of thousands” in Syria, and “systematic torture” in Afghanistan.
As for the burning necessity of more briefings by Pillay, the last time the Security Council was briefed in detail on “the Palestinian question” was all of 13 days ago on June 19, 2012. In fact, detailed briefings of the Council on the issue, including ritualistic condemnation of Israel by U.N. “experts” and a series of non-democracies, are already held monthly.
Furnishing Pillay with a Security Council podium to attack Israel, therefore, must be set side by side with President Obama’s reelection campaign verbiage. Voters are rightly concerned by the president’s full frontal embrace of the United Nations. So administration officials are being dispatched to address Jewish voters in key states like Florida quite specifically on the subject of the Obama response to the demonization of Israel at the U.N.
Here’s Esther Brimmer, assistant secretary at the Bureau of International Organization Affairs, speaking to a Jewish group in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties, Florida on April 24, 2012: “Our diplomatic engagement . . . at the U.N., is rooted in an ironclad commitment by President Obama to support Israel across the U.N. system. . . . Our commitment to defend Israel throughout the U.N. system, both in countering biased anti-Israeli actions and in opposing those who seek platforms to expand anti-Israel efforts at the U.N., remains strong.”
And here’s U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice at a synagogue in Boca Raton, Fla., on May 10, 2012: “Not a day goes by — not one — when my colleagues and I don’t work hard to defend Israel’s security and legitimacy at the United Nations. . . . President Obama has insisted that the United States be clear: The treatment Israel receives across the U.N. system is unacceptable. Efforts to chip away at Israel’s legitimacy have been met with the unflinching opposition of the United States.”
It ain’t so.
Moreover, the American-backed action exposes President Obama’s profound weakness on the international stage. It turns out that the deal to sponsor an Israel-bashing session at the highest levels was a trade-off for having the high commissioner brief the Council on the subject of Syria.
The Security Council has not acted on Syria since an April 21, 2012, resolution, which sent unarmed observers over to watch the bloodshed. France wanted a high commissioner briefing on Syria to generate more noise. Council member Pakistan said no, unless Israel was on the chopping block, too. The Russians also said no, unless Libya was on the table. Russia seeks to use the mess in that country to obstruct stronger measures on Syria.
At this point in the diplomatic game, the Obama administration could have insisted that Israel not be sacrificed as the quid pro quo for paying due attention to the Syrian carnage. Instead, they caved, agreeing to a spectacle which casts Syria and Israel as moral equals.
Team Obama’s only caveat? The Syrian briefing should be in the morning and the Israel briefing should be in the afternoon so that the briefings — by the same person — can be labeled “two” meetings and the trade-off will be less visible. Obama’s U.N. ambassador Susan Rice can then run to the cameras before the afternoon session and claim the Council’s consideration of Syria was a “success.”
The betrayal of Israel is especially outrageous in light of what the administration knows about Navi Pillay. She’s the U.N. official who questioned the legality of the killing of Osama bin Laden within hours of his death. She’s the lead champion of the Durban “anti-racism” declaration and conferences. She’s the human-rights aficionado who sat glued to her conference chair — while democracies walked out en masse — when speaker Iranian president Ahmadinejad questioned the veracity of the Holocaust.
Only last month, when Pillay sought a renewal of her term as high commissioner, the administration lobbied (ineffectively) against it, in part precisely because of her anti-Israel bias. But a month later, Obama officials are welcoming her into the U.N.’s inner sanctum as a supposed expert on Israel’s inequities and legitimizing her message.
Pillay’s lecture is eminently predictable. Back in July 2010 when she was asked to address the Security Council on the general subject of the “protection of civilians” anywhere in the world, she managed only two pleas, and both were directed at Israel. She “urged” the Council to force Israel to lift the blockade of Gaza — notwithstanding the obvious anti-human-rights consequences of creating an Iranian arms depot on the Mediterranean. And she “urged” the Council to support the infamous Goldstone report.
Last November, when she was asked to brief the Council on “the protection of civilians in armed conflict,” she placed alleged “violence perpetrated by Israeli settlers” alongside ending impunity for “summary executions, rape and torture” in Cote d’Ivoire, “brutal violence” affecting “tens of thousands” in Syria, and “systematic torture” in Afghanistan.
As for the burning necessity of more briefings by Pillay, the last time the Security Council was briefed in detail on “the Palestinian question” was all of 13 days ago on June 19, 2012. In fact, detailed briefings of the Council on the issue, including ritualistic condemnation of Israel by U.N. “experts” and a series of non-democracies, are already held monthly.
Furnishing Pillay with a Security Council podium to attack Israel, therefore, must be set side by side with President Obama’s reelection campaign verbiage. Voters are rightly concerned by the president’s full frontal embrace of the United Nations. So administration officials are being dispatched to address Jewish voters in key states like Florida quite specifically on the subject of the Obama response to the demonization of Israel at the U.N.
Here’s Esther Brimmer, assistant secretary at the Bureau of International Organization Affairs, speaking to a Jewish group in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties, Florida on April 24, 2012: “Our diplomatic engagement . . . at the U.N., is rooted in an ironclad commitment by President Obama to support Israel across the U.N. system. . . . Our commitment to defend Israel throughout the U.N. system, both in countering biased anti-Israeli actions and in opposing those who seek platforms to expand anti-Israel efforts at the U.N., remains strong.”
And here’s U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice at a synagogue in Boca Raton, Fla., on May 10, 2012: “Not a day goes by — not one — when my colleagues and I don’t work hard to defend Israel’s security and legitimacy at the United Nations. . . . President Obama has insisted that the United States be clear: The treatment Israel receives across the U.N. system is unacceptable. Efforts to chip away at Israel’s legitimacy have been met with the unflinching opposition of the United States.”
It ain’t so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)READ AND LEARN THE TRUTH
Mitt was born in Detroit on March 12, 1947. His mother, Lenore, gave up an acting career when she met and married his father, George. Mitt’s father came from humble origins and never graduated from college. He apprenticed as a lath and plaster carpenter and sold aluminum paint before beginning a career that brought him to the head of American Motors and then the governorship of Michigan.
Mitt married his wife, Ann, in 1969. They first met in elementary school when he was a Cub Scout; he remembers tossing pebbles at her when she rode by on a horse. When they met again years later at a friend’s house, he was smitten. Between them, they have five sons and eighteen grandchildren, who are the center of their lives.
THE DEMOCRAT PARTY and ITS CON JOB!
MITT IS A REAL MAN!
YOU REALLY NEED TO READ THIS AND LEARN WHAT A MAN HE IS!
Like any family, the Romneys have faced hardship: Ann was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998, and more recently fought a battle with breast cancer. She credits her husband’s unwavering care and devotion to her for helping her through these ordeals.
Mitt is not a career politician. He has spent most of his life in the private sector, giving him intimate knowledge of how our economy works. But he has also been an outstanding public servant. In one chapter of his distinguished career, he reversed the decline of a state mired in recession. In another chapter, he salvaged the 2002 Winter Olympic Games from certain disaster.
When Mitt was elected Governor of Massachusetts in 2002, the state was in severe disarray, its budget was out of balance, spending was soaring, and taxpayers were being required to pay more and more in taxes for diminishing services. The state economy was in a tailspin, with businesses cutting back on investment or even closing, and unemployment ticking up. Mitt made hard decisions that brought state spending under control. He restructured and consolidated government programs, paring back where necessary and finding efficiencies throughout.
Facing a state legislature dominated by Democrats, Mitt cast more than 800 vetoes as he brought conservative principles to state government. He cut red tape for small businesses, signed into law job-creating incentives, and fought hard to bring new businesses to the state. He eliminated a $3 billion deficit without borrowing or raising taxes. By 2007, at the end of Mitt’s term, the state had accumulated a $2 billion rainy day fund in its coffers. This stringent fiscal discipline provided an essential backdrop for economic recovery. While Mitt was in office, the state unemployment rate fell from 5.6% to 4.7% and the Massachusetts economy added tens of thousands of new jobs.
In 1999, the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics was on the verge of collapse. Thanks to his reputation as a superb manager, Mitt was asked to take over. The event had been bogged down in a bid-rigging scandal, sponsors were fleeing, and the budget was bleeding red ink. The attacks of September 11, 2001, just months before the start date, created a security nightmare. Some were contemplating scaling back the competition or even moving it out of the country.
Mitt set to work. In a remarkably short period, he revamped the organization’s leadership, trimmed the budget, and restored public confidence. He oversaw an unprecedented security mobilization to assure the safety of the athletes and millions of international visitors, staging one of the most successful games ever held on U.S. soil.
Mitt’s impressive skills did not come out of nowhere. He began his career in business.
After graduating from Brigham Young University in 1971, he earned dual degrees from Harvard Law and Harvard Business School. After working as a business consultant for several years, Mitt founded the investment firm Bain Capital in 1984. Under his leadership, Bain Capital helped to launch or rebuild over one hundred companies, including household names such as Staples, Bright Horizons, and The Sports Authority. As Bain Capital was growing in prominence, Mitt returned to his old consulting firm, Bain & Company, as CEO. In a time of financial turmoil at the company, he led a successful turnaround.
2a)Romney More to Fix Economy
By Patrick Hobin
GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney is leading with independents and is in a dead heat with President Barack Obama on the top issue with voters — the economy — according to a new poll.
Romney tops Obama 52 percent to 41 percent among independent voters who were asked in a CNN poll which candidate would do a better job handling the economy.
"The economy remains the No. 1 concern to voters, but neither President Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney have an edge on that issue among registered voters nationwide," CNN’s polling director Keating Holland said.
"The groups that think Romney would do a better job — higher-income Americans, men, and older voters — are counterbalanced by lower-income Americans, women, and younger voters who give the edge to Obama. Fifty-two percent of independents think Romney would do a better job on the economy."
Romney has a 10-point advantage over Obama when Americans were asked which candidate would do a better job dealing with the federal budget deficit.
Obama led by 8 points on foreign policy and by 7 on healthcare. Romney holds a 3-point margin on illegal immigration, the CNN poll said.
"Not surprisingly, the poll indicates that the economy's the public's top issue, the only topic that more than half say will be extremely important to their presidential vote in November," Holland said.
© 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment