Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Grandson Launches Unbucket! U.N. Hypocrisy!

Today our oldest grandson  opened Unbucket to the public. Joining us were a handful of incredible partners, ranging from a world-class non-profit to one of the top sites for young women on the web. 

We wish him all the best and success in his social media project.


No doubt miss witless loves and  will vote for Hillary as well.

Lights on! (See 1 below.)

Lights out! (See 1a below.)

Either way it appears we are getting 'screwed.'

But then this happens to Israel all the time courtesy of U.N. hypocrisy (See 1b below.)

This is the type of thing Brigette Gabriel suggests is happening in our own country - the subtle undermining of our nation's values by radical Islamists bent on using our very Constitutional guarantees to destroy America from within.

Why does the United States continue to fund this U.N. hypocrisy?
Great Ambassador or Secretary of State or neither.

There is a difference you know! You decide! (See 2 below.)
1)Tonopah Solar Company
The Solar thing just got a little more interesting!
The Tonopah Solar company in Harry Reid's Nevada
is getting a $737 million loan from Obama's DOE.
The project will produce a 110 megawatt power system
and employs 45 permanent workers.
That's costing us just $16 million per job.
One of the investment partners in this endeavour is Pacific
Corporate Group (PCG).
The PCG executive director is Ron Pelosi who is the brother
to Nancy's husband.

1a)Whatever Happened to Private Sex?
By Sally Zelikovsky

"I heart female orgasm" is a public event taking place at the University of Minnesota to teach young women and girls enrolled in the school how to achieve and improve their orgasms. Yes, you heard me right. "Sex Week" at Yale and now this. There is only one way to combat this insanity. Minnesota parents need to threaten to withhold their tuition payments until this ceases.
Do college students really need this class? Women have been having orgasms since time immemorial and learned it all on their own without the aid of university classes. If someone has problems in this arena, this very personal matter should be discussed in private with a doctor or therapist. Sex should be a private concern but we are trivializing it with programs like this at the same time we are making it too pressing of an issue in our already sex-obsessed culture.
Today's pop culture and university system are working hard turning sex into an open and public endeavor. The messaging to young people is that it is nothing special, it does not require intimacy, it's for sport and entertainment, it's something you just have to do like going to the bathroom or blowing your nose, and whoever you can do it with when you need to do it, is just fine.
The overriding message is this is an animal urge and follow your instincts at all times. The need for control and restraint is passé.
Well, we aren't just animals. We do possess free will and discipline and that is, after all, what distinguishes us from our animal pals. Is there a course on this at college?
Parents shouldn't tolerate this; they shouldn't tolerate their daughters and sons sharing bathrooms in the dorms or sharing rooms. Maybe they do need some supervision at the ripe old age of 18-21. Rape rates while attending college for both our sons and daughters are higher than ever before, STD and pregnancy/abortion are more prevalent than in previous generations and the devastating emotional and psychological effects of casual and frequent sex are doing more harm than good to our young adults, with depression and feelings of alienation being ubiquitous during the college years.
It's infuriating: we have to pay for their education -- which means paying for nonsensical and deleterious programs like this -- but we aren't allowed to see their grades or know about their need to see a counselor. And, we are the last to find out about their drug abuse, pregnancies, rapes, and STDs. Parents hold the purse strings and should use that power. And students who are opposed to this garbage, need to be empowered to form groups that can make demands from the universities they attend.
When parents sent their children to college in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, they didn't need to worry about things like this. The dorms were separate, there were dorm mothers who supervised visits from members of the opposite sex and there were curfews. (Yes, I know some people had sex, some got pregnant, some got STDs and some became alcoholics. But the numbers were far less than today and there were consequences for such behavior. Most of all, your peers didn't tolerate it.)
Obama's crowd has done a good job of making our kids feel like the 50s are something to be laughed at and scorned, but there are some good things we could take from the 50s -- family, fidelity, faith -- that might not be so laughable and might provide the boundaries so many of our young people in college are craving. The peer pressure to partake in all the crazy activities is severe but when you talk to college students, too many of them are looking for something else. They might not fully comprehend the long-term emotional side effects of their behavior, but they know there is something better out there -- not the chaos, confusion and collateral damage that comes from rampant, unrestrained, meaningless sex; emotion-numbing and mind-altering partying; and then classes, professors, and a college culture reinforcing the same. If we continue at this rate, it won't be long before the need for bathrooms or bedrooms is obliterated. Click Here to learn more about the Program

1b)Israel snubs UN human rights review

View of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, on March 3, 2008. Israel has become the first country to boycott a UN Human Rights Council review of its rights situation, sparking heated debate among diplomats on how to respond.
Fabrice Coffrini/AFP/File
View of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, on March 3, 2008. Israel has become the first country to boycott a UN Human Rights Council review of its rights situation, sparking heated debate among diplomats on how to respond.

Israel's failure to show up for its UPR marks the first time since the reviews began in 2007 that a country under evaluation has been absent without explanation, and it was unclear how the rights council would react.
When Haiti delayed its UPR in early 2010 its justification was the devastating earthquake that hit the country that year, claiming more than 300,000 lives.

It also called for Israel's review to be rescheduled for no later than during the UPR session starting in October this year.
Delegates then took the floor, with Egypt's representative declaring that the council faced "a moment of truth".
He cautioned that taking a "soft" approach towards Israel would create a dangerous precedent and leave "a wide-open door for more cases of non-cooperation."

The Pakistani representative meanwhile implicitly criticised those urging a soft reaction.
"We wonder ... whether this kind of cooperative spirit would be extended to some other countries that are not as close to some of the major powers in the world," he said.

Despite the range of opinions, the council in the end adopted Henczel's proposal by consensus.
Israel has long accused the Human Rights Council of singling it out, noting that it is the only country to have a specific agenda item dedicated to it at every meeting of the council, and that the body has passed an inordinate number of resolutions against it.

In an email to AFP late last year, the country's mission in Geneva said it would boycott the council "for as long as it is treated differently than other countries".

On Tuesday, a coalition of 15 Israeli and Palestinian organisations warned of "the far-reaching consequences" of Israel's no-show.

"This lack of transparency will not only mean that Israel avoids rigorous criticism of its violations of international law, but that the entire UPR system will be undermined by the loss of its two fundamental principles: equality and universality," they said in a joint statement.

Having stopped off in a hundred and twelve countries during her four years as Secretary of State, 
Hillary Clinton, in her last week in office, seems intent on visiting almost as many televisions studios.
 At the weekend, she did “60 Minutes” on CBS. Today, she will be on ABC, NBC, CNN, and Fox. 
Tomorrow, it’s the BBC. If you are a news producer at CNBC, Bloomberg, New York 1, or the 
Weather Channel, give the State Department a call. As far as I know, Thursday and Friday are still open.
O.K., O.K., all you Hillary fans. I’m just being flippant. We all know that once she decides to do
something, she gives it her all, and this is probably just another case of the Wellesley-Yale standout
overdoing things. And, perhaps, after playing the role of the dancing monkey to President Obama’s
organ grinder during the interview with Steve Kroft, she is eager to speak for herself about her record,
without the boss looking over her shoulder.
That would be understandable. Still, in view of all the publicity she is receiving, and her elevated approval
rating—sixty nine per cent in the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll—a nagging question remains:
What has she really achieved?
During the joint “60 Minutes” interview, Obama said, “I think she will go down as one of the finest
Secretary of States we’ve had.” But while he praised Hillary’s stamina, her professionalism, and her
teamwork, the President was a bit short on specific achievements that could be put down to her efforts.
 Asked by Steve Kroft about the biggest foreign-policy successes of his first term, he mentioned ending
the war in Iraq, drawing down U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and dismantling the leadership of Al Qaeda,
adding, “That’s all a consequence of the great work that Hillary did and her team did, and the State
Department did, in conjunction with our national-security team.”
Fair enough. But it’s no secret that the Administration’s policies on Iraq, Afghanistan, and counterterrorism were conceived and managed in the White House. In foreign-policy circles, the knock on Hillary is that, unlike some of her storied predecessors—John Quincy Adams, George C. Marshall, Dean Acheson, Henry Kissinger—she failed to carve out a historically significant role for herself. “There’s no question that Clinton has been terrifically energetic, as well as a loyal team player,” Stephen 
Walt, a professor of international relations at Harvard, wrote last July, shortly after a profile in the Times 
Magazine referred to Hillary as a “rock star diplomat.” “The problem, however, is that she’s hardly
 racked up any major achievements… She played little role in extricating us from Iraq, and it is hard to
 see her fingerprints on the U.S. approach to Afghanistan. She has done her best to smooth the troubled 
relationship with Pakistan, but anti-Americanism remains endemic in that country and it hardly looks like 
a success story at this point… She certainly helped get tougher sanctions on Iran, but the danger of war
 still looms and there’s been no breakthrough there either.”
Other experts agree. “She’s coming away with a stellar reputation that seems to have put her almost above
 criticism,” Aaron David Miller, a former diplomat peace negotiator, said to Paul Richter, of the Los 
Angeles Times. “But you can’t say that she’s really led on any of the big issues for this administration 
or made a major mark on high strategy.” A former diplomat who served in the Obama Administration told 
Richter, “If you go down the line, it’s tough to see what’s happened in world politics over the last four 
years that wouldn’t have happened without her. So, it’s tough to see how she gets into that category of
 truly great, transformational secretaries, like Acheson and Marshall.”
It’s hard to quibble with that assessment. Marshall gave his name to an economic-recovery plan for
war-torn Europe. Acheson laid down the Cold War policy of containment and helped create NATO.
Adams helped conceive the Monroe Doctrine, which defined Central and South America as part of the
U.S. sphere of influence. Kissinger pioneered détente with the Soviets, instigated a rapprochement with
 the Chinese, and did much else besides (by no means all of it estimable). By contrast, Hillary’s signature
 achievements look like small beer. She was the public face of the U.S. response to the Arab Spring, which
 involved persuading Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian President, to step aside peaceably, winning international
support for U.S. military intervention in Libya, and resisting international pressure for similar action in Syria. How these policies will ultimately play out, it is too early to say.
The Benghazi killings and their aftermath, for which she has taken responsibility while insisting that more
lowly officials made the key decisions, or pieces of indecision, were the most controversial incident of her
tenure. The most serious gap in her record, and the record of the Administration, is any serious attempt to
tackle the Arab-Israeli conflict—but there, too, the White House held sway. The fact that Hillary didn’t
bring peace to Palestine, or redefine the relationship between the United States and China, doesn’t mean
she was a failure. Far from it. In carrying out the task she was allotted, she was a big success. It’s just that
 the nature of her job was very different from the ones that Acheson and Kissinger held. In reality, she
 wasn’t directing American foreign policy, or anything close. At times, she wasn’t even the
Administration’s chief troubleshooter—a niche occupied by a series of special envoys: Richard
 Holbrooke, George Mitchell, and Dennis Ross. The post she really had was that of U.S. Ambassador
 to the world, and she made a pretty good fist of it.
In the “60 Minutes” interview, President Obama was surprisingly explicit about how he conceived of
Hillary’s role. Referring back to late 2008, he said, “She also was already a world figure. And I thought
that somebody stepping into that position of Secretary of State at a time when, keep in mind, we were s
till in Iraq. Afghanistan was still an enormous challenge. There was great uncertainty in terms of how we
would reset our relations around the world. To have somebody who could serve as that effective
ambassador in her own right without having to earn her stripes, so to speak, on the international stage, I
 thought would be hugely important.”
As a globe-trotting representative for the United States, Hillary has had few equals. According to the
Travels With the Secretary page on the State Department’s Web site, she has logged 2081.21 hours on
the road—not 2081.20, mind you—and clocked up 956,733 miles on the federal frequent-flyer program
. In total, she was traveling for four hundred and one days—more than thirteen months—enduring hundreds of long flights and sitting through countless boring meetings. How far this crazy schedule contributed to her recent illness can only be speculated upon—after contracting a stomach virus in Europe, she fell and suffered a concussion that led to a blood clot—but nobody can ever fault her work ethic.
As well as adhering to Woody Allen’s motto that ninety per cent of life is showing up, she also delivered
 a distinctive message. While it hardly added up to a full-blown “Clinton Doctrine,” it did present a
different and more inclusive image of America than the one conveyed by G.I. fatigues and drone missile
attacks. Throughout her tenure, she was a vocal proponent of female empowerment, gay rights, and
equitable economic development in poor countries. She also defended freedom of expression. Perhaps
her most memorable moment was helping to secure the freedom of Chen Guangcheng, the Chinese
dissident, who is now a scholar in residence at N.Y.U.
Doubtless, these actions by themselves, were insufficient to drastically change how the world sees the
United States. According to polling data from the Pew Foundation, since 2009, shortly after Obama’s
 election, the number of people holding favorable views of the United States has fallen modestly in
China, Europe, and Muslim countries. Even now, though, the Pew survey shows, America is more
popular in Europe and Asia than it was at the end of the Bush Administration. (In Pakistan and parts
of the Middle East it is less popular.)
Hillary didn’t create these trends, but she did her part for Team U.S.A. As a “rock star diplomat,” s
he toured tirelessly and put on good shows. Since that’s what she was hired to do, it seems a bit unfair
to judge her too harshly.


No comments: