UN body OKs call to curb religious criticism

GENEVA (AP) — The U.N.’s top human-rights body approved a proposal backed by Muslims nations Thursday urging the passage of laws around the world protecting religion from criticism.

The proposal by Pakistan had drawn strong criticism from free-speech campaigners and liberal democracies.

A simple majority of 23 members of the 47-nation Human Rights Council voted in favor of the resolution. Eleven mostly Western nations opposed it and 13 countries abstained.

The resolution urges states to provide “protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general.”

“It is individuals who have rights and not religions,” said Canadian diplomat Terry Cormier. Canada’s criticism was echoed by European Union countries, all of which voted against the proposal.

The council is dominated by Muslim and African countries. Muslim nations have argued that religions, in particular Islam, must be shielded from criticism in the media and other areas of public life. They cited cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad as an example of unacceptable free speech.

“Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism,” the resolution said.

A coalition of more than 100 secular and faith groups had called on governments to oppose the resolution, warning that it could lead to accusations of defamation among different faiths.

The United States did not vote on the resolution because it is not a member of the council. The Bush administration announced it was virtually giving up on the body and would participate in debates only if absolutely necessary because of the council’s anti-Israel statements and its failure to act on abuses in Sudan and elsewhere.

India, which normally votes along with the council’s majority of developing nations, abstained in protest at the fact that Islam was the only religion specifically named as deserving protection.

India’s Ambassador Gopinathan Achamkulangare said the resolution “inappropriately” linked religious criticism to racism.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Newt Gingrich: A Single Nuke Could Destroy America

A sword of Damocles hangs over our heads. It is a real threat that has been all but ignored.

On Feb. 3, Iran launched a “communications satellite” into orbit. At this very moment, North Korea is threatening to do the same. The ability to launch an alleged communications satellite belies a far more frightening truth. A rocket that can carry a satellite into orbit also can drop a nuclear warhead over any location on the planet in less than 45 minutes.

Far too many timid or uninformed sources maintain that a single launch of a missile poses no true threat to the United States, given our retaliatory power.

A reality check is in order and must be discussed in response to such an absurd claim: In fact, one small nuclear weapon, delivered by an ICBM can destroy the United States by maximizing the effect of the resultant electromagnetic pulse upon detonation.

Read the whole story by clicking the link:

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/grigrich_emp_weapon/2009/03/29/197257.html?s=al&promo_code=7D18-1

Gen. Richard Myers: U.S. Enemies Seek WMDs to End ‘Our Way of Life’

Former top military commander Gen. Richard Myers tells Newsmax that America’s enemies in the war on terror are “ruthless” and “relentless” and will not hesitate to use nuclear or biological weapons if they obtain them.

“They want to do away with our way of life,” Myers tells Newsmax TV’s Ashley Martella. “They could bring great harm to this country and our friends and allies.”

Myers, who served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from October 2001 until September 2005, tells Newsmax that the U.S. focused too narrowly on tactical battles and failed to develop a long-rang strategy to battle terrorism.

Read the entire article

Terence Corcoran: Is this the end of America?

Terence Corcoran, Financial Post Published: Friday, March 20, 2009

Helicopter Ben Bernanke’s Federal Reserve is dropping trillions of fresh paper dollars on the world economy, the President of the United States is cracking jokes on late-night comedy shows, his energy minister is threatening a trade war over carbon emissions, his treasury secretary is dithering over a banking reform program amid rising concerns over his competence and a monumentally dysfunctional U. S. Congress is launching another public jihad against corporations and bankers. As an aghast world — from China to Chicago and Chihuahua — watches, the circus-like U. S. political system seems to be declining into near chaos. Through it all, stock and financial markets are paralyzed. The more the policy regime does, the worse the outlook gets. The multi-ringed spectacle raises a disturbing question in many minds: Is this the end of America? Probably not, if only because there are good reasons for optimism. The U. S. economy has pulled out of self-destructive political spirals in the past, spurred on by its business class and corporate leaders, the profit-making and market-creating people who rose above the political turmoil to once again lift the world out of financial crisis. It’s happened many times before, except for once, when it took 20 years to rise out of the Great Depression.

Past success, however, is no guarantee of future recovery, especially now when there are daily disasters and new indicators of political breakdown. All developments are not disasters in themselves. The AIG bonus firestorm is a diversion from real issues, but it puts the ghastly political classes who make U. S. law on display for what they are: ageing, self-serving demagogues who have spent decades warping the U. S. political system for their own ends. We see the system up close, law-making that is riddled with slap-dash, incompetence and gamesmanship. One test of whether we are witnessing the end of America is how many more times Americans put up with Congressional show trials of individual business people and their employees, slandering and vilifying them for their actions and motives. And for how long will they tolerate a President who berates business and corporations as dens of crime and malfeasance? If the majority of Americans come to accept the caricatures of business as true, then America is closer to the end of its life as a global leader, as a champion of markets and individualism.

But America is at risk in other ways, especially in the technical business of setting and executing policy. The presidency of Barack Obama has set out on a course that has no precedent in U. S. history. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose New Deal transformed the U. S. economy during the Great Depression, pushed America off on a sharply different political and ideological course. The Obama administration is different in many ways, not least in its supreme self-confidence in its methods and objectives. Reform of health care, environmental policy, education, energy, banking, regulation — every nook and cranny of the U. S. economy has been put on alert for major change. Expansion of government spending, plunging the U. S. into unprecedented deficits, is without parallel. In economic policy, through regulation and control of energy output, financial services and monetary expansion, the U. S. government has embarked on a fundamental reshaping of America. It is designed, in short, to bring on the end of America. The spillover effect of all this on the rest of the world promises to be dramatically disruptive. The greatest global risk is in monetary and currency policy.

Under the chairmanship of Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve is in the midst of a giant economic experiment, flooding the world with U. S. dollars, hoping that flood will stimulate economic activity. The total monetary base, already at astronomical levels, is now expected to take another big hit with the new Fed policy of buying up U. S. longer-term treasury bills in a bid to drive down long-term interest rates. Mr. Bernanke is sometimes known as “Helicopter Ben” because he once in an academic paper referred to the use of “helicopters” full of money to rescue an economy from deflation. In comments Wednesday to explain the Fed’s new policy of buying $300-billion in U. S. treasury bills, Mr. Bernanke noted that the Fed is now more worried about inflation being too low than about it getting too high in the future. For the rest of the world, however, the worry is that America is at risk of becoming the fountainhead of a new inflationary outburst. The U. S. dollar is now in decline, gold is moving sharply higher, and new global currency turmoil is on the horizon. It may not happen. A paper just published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis says that the Fed will have to be prepared to absorb all the excess money it has poured into the U. S. economy. It will be a technical and political challenge unlike any central bank has ever undertaken.

The future of America is at stake.

Another nail in the coffin of the greatest Military in the world!

Contact: Craig Roberts of The American Legion, +1-202-263-2982 Office, +1-202-406-0887 Cell

WASHINGTON, March 16 PRNewswire-USNewswire — The leader of the nation’s largest veterans organization says he is “deeply disappointed and concerned” after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.

“It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan,” said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. “He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it.”

 The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, “This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ‘ to care for him who shall have borne the battle’ given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm’s way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America’s veterans!”

Commander Rehbein was among a group of senior officials from veterans service organizations joining the President, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki and Steven Kosiak, the overseer of defense spending at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The group’s early afternoon conversation at The White House was precipitated by a letter of protest presented to the President earlier this month. The letter, co-signed by Commander Rehbein and the heads of ten colleague organizations, read, in part, ” There is simply no logical explanation for billing a veteran’s personal insurance for care that the VA has a responsibility to provide. While we understand the fiscal difficulties this country faces right now, placing the burden of those fiscal problems on the men and women who have already sacrificed a great deal for this country is unconscionable.”

 Commander Rehbein reiterated points made last week in testimony to both House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committees. It was stated then that The American Legion believes that the reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate that VA treat service-connected injuries and disabilities given that the United States government sends members of the armed forces into harm’s way, and not private insurance companies. The proposed requirement for these companies to reimburse the VA would not only be unfair, says the Legion, but would have an adverse impact on service-connected disabled veterans and their families. The Legion argues that, depending on the severity of the medical conditions involved, maximum insurance coverage limits could be reached through treatment of the veteran’s condition alone. That would leave the rest of the family without health care benefits. The Legion also points out that many health insurance companies require deductibles to be paid before any benefits are covered. Additionally, the Legion is concerned that private insurance premiums would be elevated to cover service-connected disabled veterans and their families, especially if the veterans are self-employed or employed in small businesses unable to negotiate more favorable across-the-board insurance policy pricing. The American Legion also believes that some employers, especially small businesses, would be reluctant to hire veterans with service-connected disabilities due to the negative impact their employment might have on obtaining and financing company health care benefits.

“I got the distinct impression that the only hope of this plan not being enacted,” said Commander Rehbein, “is for an alternative plan to be developed that would generate the desired $540-million in revenue. The American Legion has long advocated for Medicare reimbursement to VA for the treatment of veterans. This, we believe, would more easily meet the President’s financial goal. We will present that idea in an anticipated conference call with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel in the near future.

“I only hope the administration will really listen to us then. This matter has far more serious ramifications than the President is imagining,” concluded the Commander.

SOURCE The American Legion

Implementing Parts of Sharia Law at the UN

Proposal at U.N. to criminalize ‘defamation of Islam’

Geneva, March 11, 2009 — A new U.N. resolution circulated today by Islamic states would define any questioning of Islamic dogma as a human rights violation, intimidate dissenting voices, and encourage the forced imposition of Sharia law.

UN Watch obtained a copy of the Pakistani-authored proposal after it was distributed today among Geneva diplomats attending the current session of the UN Human Rights Council. Entitled “Combating defamation of religions,” it mentions only Islam.

While non-binding, the resolution constitutes a dangerous threat to free speech everywhere. It would ban any perceived offense to Islamic sensitivities as a “serious affront to human dignity” and a violation of religious freedom, and would pressure U.N. member states — at the “local, national, regional and international levels” — to erode free speech guarantees in their “legal and constitutional systems.”

It’s an Orwellian text that distorts the meaning of human rights, free speech, and religious freedom, and marks a giant step backwards for liberty and democracy worldwide.

The first to suffer will be moderate Muslims in the countries that are behind this resolution, like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan, who seek international legitimacy for state-sanctioned blasphemy laws that stifle religious freedom and outlaw conversions from Islam to other faiths.

Next to suffer from this U.N.-sanctioned McCarthyism will be writers and journalists in the democratic West, with the resolution targeting the media for the “deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons.”

 

Ultimately, it is the very notion of individual human rights at stake, because the sponsors of this resolution seek not to protect individuals from harm, but rather to shield a specific set of beliefs from any question, debate, or critical inquiry.

The resolution’s core premise — that “defamation of religion” exists as legal concept — is a distortion. The law on defamation protects the reputations of individuals, not beliefs. It also requires an examination of the truth or falsity of the challenged remarks — a determination that no one, especially not the UN, is capable of undertaking concerning any religion.

Tragically, given that Islamic states completely dominate the Human Rights Council, with the support of non-democratic members like Russia, China, and Cuba, adoption of the regressive resolution is a forgone conclusion. E.U. diplomats hope at best to win over a handful of wavering Latin American states to the dissenting side.

Click here to see the Full UN Report

This is a very dangerous precedent!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bill O’Reilly’s Column – Interest and Revealing

By Bill O’Reilly for BillOReilly.com

Thursday, March 12, 2009

In these very tough economic times, the left in America is calling for ‘shared sacrifice’, which is code for soaking affluent folks as much as possible. You may have heard some radio ads paid for by the Service Employees International Union beseeching Americans to support higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy so we can all “share” the economic pain. Of course, that message is incredibly stupid. Higher taxes on corporations will inevitably lead to even more worker layoffs. Also, the less money the affluent have, the less they will spend in places where service employees actually work—like hotels and resorts. So there seems to be a major “duh” factor in the sacrifice call by the SEIU, but not if you know what’s really going on.

To read the full column click the link below:

Full O’Reilly Column

Socialism is alive, well and coming at us like a freight train!

A posting From ACT for America Chapter in Northern Virginia

An example of fellowship from the "religion of peace"

A Muslim man set fire to a Coptic young man, murdered his father and wounded his younger brother, after it was rumored that the young Copt allegedly had a relationship with the Muslim man’s sister!!The events took place in the small village of “Dmas” Meet-Ghamr, after a rumor spread around of a relationship between the 25-year-old Copt Shihata Sabri, and the sister of a Muslim man named Yasser Ahmed Qasim.

Yasser went to Coptic Shehata, holding a gasoline canister, poured it over him and set him on fire, as bystanders looked on in horror. The young Copt threw himself into the adjacent canal to try to put out the flames from his burning body. The fire left burns all over his body, leading to his death.

Following this incident, people in the village rallied and when the 60-years-old Sabri Shehata, father of the Coptic victim arrived, he was attacked by a group of Muslims stabbing him with knives and daggers; one stab penetrated his back to come out of his abdomen below the rib cage, resulting in his death, after being transferred to hospital.

A Coptic witness said that Yasser Ahmed, who is reputed to be a thug, and others have also beaten the Coptic victim’s younger brother, 22-year old Rami Sabri Shehata, causing a deep injury to his head.

The security forces moved into the village of Dmas, which has a population of 60,000 people, including over 1000 Copts, surrounded the victims’ house and deployed extra forces throughout the village.

The offenders were arrested together with the accused Yasser Ahmed Kassem and his friend, as well as the Copt Shehata Sabry who was held in custody in Dmas Hospital. The offenders were charged with deliberate homicide.

The body of Coptic victim Sabri Shehata was released for burial after prayers took place at the Church of Our Lady in the village of Dakados, which lies 20 kilometers from Dmas, amid a tight security siege.

A Muslim villager portrayed the incident as an honour killing stressing that it was because of Coptic Shehata Sabri teasing Yasser about a relationship he has with his sister, which prompted him and his friend to pour gasoline all over the Copt before setting him on fire. He denied that this incident will have an impact on the relations between the Muslims and Copts in the village.

The prosecution and the State Security Services are still investigating the incident amid media blackout.

Ann Coulter’s Column in Human Events

Are you sitting down? Obama plans to pay for his $3.6 trillion-dollar spending bill by raising taxes on the rich. I know, I know … I was pretty shocked, too.
   
The bad news is, by hiking taxes in a recession, Obama will turn a disaster into a catastrophe. But there’s good news, too. The “rich” include most of Obama’s biggest supporters.
   
While liberals love being praised for their looks, their style, their brilliance and their courage, the one quality they don’t want talked about is their money. To the contrary, Democrats are constantly boasting about how poor they are — as if that’s a virtue in a capitalist society with no class barriers.

No matter how much money they have, liberals will be damned if they’re giving up the poor’s mantle of angry self-righteousness. This is especially true if their wealth came by inheritance, marriage or the taxpayer, the preferred sources of income for Liberalus Americanus.
   
Democrats’ claims of poverty merely serve to show how out of touch elected Democrats are with actual incomes in America.

To read the whole column click below:

Are \’Hope & Change\’ still tax deductible?

Enjoy.

Education System Reality Check

Public Education is a Mess

 

There are major discussions on the radio and news shows about the failings of the education system. This was prompted by President Barack Hussein Obama’s pronouncements regarding merit pay and advancement for teachers. Let’s set aside for a moment that this opinion, coming from him, is simply not credible and look at the issue overall.

 

Public education in the US is in very bad shape, especially in the large, metropolitan areas (ie. “blue state” America). The issue of merit pay implicitly assumes that most teachers are lacking in ability or motivation, and thus with the proper incentive, they would do a better job. And the profession would attract a higher caliber candidate. But this will not solve the problem because the problem is institutional and systemic.

 

After 40 years of the malignant narcissist generation (baby-boomers) undermining and destroying the uniquely American culture, the current situation is what we are left with. Here is how they did it.

 

The WWII generation, so grateful at having defeated fascism and survived the Great Depression, found themselves at the beginning of a prosperity boom, the likes of which had not been witnessed in a long time, if ever. The middle class expanded dramatically. Unfortunately, too many of that generation, not wanting their progeny to ever have to go through what they had experienced, over-compensated by doting on and spoiling their children.

 

When these children entered college, they were exposed to the radical ideas of the people who had been quietly infiltrating those institutions for decades. Organizations like the deceptively named “Students for a Democratic Society” (SDS) were anything but. These children then went home and told their parents that their generation had botched up the world and they were going to try a new way. They were going to usher in the “Age of Aquarius” where peace, love and understanding would be promulgated throughout the world.

 

So this generation started preaching freedom without responsibility. Platitudes like “don’t be judgmental”; “if it feels good, do it” and “don’t think, feel” (A hugely successful Neil Diamond song) were the marching orders of the day. And sadly, too many of the parents caved into to their narcissistic children, causing the children to think they must be right. This non-judgmentalism led to the idea that one person’s morality was just as acceptable as another’s, which became “moral relativism”. Now, the narcissists have grown up, had their own children and started having to deal with the public school system and teachers directly.

 

 

But unlike their parents, who generally sided with the teachers, these narcissists, who “felt” that their children could do no wrong (since ‘wrong’ was relative), instead sided with their little angels, against the teachers.

 

Over the years, the narcissists infiltrated all institutions (legal, media, education, religion, political, etc.) and infected them with the same moral relativism. With all these institutions now so infected, they ceased to function properly. The outcome in the education system is a result where the teacher, charged with training and molding the minds of the young, no longer has the authority to maintain order in the classroom, to facilitate a quality teaching environment.

 

This self-perpetuating condition, unfortunately, has created the situation where there are now several generations of a population without the ability to “think critically”. They base their opinions and decisions on how they “feel” at a given time. (This explains the messianic almost cult-like obsession with Obama).

 

The result of all this is that the teachers have been relegated to the status of glorified day-care providers, because without the authority to maintain an orderly classroom, one or two malcontents can disrupt the environment and keep the others from learning anything. In this chaos, the best teachers will be the first to become discouraged and eventually they give up. The system is left with the ones who really don’t care but simply see a nice, easy job, from which they can’t be fired. By the time a dedicated teacher reaches the point of “doing it for the money”, they have pretty much lost the light and passion that brought them into the profession in the first place. I would be willing to bet a good sum on the proposition that if teachers were allowed to teach now as it was done 50 years ago, the student population would be far more intelligent and they would know how to think and discern and the teachers would once again be the best in the world. Why? – Because they would be valued for the caring and consummate professionals that they are.

 

 

By the way, the Muslim Students Associations (MSA), sponsored by the Muslim Broherhood, are using the same model as the SDS to infect colleges and universities today.