Protecting Minority Voters—Part II

Protecting Minority Voters—Part II

I didn’t have any intention of writing a Part II to my discussion of Eric Holder and his misuse of the Voting Rights Act to pander to Hispanics. That was until I started finding articles all over the place about the fact that the regressives progressives aren’t satisfied with abusing logic and the Constitution to retain power. Why keep it in the family when you can go to the United Nations?

At the same time that the attorney general is using executive orders and the federal courts to squelch the reasonable requirement of possessing a valid state-issued photo ID in order to vote, Holder’s progressive pals are proffering complaints to the United Nations Human Rights Council. According to the progressives (99% Democratic), requiring a photo ID is on a par with other human rights violations such as genocide, torture, dictatorial rule and suppression of religious freedom.

The NAACP along with several other “civil rights groups” claim that the simple requirement of proving you are who you say you are before voting is a violation of the human rights of minorities under international law. These groups obviously understand that there is one organization that is even goofier than the Democratic left, and that is the United Nations. Most of the members of the Human Rights Council represent nations which don’t allow women to vote, oppress any religion but their own, and rig elections to perpetuate their own regimes.

It’s good to know that there are still people who won’t rely on the racist American Constitution to protect minorities. They believe that Holder is doing the right thing, but possibly in the wrong forum. The American people are under the thumb of an oppressive white society, and the courts are rigged to keep minorities in their place. So what better forum to have your case heard in than where the judges are from bastions of freedom and democracy like China, Russia, Iran, Sudan, Angola, Libya, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and Cuba?

It is quite possible that Holder’s order and litigation will finally result in the death knell of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act at the Supreme Court, freeing Southern states to impose the same voter ID requirements as the Northern states. It is also likely that without expedited proceedings, this will not happen in time for the 2012 presidential election.

The NAACP is wise to go to the United Nations, where such ridiculous charges will be met with open arms. The only entity more anti-American than the race-baiting American left is the United Nations. At the United Nations, they don’t care if or how voting is suppressed anywhere else in the world. But when it comes to America, the complaint will be well-received and well-publicized.

The only upside to this moronic behavior is that it’s also likely that Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and the Democratic Senate majority will all be gone in 2013. If the United Nations votes to condemn American voter ID requirements, the new administration can simply paraphrase Andrew Jackson and say “the UN Human Rights Council has issued its order, now let them enforce it.”

I didn’t have any intention of writing a Part II to my discussion of Eric Holder and his misuse of the Voting Rights Act to pander to Hispanics. That was until I started finding articles all over the place about the fact that the regressives progressives aren’t satisfied with abusing logic and the Constitution to retain power. Why keep it in the family when you can go to the United Nations?

At the same time that the attorney general is using executive orders and the federal courts to squelch the reasonable requirement of possessing a valid state-issued photo ID in order to vote, Holder’s progressive pals are proffering complaints to the United Nations Human Rights Council. According to the progressives (99% Democratic), requiring a photo ID is on a par with other human rights violations such as genocide, torture, dictatorial rule and suppression of religious freedom.

The NAACP along with several other “civil rights groups” claim that the simple requirement of proving you are who you say you are before voting is a violation of the human rights of minorities under international law. These groups obviously understand that there is one organization that is even goofier than the Democratic left, and that is the United Nations. Most of the members of the Human Rights Council represent nations which don’t allow women to vote, oppress any religion but their own, and rig elections to perpetuate their own regimes.

It’s good to know that there are still people who won’t rely on the racist American Constitution to protect minorities. They believe that Holder is doing the right thing, but possibly in the wrong forum. The American people are under the thumb of an oppressive white society, and the courts are rigged to keep minorities in their place. So what better forum to have your case heard in than where the judges are from bastions of freedom and democracy like China, Russia, Iran, Sudan, Angola, Libya, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and Cuba?

It is quite possible that Holder’s order and litigation will finally result in the death knell of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act at the Supreme Court, freeing Southern states to impose the same voter ID requirements as the Northern states. It is also likely that without expedited proceedings, this will not happen in time for the 2012 presidential election.

The NAACP is wise to go to the United Nations, where such ridiculous charges will be met with open arms. The only entity more anti-American than the race-baiting American left is the United Nations. At the United Nations, they don’t care if or how voting is suppressed anywhere else in the world. But when it comes to America, the complaint will be well-received and well-publicized.

The only upside to this moronic behavior is that it’s also likely that Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and the Democratic Senate majority will all be gone in 2013. If the United Nations votes to condemn American voter ID requirements, the new administration can simply paraphrase Andrew Jackson and say “the UN Human Rights Council has issued its order, now let them enforce it.”

Protecting Minority Voters—Part II

View Detail

Time To Buy Gun Manufacturing Stocks

Time To Buy Gun Manufacturing Stocks

Here’s your hot stock tip for the day. Buy Colt. Buy Smith & Wesson. Buy Ruger. Hell, buy ‘em all. Gun sales are surging dramatically nationwide. Barack Obama has stimulated gun sales. A plurality of people buying guns in the last thirty days say that they are making the purchase now because Obama and Company want to confiscate guns during his next administration.

This is not the first time Obama has unintentionally stimulated the gun business. The “Cheaper Than Dirt Gun Store” in Texas reports that gun sales set a record for February, and only the election of Barack Obama in 2008 came close to producing such record-setting sales. Prior to and during that election, Obama made his disdain for private ownership of guns abundantly clear. He swept into office with majorities in both houses of Congress, equally determined to get guns out of the hands of American citizens.

The US Supreme Court in Washington DC declared that gun ownership was a fundamental constitutional right, then took on a Chicago case which expanded on the earlier decision by declaring that gun ownership is an individual right rather than a collective right occasioned by the necessity of a well-regulated militia. The latter decision also established that the fundamental right was protected from state as well as from federal infringement. Those two decisions make gun-grabbing a lot more difficult since the states and the federal government can no longer infringe on gun ownership for anything less than a compelling state interest rather than the previous and easier test of reasonableness.

Since then, the people have seen just how dedicated the Obama administration is to undoing those two decisions. Operation Fast and Furious appears to be a Keystone Kops attempt by the administration to prove how easy it is for criminals to purchase guns, requiring federal and state intervention in gun ownership. It went horribly wrong, and innocent people died as a result. Worst of all, criminals have always found it easy to purchase guns illegally and didn’t need the help of the federal government to prove it.

Two other factors, aside from the fact that Obama has an “odds-against” chance of being reelected, have spurred the current massive increase in gun purchases. First, Obama has daily proven that the law and the Constitution mean little to him and that he thinks the separation of powers is an impediment to efficient progressive bureaucratic government. So he has increasingly relied on executive orders to circumvent Congress and the courts. There’s plenty of reason to believe that he would use one or more of his czars to start using regulations instead of law to prevent citizens from legally purchasing guns.

The other is that he and his gun-grabbing Secretary of State are actively supporting United Nations “arms control” initiatives. Once again, they intend to try to get in through the back door what they couldn’t get in through the front door. Go along with UN gun-grabbing (particularly small arms and handguns), pass a UN resolution, then try to slide a treaty obligation past the Senate in order to bypass the Constitution entirely. It’s highly unlikely that they could succeed in getting the Senate to ratify such a treaty, but they will try mightily. And in that unlikely event, the Supreme Court would be very likely to strike the treaty down for interference with what it has recently declared to be a fundamental constitutional right.

No doubt some of the surge in gun sales is attributable to conspiracy theories and survivalist mentality. But there are plenty of perfectly sane, thinking and fearful Americans who believe that this is no time to risk their family’s safety betting on Obama losing the election and/or abiding by the law or the Constitution if he wins. Hell, the only reason I’m not rushing out to buy a gun is that I already own one and know how to use it (the picture is a .357 Colt Magnum Trooper Mk V revolver, almost identical to my own).

We need to give Obama a round of applause. This is the first stimulus his administration has produced which benefits private enterprise, doesn’t cost the taxpayers a dime, has a proven track record of success, and reinforces instead of diminishing the second item on the Bill of Rights. Take a bow, Mr. President.

On a related note, after this article was originally written, a federal judge in Maryland has struck down the state's handgun permit law. The law allowed issuance or re-issuance of concealed weapons permits only if the applicant could show "good and substantial reason" for needing the permit. The judge proved he understood the Supreme Court decisions which now hold that only a compelling state interest can override the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. The Maryland law did not satisfy that requirement. Put simply, the judge's ruling enhanced the "fundamental rights" issue in the Supreme Court decisions. "One does not need a 'good and substantial reason' to exercise one's First Amendment right to speak freely, nor does one need a 'good and substantial reason' to exercise his Second Amendment right to bear arms." Bravo, Judge.

Food for thought: Once the news of the surge in gun sales gets out in the MSM, how long do you think it will be before Eric Holder starts announcing that gun control is a vital necessity because white folks are buying guns to assassinate the President?

Here’s your hot stock tip for the day. Buy Colt. Buy Smith & Wesson. Buy Ruger. Hell, buy ‘em all. Gun sales are surging dramatically nationwide. Barack Obama has stimulated gun sales. A plurality of people buying guns in the last thirty days say that they are making the purchase now because Obama and Company want to confiscate guns during his next administration.

This is not the first time Obama has unintentionally stimulated the gun business. The “Cheaper Than Dirt Gun Store” in Texas reports that gun sales set a record for February, and only the election of Barack Obama in 2008 came close to producing such record-setting sales. Prior to and during that election, Obama made his disdain for private ownership of guns abundantly clear. He swept into office with majorities in both houses of Congress, equally determined to get guns out of the hands of American citizens.

The US Supreme Court in Washington DC declared that gun ownership was a fundamental constitutional right, then took on a Chicago case which expanded on the earlier decision by declaring that gun ownership is an individual right rather than a collective right occasioned by the necessity of a well-regulated militia. The latter decision also established that the fundamental right was protected from state as well as from federal infringement. Those two decisions make gun-grabbing a lot more difficult since the states and the federal government can no longer infringe on gun ownership for anything less than a compelling state interest rather than the previous and easier test of reasonableness.

Since then, the people have seen just how dedicated the Obama administration is to undoing those two decisions. Operation Fast and Furious appears to be a Keystone Kops attempt by the administration to prove how easy it is for criminals to purchase guns, requiring federal and state intervention in gun ownership. It went horribly wrong, and innocent people died as a result. Worst of all, criminals have always found it easy to purchase guns illegally and didn’t need the help of the federal government to prove it.

Two other factors, aside from the fact that Obama has an “odds-against” chance of being reelected, have spurred the current massive increase in gun purchases. First, Obama has daily proven that the law and the Constitution mean little to him and that he thinks the separation of powers is an impediment to efficient progressive bureaucratic government. So he has increasingly relied on executive orders to circumvent Congress and the courts. There’s plenty of reason to believe that he would use one or more of his czars to start using regulations instead of law to prevent citizens from legally purchasing guns.

The other is that he and his gun-grabbing Secretary of State are actively supporting United Nations “arms control” initiatives. Once again, they intend to try to get in through the back door what they couldn’t get in through the front door. Go along with UN gun-grabbing (particularly small arms and handguns), pass a UN resolution, then try to slide a treaty obligation past the Senate in order to bypass the Constitution entirely. It’s highly unlikely that they could succeed in getting the Senate to ratify such a treaty, but they will try mightily. And in that unlikely event, the Supreme Court would be very likely to strike the treaty down for interference with what it has recently declared to be a fundamental constitutional right.

No doubt some of the surge in gun sales is attributable to conspiracy theories and survivalist mentality. But there are plenty of perfectly sane, thinking and fearful Americans who believe that this is no time to risk their family’s safety betting on Obama losing the election and/or abiding by the law or the Constitution if he wins. Hell, the only reason I’m not rushing out to buy a gun is that I already own one and know how to use it (the picture is a .357 Colt Magnum Trooper Mk V revolver, almost identical to my own).

We need to give Obama a round of applause. This is the first stimulus his administration has produced which benefits private enterprise, doesn’t cost the taxpayers a dime, has a proven track record of success, and reinforces instead of diminishing the second item on the Bill of Rights. Take a bow, Mr. President.

On a related note, after this article was originally written, a federal judge in Maryland has struck down the state's handgun permit law. The law allowed issuance or re-issuance of concealed weapons permits only if the applicant could show "good and substantial reason" for needing the permit. The judge proved he understood the Supreme Court decisions which now hold that only a compelling state interest can override the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. The Maryland law did not satisfy that requirement. Put simply, the judge's ruling enhanced the "fundamental rights" issue in the Supreme Court decisions. "One does not need a 'good and substantial reason' to exercise one's First Amendment right to speak freely, nor does one need a 'good and substantial reason' to exercise his Second Amendment right to bear arms." Bravo, Judge.

Food for thought: Once the news of the surge in gun sales gets out in the MSM, how long do you think it will be before Eric Holder starts announcing that gun control is a vital necessity because white folks are buying guns to assassinate the President?

Time To Buy Gun Manufacturing Stocks

View Detail

Barack Obama And The Free Speech Folks

Barack Obama And The Free Speech Folks

Pictured are three "Friends of Obama" enforcers of free speech on loan from the United Nations. Following the UN Durbin conference on destroying racist Zionism and keeping women barefoot and pregnant, President Barack Hussein Obama invited the Organization of Islamic Cooperation ("OIC") to the White House to discuss implementation of the UN's resolution condemning religious intolerance.

It was vitally important that he do so. With growing Islamophobia in America, including the cold-blooded murder of thousands of Muslims for their religious beliefs in Rhode Island and the mass deportation of Muslims from Iowa, it has become a priority item with the Obama administration. Obama is barely holding the fort against the forces of evil in America. He has pleaded with Americans to reject voter ID since it discriminates against blacks, the poor, the lame, the meek, the mentally-defective, the young, and, oh yes, Muslims.

So what could be wrong with the administration's invite to the OIC? To start with, the organization hardly represents the pinnacle of free speech and religious tolerance. It is certainly not the only world religious organization. Its fifty-seven members don't represent even a majority of the United Nations membership. He invited the group to his palace because there are so many hurt feelings in the Muslim world over intolerance toward Islam. No other religion has ever even been spoken ill of, while Islam suffers daily from the brickbats of bigots and those who question the religion of peace.

The second reason for inviting the OIC is that Islamic rights at the UN are slipping away. For years they have been able to get resolutions passed against defamation of Islam, then defamation of religions, and then vilification of religions. As you can see, a conspiracy of Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists has slowly but surely been chipping away at Islam's status as sole sufferer.

The OIC couldn't even get "defamation of religions" passed as it was blocked by those religious oppressors at the Sixteenth Session of the UN Human Rights Commission back in March. They fared no better at the current Durban Conference. That might seem like a victory for the other side, but it ain't over 'til it's over. The OIC has informed Obama that they intend to reintroduce a specific resolution against defamation of religions as soon as feasible.

For now, they've settled for a less specific freedom of speech resolution, though as recently as August the Islamic News Agency (an arm of the OIC) said that the meeting at the White House would be about implementing the religious aspects of Resolution 16-18. That resolution purports to criminalize incitement of "imminent violence based on religions or belief." That sounds very similar to our very own "clear and present danger" test. But then the wording gets muddier in 16-20, sounding more like the plethora of European-style "hate statutes" that are also being enacted in the U.S. "We hereby condemn any advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence."

"Any advocacy." That wouldn't survive a Constitutional test in the United States. The expression is "vague and overbroad." What is advocacy? With the wording of this part of the resolution, criticism is easily elevated to the level of incitement. "I don't like the violent portions of the Koran" becomes "I don't like Muslims," becomes "Let's go out and kill Muslims." Even advocacy of violence is protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. It is a long-established precedent that even advocating the overthrow of the government by force and violence is protected speech unless the threat is real and has a reasonable chance of being carried out immediately. This is why we can't censor communist drivel.

16-20 was just too much even for the American negotiators. The government, led by Obama and Hillary Clinton signed onto the resolution, but added a reservation to any attempt to enforce the provision relating to "advocacy." In a written statement that sounds a lot like "but we're only fooling," the US government clarified its position for the White House gathering: "The US will work with the UN and OIC in urging states (nations) to take effective measures as set forth in Resolution 16, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents." In other words, every nation should quash any advocacy or harsh language as it relates to religion (read: Islam).

What the OIC and the UN are doing with the assistance of The One is to bring in through the back door what it couldn't bring through the front. In fact, Hillary Clinton's State Department says the administration's cooperation is based on the need to denounce and criminalize offensive speech. That's even broader than "defamation of religions." Her department also says it is dedicated to upholding the God-given right to free expression. I don't know what logic classes they have at Yale, but I don't see any way those two concepts can be reconciled.

Of all the religious and/or political organizations he could have chosen to invite to the White House, Obama invited the representatives of nations which call any criticism of Islam blasphemy, punishable by sanctions up to death by beheading. Nations which almost casually murder Christians and Jews while burning down churches and synagogues. Nations which consider apostasy a capital offense. Nations whose populations have massive rallies declaring "free speech is the enemy of Islam." Nations whose people declare "all infidels who defame Islam must die."

Somehow I don't think that group is going to come up with any good contributions to freedom of speech, religion, or expression. But since that's an American First Amendment issue, and since Obama has never read the Constitution, it's understandable why he would invite the OIC. As for Resolution 16, all that has been done is scramble and soften the words of prior resolutions without making any substantive changes. Same crap, different package.

Pictured are three "Friends of Obama" enforcers of free speech on loan from the United Nations. Following the UN Durbin conference on destroying racist Zionism and keeping women barefoot and pregnant, President Barack Hussein Obama invited the Organization of Islamic Cooperation ("OIC") to the White House to discuss implementation of the UN's resolution condemning religious intolerance.

It was vitally important that he do so. With growing Islamophobia in America, including the cold-blooded murder of thousands of Muslims for their religious beliefs in Rhode Island and the mass deportation of Muslims from Iowa, it has become a priority item with the Obama administration. Obama is barely holding the fort against the forces of evil in America. He has pleaded with Americans to reject voter ID since it discriminates against blacks, the poor, the lame, the meek, the mentally-defective, the young, and, oh yes, Muslims.

So what could be wrong with the administration's invite to the OIC? To start with, the organization hardly represents the pinnacle of free speech and religious tolerance. It is certainly not the only world religious organization. Its fifty-seven members don't represent even a majority of the United Nations membership. He invited the group to his palace because there are so many hurt feelings in the Muslim world over intolerance toward Islam. No other religion has ever even been spoken ill of, while Islam suffers daily from the brickbats of bigots and those who question the religion of peace.

The second reason for inviting the OIC is that Islamic rights at the UN are slipping away. For years they have been able to get resolutions passed against defamation of Islam, then defamation of religions, and then vilification of religions. As you can see, a conspiracy of Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists has slowly but surely been chipping away at Islam's status as sole sufferer.

The OIC couldn't even get "defamation of religions" passed as it was blocked by those religious oppressors at the Sixteenth Session of the UN Human Rights Commission back in March. They fared no better at the current Durban Conference. That might seem like a victory for the other side, but it ain't over 'til it's over. The OIC has informed Obama that they intend to reintroduce a specific resolution against defamation of religions as soon as feasible.

For now, they've settled for a less specific freedom of speech resolution, though as recently as August the Islamic News Agency (an arm of the OIC) said that the meeting at the White House would be about implementing the religious aspects of Resolution 16-18. That resolution purports to criminalize incitement of "imminent violence based on religions or belief." That sounds very similar to our very own "clear and present danger" test. But then the wording gets muddier in 16-20, sounding more like the plethora of European-style "hate statutes" that are also being enacted in the U.S. "We hereby condemn any advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence."

"Any advocacy." That wouldn't survive a Constitutional test in the United States. The expression is "vague and overbroad." What is advocacy? With the wording of this part of the resolution, criticism is easily elevated to the level of incitement. "I don't like the violent portions of the Koran" becomes "I don't like Muslims," becomes "Let's go out and kill Muslims." Even advocacy of violence is protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. It is a long-established precedent that even advocating the overthrow of the government by force and violence is protected speech unless the threat is real and has a reasonable chance of being carried out immediately. This is why we can't censor communist drivel.

16-20 was just too much even for the American negotiators. The government, led by Obama and Hillary Clinton signed onto the resolution, but added a reservation to any attempt to enforce the provision relating to "advocacy." In a written statement that sounds a lot like "but we're only fooling," the US government clarified its position for the White House gathering: "The US will work with the UN and OIC in urging states (nations) to take effective measures as set forth in Resolution 16, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents." In other words, every nation should quash any advocacy or harsh language as it relates to religion (read: Islam).

What the OIC and the UN are doing with the assistance of The One is to bring in through the back door what it couldn't bring through the front. In fact, Hillary Clinton's State Department says the administration's cooperation is based on the need to denounce and criminalize offensive speech. That's even broader than "defamation of religions." Her department also says it is dedicated to upholding the God-given right to free expression. I don't know what logic classes they have at Yale, but I don't see any way those two concepts can be reconciled.

Of all the religious and/or political organizations he could have chosen to invite to the White House, Obama invited the representatives of nations which call any criticism of Islam blasphemy, punishable by sanctions up to death by beheading. Nations which almost casually murder Christians and Jews while burning down churches and synagogues. Nations which consider apostasy a capital offense. Nations whose populations have massive rallies declaring "free speech is the enemy of Islam." Nations whose people declare "all infidels who defame Islam must die."

Somehow I don't think that group is going to come up with any good contributions to freedom of speech, religion, or expression. But since that's an American First Amendment issue, and since Obama has never read the Constitution, it's understandable why he would invite the OIC. As for Resolution 16, all that has been done is scramble and soften the words of prior resolutions without making any substantive changes. Same crap, different package.

Barack Obama And The Free Speech Folks

View Detail

More Sucker Bait From China

More Sucker Bait From China

China now says it's considering negotiating a legally-binding climate pact at the UN talks in Durban, South Africa this coming weekend. I guess they have to wait for the weekend because the rest of the week will be taken up with condemning Israel for its racist human rights abuses.

If China is at all serious about this, it is clear that it's at least partially a ploy to get America to commit to a treaty which will destroy what's left of its economy with global-warming/climate change legislation.

China is now the world's top producer of carbon emissions. It's a large nation with a huge population, but the main reason it is producing so many greenhouse gases is that its industry is booming. In order to take the heat off its reputation for creating massive public works project that destroy the environment and use something resembling slave labor, China has decided to join the junk science parade and help the world save the ice caps and the polar bears.

China likely hopes that by joining the global warming hysteria (publicly, at least), it can shame the Obama administration into producing even more regulations thereby further damaging the American economy. They also hope that the ecoweenies and lefties in the Democratic Party will push the United States into an international global warming treaty on the theory that "China has done it, so shouldn't the United States do it first?"

So here's the Chinese plan: They will consider negotiating a global warming pact, which will include cap and trade provisions, to be finalized some time in 2020. And even that's not a sure thing. Says Su Wei, China's climate negotiator: "We do not rule out the possibility of a legally binding agreement. It is possible for us, but it depends on the negotiations." "Su Wei" in English is "Mr. Obvious." In essence, China wants another nine or ten years to go hell-bent for leather with its industrial expansion and monumental construction projects in order to pull far ahead of the United States on all manufacturing fronts.

And the American suckers are already taking the bait. Says Alden Meyer of the disreputable but powerful Union of Concerned Scientists: "China is signaling that they are trying to be flexible and constructively negotiate over the next week." The Obama/Clinton State Department has been trying to push a Kyoto-style treaty since its first day in office, and some low-level bureaucrats have expressed their joy at the Chinese offer. Officially, however, the State Department is silent. Their "no comment" statement was that they refused to discuss the matter while the negotiations are still under way. Do they mean they'll discuss it after the weekend, or in 2020? Enquiring minds want to know.

Jake Schmidt, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council said: "If Chinese officials agree to negotiate a binding treaty, it will put pressure on the Obama administration which has argued that the details of such a pact still need to be fleshed out." In other words, as an ecoweenie he thinks it's a good thing when Chinese rhetoric about possible negotiations for a treaty that might happen years in the future can force the American government into real action now restricting its already seriously-damaged industrial and economic base.

It is also quite likely that any treaty that includes China (and the United States?) will be interpreted, enforced and implemented by the United Nations. That's like putting a child-molester in charge of a kiddie daycare center. The claimed point of the proposed treaty is that wealthy nations will reduce their carbon emissions and pay poorer nations to do the same thing. Sounds good. Most unworkable schemes with no real solid foundation in fact sound good.

The United States has allowed its out-of-control bureaucratic agencies to slow development to a snail's pace already. With Obama's executive order allowing the EPA to declare carbon dioxide a "poison," coal and oil energy sources are grinding to a halt. Now look at the base year proposed by China. As the United States drifts off into non-productivity without any need for foreign treaties, China will have until 2020 to build its pollution industries. Then, nine or ten years from now, a treaty will be signed that says each industrial nations must reduce its carbon emissions by, say, 25% in five years.

By that time, China will be producing more carbon emissions than the next big three combined. The United States, on the other hand, will already have crippled its industries with regulations and cap-and-trade schemes. China will be heroic and cut its emissions by 25% immediately, leaving them as still the largest polluter on earth. And America will try to figure out how to cut 25% of nothing.

China now says it's considering negotiating a legally-binding climate pact at the UN talks in Durban, South Africa this coming weekend. I guess they have to wait for the weekend because the rest of the week will be taken up with condemning Israel for its racist human rights abuses.

If China is at all serious about this, it is clear that it's at least partially a ploy to get America to commit to a treaty which will destroy what's left of its economy with global-warming/climate change legislation.

China is now the world's top producer of carbon emissions. It's a large nation with a huge population, but the main reason it is producing so many greenhouse gases is that its industry is booming. In order to take the heat off its reputation for creating massive public works project that destroy the environment and use something resembling slave labor, China has decided to join the junk science parade and help the world save the ice caps and the polar bears.

China likely hopes that by joining the global warming hysteria (publicly, at least), it can shame the Obama administration into producing even more regulations thereby further damaging the American economy. They also hope that the ecoweenies and lefties in the Democratic Party will push the United States into an international global warming treaty on the theory that "China has done it, so shouldn't the United States do it first?"

So here's the Chinese plan: They will consider negotiating a global warming pact, which will include cap and trade provisions, to be finalized some time in 2020. And even that's not a sure thing. Says Su Wei, China's climate negotiator: "We do not rule out the possibility of a legally binding agreement. It is possible for us, but it depends on the negotiations." "Su Wei" in English is "Mr. Obvious." In essence, China wants another nine or ten years to go hell-bent for leather with its industrial expansion and monumental construction projects in order to pull far ahead of the United States on all manufacturing fronts.

And the American suckers are already taking the bait. Says Alden Meyer of the disreputable but powerful Union of Concerned Scientists: "China is signaling that they are trying to be flexible and constructively negotiate over the next week." The Obama/Clinton State Department has been trying to push a Kyoto-style treaty since its first day in office, and some low-level bureaucrats have expressed their joy at the Chinese offer. Officially, however, the State Department is silent. Their "no comment" statement was that they refused to discuss the matter while the negotiations are still under way. Do they mean they'll discuss it after the weekend, or in 2020? Enquiring minds want to know.

Jake Schmidt, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council said: "If Chinese officials agree to negotiate a binding treaty, it will put pressure on the Obama administration which has argued that the details of such a pact still need to be fleshed out." In other words, as an ecoweenie he thinks it's a good thing when Chinese rhetoric about possible negotiations for a treaty that might happen years in the future can force the American government into real action now restricting its already seriously-damaged industrial and economic base.

It is also quite likely that any treaty that includes China (and the United States?) will be interpreted, enforced and implemented by the United Nations. That's like putting a child-molester in charge of a kiddie daycare center. The claimed point of the proposed treaty is that wealthy nations will reduce their carbon emissions and pay poorer nations to do the same thing. Sounds good. Most unworkable schemes with no real solid foundation in fact sound good.

The United States has allowed its out-of-control bureaucratic agencies to slow development to a snail's pace already. With Obama's executive order allowing the EPA to declare carbon dioxide a "poison," coal and oil energy sources are grinding to a halt. Now look at the base year proposed by China. As the United States drifts off into non-productivity without any need for foreign treaties, China will have until 2020 to build its pollution industries. Then, nine or ten years from now, a treaty will be signed that says each industrial nations must reduce its carbon emissions by, say, 25% in five years.

By that time, China will be producing more carbon emissions than the next big three combined. The United States, on the other hand, will already have crippled its industries with regulations and cap-and-trade schemes. China will be heroic and cut its emissions by 25% immediately, leaving them as still the largest polluter on earth. And America will try to figure out how to cut 25% of nothing.

More Sucker Bait From China

View Detail

UN To The Climate Change Rescue!

UN To The Climate Change Rescue!

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon wants to fight the effects of climate change. He's not sure what climate change is, or if humans can do anything about it. But he knows it's bad, and he wants to spend whatever is necessary to prevent it. $100 billion per year would be a good start, he says. I wonder whom he intends to extort most of that money from. Or do I?

Ban has already put the proposal into writing, but intends to make his major presentation at the climate change conference in Durban, South Africa on November 28. Considering what usually happens at those Durban conferences, he may think that most of the money can be used to eradicate the Jews who are causing the climate change. The initial fund was first set up back in December and is called (what else?) The Green Climate Fund. Ban did a test run at a climate conference in Dhaka, Bangladesh, to a warm reception. My suspicion is that Bangladesh won't be providing much of the annual fee of $100 billion.

Ban announced: "Governments must find ways--now--to mobilize up to the $100 billion per annum. An empty shell is not sufficient." When the coin in the coffer rings, the world from global climate change springs. Bangladesh has already put up its $2.73, now it's the turn of the rest of the world. And if history is any indication, the "rest of the world" means America paying 75% and everybody else filling in the remaining 24.9999%.

Lest we miss the message, the Climate Change Vulnerable Forum, representing 30 nations from Africa, the Americas, Asia and the Pacific at the Dhaka meeting made it clear they are seeking "action by industrialized nations to cut carbon emissions and provide technical and financial support." The Forum was originally organized by President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives in November of 2009. When I finish here, I'm going to Google "Maldives" just so I'll know where the hell that is.

The Forum, with Ban's enthusiastic support, will produce its report to the 190 nations attending the upcoming Durban conference. Says Ban: "I will count on the members of this Forum to arrive with a strong and unified voice." That's another way of saying that the countries which will do next-to-nothing toward funding the initiative should be prepared to browbeat and guilt-trip the wealthier nations into handing them boxcar loads of money and assistance.

Ban goes on to say: "In this time of global economic uncertainty, let your commitment to green growth be an inspiration to more developed countries--the major emitters. Even in these difficult times, we cannot afford delay." Well, Mr. General-Secretary, America cannot afford to be funding another UN initiative based on junk science and failed UN policies. You are suggesting (much like your comrade Obama) that we should fund this nonsense "right away." Don't look too closely, and don't worry about how the money will actually be spent. Trust us.

The money-grab aside, the Durban conference will be designed as the replacement for the Kyoto Protocol which expires next year. Since every nation which subscribed to the Kyoto Protocol has failed to reach even the minimal goals, which have been revised several time, it seems strange to be coming up with another pie-in-the-sky proposal that is even more expensive. On the other hand, this is the UN Wonderland, so why not?

Bill Clinton tried to shove Kyoto down our throats, and was soundly rejected by the Senate. It is extremely likely that the current Green Weenie-in-Chief will attempt to do the same thing. After all, how can we resist any initiative with "green" in the title? And why should we resist? Look at the success of Solyndra--and that only cost the taxpayers a half-billion or so. So as soon as the UN members meeting in Durban are done burying Israel, expect a bill from the UN for $75 or $85 billion to get Al Gore back on track.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon wants to fight the effects of climate change. He's not sure what climate change is, or if humans can do anything about it. But he knows it's bad, and he wants to spend whatever is necessary to prevent it. $100 billion per year would be a good start, he says. I wonder whom he intends to extort most of that money from. Or do I?

Ban has already put the proposal into writing, but intends to make his major presentation at the climate change conference in Durban, South Africa on November 28. Considering what usually happens at those Durban conferences, he may think that most of the money can be used to eradicate the Jews who are causing the climate change. The initial fund was first set up back in December and is called (what else?) The Green Climate Fund. Ban did a test run at a climate conference in Dhaka, Bangladesh, to a warm reception. My suspicion is that Bangladesh won't be providing much of the annual fee of $100 billion.

Ban announced: "Governments must find ways--now--to mobilize up to the $100 billion per annum. An empty shell is not sufficient." When the coin in the coffer rings, the world from global climate change springs. Bangladesh has already put up its $2.73, now it's the turn of the rest of the world. And if history is any indication, the "rest of the world" means America paying 75% and everybody else filling in the remaining 24.9999%.

Lest we miss the message, the Climate Change Vulnerable Forum, representing 30 nations from Africa, the Americas, Asia and the Pacific at the Dhaka meeting made it clear they are seeking "action by industrialized nations to cut carbon emissions and provide technical and financial support." The Forum was originally organized by President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives in November of 2009. When I finish here, I'm going to Google "Maldives" just so I'll know where the hell that is.

The Forum, with Ban's enthusiastic support, will produce its report to the 190 nations attending the upcoming Durban conference. Says Ban: "I will count on the members of this Forum to arrive with a strong and unified voice." That's another way of saying that the countries which will do next-to-nothing toward funding the initiative should be prepared to browbeat and guilt-trip the wealthier nations into handing them boxcar loads of money and assistance.

Ban goes on to say: "In this time of global economic uncertainty, let your commitment to green growth be an inspiration to more developed countries--the major emitters. Even in these difficult times, we cannot afford delay." Well, Mr. General-Secretary, America cannot afford to be funding another UN initiative based on junk science and failed UN policies. You are suggesting (much like your comrade Obama) that we should fund this nonsense "right away." Don't look too closely, and don't worry about how the money will actually be spent. Trust us.

The money-grab aside, the Durban conference will be designed as the replacement for the Kyoto Protocol which expires next year. Since every nation which subscribed to the Kyoto Protocol has failed to reach even the minimal goals, which have been revised several time, it seems strange to be coming up with another pie-in-the-sky proposal that is even more expensive. On the other hand, this is the UN Wonderland, so why not?

Bill Clinton tried to shove Kyoto down our throats, and was soundly rejected by the Senate. It is extremely likely that the current Green Weenie-in-Chief will attempt to do the same thing. After all, how can we resist any initiative with "green" in the title? And why should we resist? Look at the success of Solyndra--and that only cost the taxpayers a half-billion or so. So as soon as the UN members meeting in Durban are done burying Israel, expect a bill from the UN for $75 or $85 billion to get Al Gore back on track.

UN To The Climate Change Rescue!

View Detail

Mexico And The International Criminal Court

Mexico And The International Criminal Court

It's not news to anyone who picks up a newspaper or watches TV that Mexico is a mess. Civil law and order have broken down in major parts of the nation, The local law enforcement authorities have given up trying to enforce the law, and the army is taking on the cartels. Yet it's hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys.

A mixed bag of leftists and intellectuals in Mexico think they have found the solution. Citing the fact that "Mexico is living a state of emergency and suffering the most dramatic humanitarian crisis in its recent history," they have demanded that the International Criminal Court (ICC) stop the bloodshed. Whatever the right solution may be, this isn't it.

First of all, the ICC is a judicial body. It can find defendants guilty and order punishment, but there still has to be a law enforcement agency which will carry out the mandates of the court. And who might that be? It's already rather well established that the Mexican police and the military can't handle the internal warfare. So do what? Bring in the UN troops? Given their recent history in Africa (the only arena the ICC has so far addressed in its rulings), the UN troop cure might be worse than the disease. When the UN troops are not being simply inept and ineffectual, they have a habit of joining in the activity they're supposed to be suppressing.

Second, the pleaders have the same disease that intellectuals all over the world exhibit--moral equivalence and lack of focus. Instead of having a clearly identified bad guy (the criminal cartels, for instance) and a cause of action upon which the court might act, the Mexican eggheads want the ICC to conduct a human rights investigation into the roles of, well, everybody. They not only want to discover the truth about cartel leaders such as Joaquin Guzman, but they also want an investigation into Mexican President Felipe Calderon.

In reality, the ICC would be just another feelgood attempt to bring law and order to a nation which can't control its government or its people. I have no fondness for Felipe Calderon, and consider him to be just another political crook in a long line of political crooks who have held the Mexican presidency. I certainly resent him coming before the Congress and telling American states how they ought to be treating Mexican illegal immigrants. But he is a symptom of whatever has infected Mexico, not the cause. He has allowed his army to get out of control, and in some glaring examples, the army units and commanders have gone over to the side of the cartels.

America certainly isn't the answer (even though it's possible it could be). America hasn't had the will or the courage to end murderous banditry in Mexico and across the American border since the days of General Black Jack Pershing. The American governments of the past few decades would not take military action in (not against) Mexico without the approval of the United Nations. Somehow, I don't think we could get that approval. America is now suffering border incursions that can only be described as invasions, yet we continue to treat the matter as purely a Mexican problem. The current administration thinks that doing nothing is the best policy.

By some sort of arcane logic which I don't understand, the Obama administration has found that "political instability" in the Middle East and North Africa is more dangerous than strong men and jihadist militias. But somehow that same administration doesn't see the danger of political instability and civil unrest all along our southern border. The deadly violence has spilled across the border, and much of the recent murderous activity involves weapons sold to the cartels during the insane operation called Fast and Furious.

Instead of taking Calderon out to the woodshed and enforcing the idea that he must get his own house in order or we will, Obama praises Calderon for his views on border control and treats the Mexican president with a deference he doesn't show for his counterparts in England and the European continent. Obama could be offering financial and military assistance with the express condition that Calderon whip his army into shape and make serious headway against the cartels. Instead, we continue to send billions of dollars in aid to Mexico with no strings attached.

I certainly don't have a well thought-out plan for exactly how to effectuate change in Mexico. I'm hoping that some of you might. One thing does seem quite obvious to me however. Given the current status of the world, there are only two countries which can do anything about solving the problem. They are Mexico itself and the United States. With all due respect to the Mexican intellectuals, the ICC would be about as effective a solution to Mexican violence and national turmoil as my recipe for clam chowder would be for curing cancer.

It's not news to anyone who picks up a newspaper or watches TV that Mexico is a mess. Civil law and order have broken down in major parts of the nation, The local law enforcement authorities have given up trying to enforce the law, and the army is taking on the cartels. Yet it's hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys.

A mixed bag of leftists and intellectuals in Mexico think they have found the solution. Citing the fact that "Mexico is living a state of emergency and suffering the most dramatic humanitarian crisis in its recent history," they have demanded that the International Criminal Court (ICC) stop the bloodshed. Whatever the right solution may be, this isn't it.

First of all, the ICC is a judicial body. It can find defendants guilty and order punishment, but there still has to be a law enforcement agency which will carry out the mandates of the court. And who might that be? It's already rather well established that the Mexican police and the military can't handle the internal warfare. So do what? Bring in the UN troops? Given their recent history in Africa (the only arena the ICC has so far addressed in its rulings), the UN troop cure might be worse than the disease. When the UN troops are not being simply inept and ineffectual, they have a habit of joining in the activity they're supposed to be suppressing.

Second, the pleaders have the same disease that intellectuals all over the world exhibit--moral equivalence and lack of focus. Instead of having a clearly identified bad guy (the criminal cartels, for instance) and a cause of action upon which the court might act, the Mexican eggheads want the ICC to conduct a human rights investigation into the roles of, well, everybody. They not only want to discover the truth about cartel leaders such as Joaquin Guzman, but they also want an investigation into Mexican President Felipe Calderon.

In reality, the ICC would be just another feelgood attempt to bring law and order to a nation which can't control its government or its people. I have no fondness for Felipe Calderon, and consider him to be just another political crook in a long line of political crooks who have held the Mexican presidency. I certainly resent him coming before the Congress and telling American states how they ought to be treating Mexican illegal immigrants. But he is a symptom of whatever has infected Mexico, not the cause. He has allowed his army to get out of control, and in some glaring examples, the army units and commanders have gone over to the side of the cartels.

America certainly isn't the answer (even though it's possible it could be). America hasn't had the will or the courage to end murderous banditry in Mexico and across the American border since the days of General Black Jack Pershing. The American governments of the past few decades would not take military action in (not against) Mexico without the approval of the United Nations. Somehow, I don't think we could get that approval. America is now suffering border incursions that can only be described as invasions, yet we continue to treat the matter as purely a Mexican problem. The current administration thinks that doing nothing is the best policy.

By some sort of arcane logic which I don't understand, the Obama administration has found that "political instability" in the Middle East and North Africa is more dangerous than strong men and jihadist militias. But somehow that same administration doesn't see the danger of political instability and civil unrest all along our southern border. The deadly violence has spilled across the border, and much of the recent murderous activity involves weapons sold to the cartels during the insane operation called Fast and Furious.

Instead of taking Calderon out to the woodshed and enforcing the idea that he must get his own house in order or we will, Obama praises Calderon for his views on border control and treats the Mexican president with a deference he doesn't show for his counterparts in England and the European continent. Obama could be offering financial and military assistance with the express condition that Calderon whip his army into shape and make serious headway against the cartels. Instead, we continue to send billions of dollars in aid to Mexico with no strings attached.

I certainly don't have a well thought-out plan for exactly how to effectuate change in Mexico. I'm hoping that some of you might. One thing does seem quite obvious to me however. Given the current status of the world, there are only two countries which can do anything about solving the problem. They are Mexico itself and the United States. With all due respect to the Mexican intellectuals, the ICC would be about as effective a solution to Mexican violence and national turmoil as my recipe for clam chowder would be for curing cancer.

Mexico And The International Criminal Court

View Detail