Ready to trade in your car for a bike, or maybe a subway instead? Interested in fewer choices for your home, paying more for housing, and being crammed into a denser neighborhood? You can have all this and more if radical environmentalists and “smart growth” advocates have their way and local, state, and the federal government impose the policies set forth in the United Nations’ Agenda 21.

You might have heard of this nefarious-sounding policy in a recent Republican presidential debate, but even if you haven’t, here’s some background information: Agenda 21 is a voluntary plan adopted at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. It calls on governments to intervene and regulate nearly every potential impact that human activity could have on the environment. The end goal? Getting governments to “rethink economic development and find ways to halt the destruction of irreplaceable natural resources and pollution of the planet.”

As adopted, Agenda 21 was described as “a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.” That includes hundreds of specific goals and strategies that national and local governments are encouraged to adopt. And that translates into restrictive zoning policies that are aimed at deterring suburban growth. Ultimately, they suppress housing supply and drive up home prices, in turn imposing unnecessary costs, especially on middle- and lower-income households. These policies contributed to and aggravate the real estate bubble by putting inflationary pressures on housing prices.

But here’s the catch: Nothing about Agenda 21 is binding, and it’s not a threat in and of itself. Instead, the threat Americans need to be concerned about is the one that lies in their own backyard. In a new paper, “Focus on Agenda 21 Should Not Divert Attention from Homegrown Anti-Growth Policies,” Wendell Cox, Ronald Utt, Brett Schaefer explain:

Opponents of Agenda 21 should not be distracted from the more tangible manifestation of the smart-growth principles outlined in that document. If they focus excessively on Agenda 21, it is much more likely that homegrown smart-growth policies that date to the early 1970s and undermine the quality of life, personal choice, and property rights in American communities will be implemented by local, state, and federal authorities at the behest of environmental groups and other vested interests.

In the United States, smart-growth policies started in California and Oregon but then spread around the country to “deter suburban growth for all but the well-to-do,” as Cox, Utt, and Schaefer explain. They also write that those policies were not without detrimental impact:

As they became more prevalent and restrictive, their impact on housing prices and construction likewise expanded. An explosion of exclusionary zoning throughout the U.S. encouraged many communities to adopt zoning policies to ensure that they maintained a certain demographic ‘profile.’ Such zoning limited real estate development to higher-cost homes in order to ‘price out’ moderate-income households, which included a disproportionate share of minorities.

Where do these home-grown smart-growth policies stand today? The Obama Administration has embraced them while also increasing environmental regulations and restrictions on the use of natural resources. But the White House isn’t the only one behind the smart-growth movement. Local and state officials, along with interest groups, are promoting the policies at all levels of government.

And that’s where smart growth must also be thwarted. It’s not just a matter of standing against the implementation of Agenda 21 at the national level; it’s also about protecting our own backyards against the home-grown threat.

UN leader Ban Ki-moon on Wednesday urged Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to act with “restraint” and “wisdom” over the Palestinian bid for full state membership of the United Nations.

Israel has angrily rejected the Palestinian campaign, threatening unspecified diplomatic reprisals. “The secretary general urged the prime minister to act with responsibility, wisdom and restraint towards the Palestinian approach to the United Nations,” said UN spokesman Martin Nesirky.

Why is it always Israel who is urged to ‘show restraint’?  Are they the ones who are continuously lobbing bombs into civilian neighborhoods?  No, don’t think so.  Are the Israelis always throwing rocks at their neighbors in Gaza and the West Bank?  Hmmm…  Nope, don’t believe so.  Is it Israel who has declared to destroy their neighbors?  Ummm…  Nuh uh! Was it Israelis who broke into a home and slaughtered an innocent family?  Definitely not!   As a matter of fact, just the opposite.  Israel has shown EXTREME restraint when dealing with the Palestinians.  A great deal more restraint than any nation on the planet!  So, I would suggest to Mr Ban Ki-moon that he started facing reality, and urge major restraint to the Pallies.  “Urge” them to cease and desist their violence towards the Israelis, and accept the fact, they aren’t going away!

A few blocks from the White House, what the State Department defines as a modern form of slavery is taking place every night in the form of sex trafficking. A CNN series — called The Freedom Project – recently highlighted the trafficking network, a multi-million dollar business thriving on women and children, most of whom are immigrants.

“If President Obama had walked out his front door at two or three in the morning, he would go two blocks away, and he would see traffickers forcing girls and women out into the streets, every night, right here in the United States,” said Tina Frundt, a former sex slave who founded Courtney’s House, a non-profit organization that helps girls who have been victims of human or sex trafficking.

And while the United States leads the way on genuinely working to eliminate these kinds of networks, many other countries stand silent or complicit. Many corrupt governments that retain good standing in the United Nations do little to combat human trafficking, a violation of natural rights against humanity.  Part of the failure to curb the trafficking problem is a failure to understand the difference between human rights and natural rights, which are endowed by God.

As part of The Heritage Foundation’s Understanding America series, Kim R. Holmes, Vice President Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, explains in “How Should Americans Think About Human Rights?”:

This principle of “inherent” or inalienable rights outside of and despite government imbues our Declaration of Independence and invigorates our Constitution. Since our founding, these important documents provided the basis for our social order and American jurisprudence. They have guided our struggles to overcome slavery and discrimination by race, religion, sex, or birth. And they have guided our engagement abroad.

Yet this principle of inalienable natural rights—fundamental rights that government neither creates nor can take away—isn’t the same as the thoroughly modern idea of “human rights.”

Although both are universal, natural rights most emphatically do not come from government. Government only secures these rights, that is, creates the political conditions that allow one to exercise them. Human rights, as popularly understood, are bestowed by the state or governing body.

As Alexander Hamilton said in 1775, “The sacred rights of mankind…are written…in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”

Such is the basic explanation of the natural rights so many government entities fail to emphasize in their attempts to protect citizens from inhumane acts.

Recently, the United Nations created the Trafficking Victims Protection Act to track and prevent human and sex trafficking worldwide. However, a UN initiative rarely translates into action or accountability, as demonstrated by China’s membership on the hapless Human Rights Council (HRC). Recently, China wouldn’t even allow human rights activist and intellectual Liu Xiaobo out of prison to accept his Nobel Peace Prize, and the UN stood silent.

In fact, in March 2011, the HRC released its Universal Periodic Review on Libya, and made 66 recommendations for the Qadhafi regime to improve its record. In contrast, the council offered the United States 228 recommendations. So in their eyes, the US has further to go on human rights than Libya.

As Heritage expert Brett Schaefer explains:

[T]he Council has proven to be a weak body easily manipulated by repressive regimes to provide a patina of international legitimacy on their abuses. The Bush administration was right to shun the Council and the Obama administration has made precious little progress in improving the HRC since overturning that decision and joining its ranks.

Human trafficking and other crimes against humanity flourish because groups like the HRC refuse to acknowledge the difference between human rights and natural rights — attempting to rely on government to grant what no man has the power to give.

The UN is rife with countries touting the rights they claim to uphold but a closer look reveals that they barely meet the basic standards for protecting fundamental liberties. The world body masquerades as a positive entity defending the rights to life and liberty but endless examples prove they are spin doctors for corruption.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responded yesterday to the 2011 Trafficking Report, which ranked 184 countries, including the United States:

…We have to really mix the commitments with actions in order to get results. For example, the number of prosecutions worldwide has remained relatively static. And so the measure of success can no longer be whether a country has passed laws, because so many have in the last decade; now we have to make sure that laws are implemented and that countries are using the tools that have been created for that.

Actions speak louder than words, as Clinton acknowledges, and it’s time for the UN to recognize its true obligation to protecting the natural rights of every human being.

The Tennessee Office for Refugees is holding several events starting Saturday to mark World Refugee Day.

Middle Tennessee refugees will hold a panel discussion on Monday, after a free screening of ‘Welcome to Shelbyville,’ which aired on PBS. They will discuss their resettlement experiences in Middle Tennessee, which, historically, has been a destination for many refugees.

Uh…say whut? What the heck is World Refugee Day? Nope. Never heard of it. So, what do I do? I look it up. No, I didn’t Google, I Binged. What did I find? Well, naturally, the Useless Numnuts are involved.

The UN General Assembly, on 4 December 2000, adopted resolution 55/76 where it noted that 2001 marked the 50th anniversary of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, and that the Organization of African Unity (OAU) had agreed to have International Refugee Day coincide with Africa Refugee Day on 20 June.

Now, I realize there are quite a few people who have come to Tennessee from other countries to escape the violence.  However, wouldn’t it be in their best interest to become part of the community, instead of labeling themselves as ‘refugees’?  If you’re a refugee, it sounds like you have are just here for temporarily.  If that’s the case, then you don’t need to ‘celebrate’.  If not, acclimate to your new home.  What they do in Africa, or any other country, is their business.   We do things a bit different here.  Well, at least we use to, before the commies took over.

Doesn’t the word ‘celebration’ usually mean a happy occasion?  What’s so happy about being forced from your home?

Dear U.N.,

Go away.

As CFR would say…
“Hugs and stuff”,
Ol’ Broad

President Barack Obama is set to announce a government-directed plan for economic development in the Middle East that emphasizes the role of Western multinational organizations, but that also sidelines the role of companies, ignores the new democracy in Iraq and downplays regional cultural, tribal and religious practices.

I suppose it doesn’t matter than Egypt wants to end the peace with Israel either? Or perhaps, that’s his intent? To aid Egypt in starting a war? It doesn’t matter that his muzzie buddies are destroying churches and murdering Christians.

The plan, which Obama will include in his Thursday speech on Middle East policy at the Department of State, calls for at least $2 billion in debt-relief and loan guarantees to be delivered to Egypt, Tunisia and other countries via non-profits, funding agencies and universities.

Considering how much of OUR money Obama has wasted (and previous administrations, as well), I suppose, in the grand scheme of things, 2 BILLION doesn’t seem like a whole lot to him. But he continuously forgets….it’s OUR money….not his.

However, previous aid has had modest effects. Since 1950, the United States provided almost $4 billion to the U.N. relief agency that has fed and housed the Arabs who fled from Israel in 1948, according to an August 2010 report by the Congressional Research Service. Those Arabs have yet to be integrated into Syria, Lebanon, Egypt or Jordan.

Until a country can prove it’s worth, I see NO reason to give any of them a single dime, through the U.N., or any other venue. The Useless Numnuts have squandered more money than even Obama, and that’s hard to do. Not to mention, giving countries large sums of money does a great deal more harm than it has ever done any good.

Following the signing of the Oslo agreement between Israel and Palestinian groups in 1993, the U.S. has supplied over $3.5 billion in aid to Palestinian groups, the CRS report said. But this month, the Arab government on the West Bank of the Jordan river announced a power-sharing deal with the Muslim Brotherhood’s Hamas affiliate, which has repeatedly cited religious reasons for its efforts to destroy Israel, and which has repeatedly ignited battles with Israeli defense forces. Hamas currently controls the Gaza Strip.

Obama may not be THE anti-Christ, but he sure is assisting in the attempted destruction of Israel. Either he doesn’t know or doesn’t care. If he doesn’t know his actions are promoting war on the “Big and Little Satans” (US and Israel), then he is even more incompetent than I thought. If he doesn’t care, he needs, desperately, to be schooled in reality.   Either way, he needs to be stopped!

From 1971 to 2001, the U.S. also donated $25 billion to Egypt, $2.4 billion to Jordan, $470 million to Lebanon and $703 million to Palestinian groups, according to a June 2010 CRS report.

What has the world received in return for our investment? Not a damn thing. What do they create? Poverty!  Especially for minority citizens.  What do they contribute to civilization? Nada! Well, unless you count slaughter as a contribution. Personally, I do not.

The three administration officials who gave the briefing repeatedly stressed the impact of economics in Egypt and Tunisia, but did not mention the widespread calls for rule by Islamic parties, such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. “The political movements for non-violent change are rooted, in part, in a lack of [economic] opportunity in the region,” said one official

I call bullsh*t! Their cult is what keeps them from developing, not the lack of money. Forking over billions of dollars will not change that one bit.

The officials also tiptoed past the local tribal cultures, which endorse bribery by setting loyalty to extended family networks above a requirement to obey the larger community’s laws. Financial aid, said one official, will be tied to “very strong safeguards against corruption.”

Once again, I call BULLSH*T! Aid will just create MORE corruption and oppression. I’m no Middle East expert, but even I can see how foolish it is to believe that any amount of money is going to change a culture so steeped in corruption and hatred. It is getting more and more difficult to figure out if this administration is totally naive, or completely evil.  His concern for other countries economic development, while pursuing and implementing policies that is destroy ours is…..well, I suppose one could consider it a betrayal? Treasonous might work too.

As the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks approaches, the United Nations is no closer to reaching a universal definition of terrorism than it was in 2001 – or indeed than it was five years before then, when negotiations first began on drafting a comprehensive convention on international terrorism.

Seriously? They can’t figure it out? I should be surprised, but I’m not. When it comes to United Nations ‘intellectuals’, I’ve found a large number of them to be none too bright.

The main hurdle, then as now, is the insistence by the bloc of Islamic states that any definition of terrorism should leave a loophole for “resistance” against foreign occupation.

That would be one of those “one man’s terrorist, is another man’s freedom fighter” things, wouldn’t it?

In order to figure out what the OIC means, we should look at a couple of definitions. First, we have ‘resistance’.

re·sist·ance [ri-zis-tuh ns]

1. the act or power of resisting, opposing, or withstanding.
2. the opposition offered by one thing, force, etc., to another.
3. Electricity .

a. Also called ohmic resistance. a property of a conductor by virtue of which the passage of current is opposed, causing electric energy to be transformed into heat: equal to the voltage across the conductor divided by the current flowing in the conductor: usually measured in ohms. Abbreviation: R
b. a conductor or coil offering such opposition; resistor.

4. Psychiatry . opposition to an attempt to bring repressed thoughts or feelings into consciousness.
5. (often initial capital letter) an underground organization composed of groups of private individuals working as an opposition force in a conquered country to overthrow the occupying power, usually by acts of sabotage, guerrilla warfare, etc.: the resistance during the German occupation in world War II.
6. Stock Exchange . resistance level.

No need to look at 3, 4, or 6, because honestly, I don’t think they are relevant at all.  So, what would the OIC bunch want to resist?  Fellow Muslims murdering on a regular basis?  Would it be the oppressive regimes they seem to prefer?  Doesn’t seem to bother them too much, even though, it would seem to be what normal people would want to resist.  Would it be some nice folks that came in and freed them from such previously mentioned oppressive regimes, saving the lives of many of thousands of human beings?

Now, let’s take a look at ‘occupation’.

oc·cu·pa·tion [ok-yuh-pey-shuhn]

1. a person’s usual or principal work or business, especially as a means of earning a living; vocation: Her occupation was dentistry.
2. any activity in which a person is engaged.
3. possession, settlement, or use of land or property.
4. the act of occupying.
5. the state of being occupied.
6. the seizure and control of an area by military forces, especially foreign territory.
7. the term of control of a territory by foreign military forces: Danish resistance during the German occupation.
8. tenure or the holding of an office or official function: during his occupation of the vice presidency.

I think we can rule out 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8 out of OIC’s reasoning. In my opinion, we could also leave out #3 as well, since the land was given to a people from the HIGHEST authority of all, and it’s not wise to dispute His word. But in that case, we should ignore 6 and 7 as well. The Highest authority gives you a land. You move home. The only reason there is so much military involved is because there are those who go out of their way to make your life a living hell, and tend to MURDER residents on a regular basis.

Honestly, if they’d just look up one more word, I think they could figure it all out.

ter·ror·ism [ter-uh-riz-uh m]

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

I wonder why the OIC is having such difficulty defining a terrorist?  There are some commonalities you know. Here’s a hint:  They are mostly Muslim males, between the ages of 18 and 40.  But hey…let’s not let the facts get in the way, right?

Portions of the speech appeared to me nothing more than wishful thinking.  For example: “…stopping the Taliban’s momentum in Afghanistan…..” Apparently, the Afghan police wouldn’t exactly agree with Mr Obama’s statement.

“But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That’s what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks.” Mr President, what exactly are our ‘interests and values’ in Libya? When your own Secretary of Defense tells the American public just the opposite, I wonder if, perhaps, there is something we don’t know about Libya?  I don’t remember you mentioning that Europe gets the majority of its oil from Libya, and we get almost none (0.5%).  So, if I’m understanding this correctly, even though there were thousands of protestors in the streets shouting “No War For Oil” when we went into Iraq, and we get NO oil from Iraq, we are now involved in a war….excuse me, a “kinetic military action” for oil….it’s just for someone else’s oil.  Do I have that right?  Now honestly, I don’t mind backing up our allies, if we still have any left, which I’m starting to question, since our long time close allies have been insulted repeatedly by this administration, just how is this action in the best interest of the U.S.’s ‘interests and values’?

And just why would  ANY of the ‘coalition’ be aiding sworn enemies?

“I made it clear that Qaddafi had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step down from power.” Honestly, nothing was made clear. When you make such a statement, you should be ready to back it up. If you don’t want ‘regime change’, and make that clear to the world, then the reaction will be pretty much to embolden the person you want to step down, but let know you don’t really mean it.  As a side note, since the American people have lost confidence in your “legitimacy to lead”, does that mean you will be stepping down?

One of the sticking points many, on both sides, are having a problem with: “Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean.” The problem? Well, in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, it clearly states “The Congress shall have power…..To declare war,….“  In Article 2, Section 2: “The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;…” The way I understand it, he’s the Commander in Chief WHEN the military is called into action by Congress.  I may have this all wrong, not being a Constitutional scholar, but apparently, when the president bypassed Congress, and went to the U.N., he is NOT the CiC of the military involved in the “kinetic military action”.

If this is truly a ‘humanitarian crisis’, why is the U.S., along with Great Britain, France, and whoever else is involved lobbing bombs on the country?  In my opinion, if you are going to provide humanitarian aid, you drop food and medical supplies to those in need.

One statement really gave me a chin dropping moment. “To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and -– more profoundly -– our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are.” My thoughts automatically turned back to Iran in 2009, with the slaughter of ‘fellow human beings’ demanding freedom. Many of those young protestors, and political rights activists against Ahmadinijad’s regime have since been executed, yet this administration remains silent.

“As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than keeping this country safe.” I’m afraid I don’t get the connection with keeping this country safe, and bombing Libya. If this statement is true, why are radical Islamists sneaking across our southern border? Why are we being overrun by criminal elements who, daily, break our laws, by ignoring our sovereignty? We are being invaded, yet your concern is with a country on the other side of the world that has little to do with our safety.

There are many more questions to be answered Mr President.  While some may believe you have addressed the nation’s concerns in this matter, there are others, like myself, who are still waiting for a clear response, and not a pretty, droning, uninspiring speech.

US President Barack Obama Friday, March 18, laid down an ultimatum for Muammar Qaddafi to comply with or else face “military consequences,” the key condition being the withdrawal of Libyan troops from Misrata and Zawiya west of Tripoli and Ajdabiya to the east – the last being tantamount to lifting the siege on the rebel stronghold of Benghazi. Obama spoke 24 hours after the UN Security Council called for an immediate ceasefire in Libya, approved a no-fly zone and authorized “all necessary measures to protect civilians.”

While Obama’s demands appeared to cancel out the gains made by Qaddafi’s forces in recent weeks, debkafile’s military sources note that he set no deadline for these withdrawals. Nor did he specify that the towns in question must revert to rebel control. Most of all, he did not demand Qaddafi’s departure outright, although he stressed that the Libyan ruler had lost the confidence of his people.

If anyone should know about losing the ‘confidence of his people, it SHOULD be Obama! Sadly, the man is so oblivious to reality….. This pretty much amounts to a 3 year old stomping his foot, and has about the same effect on the grown ups.

The U.S. informed Arab governments Tuesday that it will support a U.N. Security Council statement reaffirming that the 15-nation body “does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity,” a move aimed at avoiding the prospect of having to veto a stronger Palestinian resolution calling the settlements illegal.

WHAT?????????????????

Still, the U.S. offer signaled a renewed willingness to seek a way out of the current impasse, even if it requires breaking with Israel and joining others in the council in sending a strong message to its key ally to stop its construction of new settlements. U.S. officials were not available for comment, but two Security Council diplomats confirmed the proposal.

We’ve got one ally in the Middle East, and thanks to the Obama administration, that’s kind of iffy right now. And he wants to slap them in the face, again??????? I don’t bloody well think so!

My message to the Israelis:  Build where you want.  Secure your country in the manner YOU see fit.  God gave it to YOU!  You have made the desert blossom!

I do NOT rebuke Israel!  I REBUKE the U.S. administration for standing with terrorists against our allies!

Some 350 people working for the United Nations in Egypt will be evacuated to Cyprus because of security concerns in the country, a spokesman for the U.N. peacekeeping mission on the Mediterranean island said Thursday.

Yep. Doing what they are so well known for doing. Cutting and running. Either they are part of the bigger problem, think Congo, or they are the most useless body on the entire planet, think Rwanda.

Now, I don’t know about you, but I saw this escalating to what could be called a ‘war’ last week.  Might I ask why the U.S. government weren’t aware of the potential dangers for U.S. citizens?  Why did they wait until yesterday to put out the call to get the hell outta Dodge?  Were they not paying attention?  Or were they so busy worrying how Obama should handle his image in all this to even think about those who might be caught in the middle?

Wednesday in Geneva during the current session of the U.N. Human Rights Council, the Obama administration became a willing participant in the U.N.’s imposition of an apartheid-style ban on representatives of the state of Israel. Despite the promises made by the administration that by joining the Council the United States would not become part of the problem, U.S. Ambassador to the Council Eileen Donahoe chose to attend and fully participate in a meeting that deliberately excluded anyone representing the Jewish state.

The whole Obama administration IS a large part of the problem! He’s emboldened the U.N. to take such actions by his non-action. They treat Israel like the ‘red headed step child’, the only TRUE ally we have….at least had….in the Middle East.  There will come a time when the U.S. is going to NEED Israel’s assistance.  If you were them, what would your response be?

After a Year of Setbacks, U.N. Looks to Take Charge of World’s Agenda

After a year of humiliating setbacks, United Nations Secretary General Ban ki-Moon and about 60 of his top lieutenants — the top brass of the entire U.N. system — spent their Labor Day weekend at a remote Austrian Alpine retreat, discussing ways to put their sprawling organization in charge of the world’s agenda.

Details concerning the two-day, closed-door sessions in the comfortable village of Alpbach were closely guarded. Nonetheless, position papers for the meeting obtained by Fox News indicate that the topics included:

– how to restore “climate change” as a top global priority after the fiasco of last year’s Copenhagen summit;

– how to continue to try to make global redistribution of wealth the real basis of that climate agenda, and widen the discussion further to encompass the idea of “global public goods”;

– how to keep growing U.N. peacekeeping efforts into missions involved in the police, courts, legal systems and other aspects of strife-torn countries;

– how to capitalize on the global tide of migrants from poor nations to rich ones, to encompass a new “international migration governance framework”;

– how to make “clever” use of new technologies to deepen direct ties with what the U.N. calls “civil society,” meaning novel ways to bypass its member nation states and deal directly with constituencies that support U.N. agendas.

As one underlying theme of the sessions, the top U.N. bosses seemed to be grappling often with how to cope with the pesky issue of national sovereignty, which — according to the position papers, anyway — continued to thwart many of their most ambitious schemes, especially when it comes to many different kinds of “global governance.”

Not coincidentally, the conclave of bureaucrats also saw in “global governance” a greater role for themselves.

I’m so angry right now, I can’t even come up with the words!  Anyone who has been paying any attention at all, has known the Useless Numnuts has never been about keeping the ‘peace’.  It’s a power hungry body, that wants to take control of ALL nations, including the United States.  Our Constitution means nothing to them, and will be used as fodder for the flames.  We already have an administration who uses it for toilet paper.  The next step will be for him to hand over the reins to his masters, and make the U.S. a slave state to the whims of a bunch of socialists.

Read their ‘retreat paper’!

H/T: Tena

Agenda 21….read it for yourself.  Seriously.  READ THE WHOLE DAMN THING!

The United States, which already has tied Israel’s agreeing to Palestinian Authority demands with solving the Iranian nuclear threat, now cites Israel’s nuclear arsenal as the key.

Honestly, I wish reporters wouldn’t use the term “US” when talking about such stupidity. They should actually say “US’s Obama administration”, because in reality, these actions do NOT reflect the sentiment of the MAJORITY of US citizens.

Ellen Tauscher, U.S. Undersecretary of State for arms control, was quoted by the London Guardian as saying last week, “The best chance we have to achieve a WMD-free zone in the Middle East is to reach an agreement on a lasting and just peace in the Middle East.” A proposal for a ban on mass destruction weapons in the Middle East is being circulated by the Obama administration and Russia.

The best chance for a peace in the Middle East is NOT tying Israel’s hands. The best chance is sending the evil Islamonazis to hell, where they belong!

Cairo also is using its “Israel card” to refuse to participate in the chemical weapons convention, arguing that Israel first must sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT).

Yeah, cuz Egypt has been such a promoter of peace, eh? /snark Perhaps, if all these assjacks, who are blaming one tiny little nation, who only wants to protect it’s people, and survive as a nation, would looks towards themselves, and realize, it’s not Israel that is the problem, but themselves, maybe….just MAYBE, there could be some sort of peace.

Israel’s “ambiguity” policy does not admit or confirm that it has nuclear weapons. It has declined to sign the NPT, which would require opening up state secrets on nuclear capability.

Nor should they! No sane nation reveals it’s security secrets. (Obviously, the US is no longer run by sane, rational people.)

The United Nations this week opened its NPT conference and heard Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad charge, “The Zionist regime continues to threaten the countries of the Middle East with its arsenal. It continues to threaten the world’s countries with acts of terror and invasion, and even gets the necessary assistance for its nuclear program.”

This, from the pig who wants to wipe Israel off the map. It’s embarrassing the US State Department even allowed this POS into the country, so he could spew his bilge.  I’m not aware of any threats Israel has made towards anyone, other than those who try to destroy them, and that’s in self defense.

An American-inspired Middle East peace, with Israel at the core, remains in the background of the official statements. Besides the Russian-American proposal, Egypt’s position paper calls for countries signing the non-proliferation treaty “to disclose all information available to them on the nature and scope of Israeli nuclear capabilities, including information pertaining to previous nuclear transfers to Israel.”

Seriously, I can’t figure out why any rational human being would see Israel as a ‘threat’. Why is it that Israel is suppose to comply with the anti-Semetic UN, when no one else does? Look at the map, and tell me who is a bigger threat to whom.

Pincus noted, “How the Obama administration deals with the nettlesome problem of Israel’s nuclear arsenal and the establishment of a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East will determine U.S. success or failure at the NPT conference.” [source]

Nettlesome? A tiny nation that just wants to survive is ‘nettlesome’? All I can say to that, is…..

….. unlike our current administration!  Here’s a reality check: Who do they think God will protect?  His Chosen People, or the murderous thugs who want to destroy them?

Without fanfare, the United Nations this week elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women, handing a four-year seat on the influential human rights body to a theocratic state in which stoning is enshrined in law and lashings are required for women judged “immodest.”

Just days after Iran abandoned a high-profile bid for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council, it began a covert campaign to claim a seat on the Commission on the Status of Women, which is “dedicated exclusively to gender equality and advancement of women,” according to its website.

Buried 2,000 words deep in a U.N. press release distributed Wednesday on the filling of “vacancies in subsidiary bodies,” was the stark announcement: Iran, along with representatives from 10 other nations, was “elected by acclamation,” meaning that no open vote was requested or required by any member states — including the United States.

The U.S. currently holds one of the 45 seats on the body, a position set to expire in 2012. The U.S. Mission to the U.N. did not return requests for comment on whether it actively opposed elevating Iran to the women’s commission.