UN supports pedophiles?

Allow me to link a post written by MK at Crusader Rabbit: UN now fighting for pedophiles.

If already linked here, my apologies.

But it should come as no surprise that the UN is fighting for pedophiles while at the same time the UN wants to tax American citizens directly and essentially supports every Islamic terrorist state/nation that exists among its membership or seems to.

UN Rights of the Child TREATY must be stopped

The purpose of this post is to link you to a post by WatchDog: Congress is attempting to take your parental rights away!

We have been hearing and fighting for years the attempts of the United Nations to push its camel's nose under the tent of the sovereignty of the United States of America.  Nothing new on that but..

There seems to be a feeling of victory, a euphoria of power, churning in the Marxist-left of America's power elites that we have the votes, we have the power, and the time is now.  Recall Hillary's It takes a village;  and Obama's belief in the collective over the rights of the individual.

In WatchDog's first paragraph these words ring out:  "The Obama administration is poised to adopt the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child."  

This is a treaty pushed by the Obama administration, vehemently supported by Secretary of State Hillary CLINTON - a leading advocate and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) who, according to WatchDog, vows the treaty will be ratified.

WatchDog's post delineates the parental rights and authority you will no longer have regarding your own children and their well-being.

Like so many initiatives that are swirling around us in these first 100 days, just like Obama's G-20 agreement to allow our banking practices to be evaluated by foreign sources, this "treaty" is just one more Draconian nail that is intended to be driven through the heart of America's national sovereignty. 

International Response to North Korean Missile Launch

The US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, was on ABC's This Week, April 5, 2009. She had a discussion with George Stephanopoulos on North Korea's missile launch and what the International response will be?

STEPHANOPOULOS: So what will this international response be?

RICE: Well, George, we have been in close consultation with our allies in Asia, in particular, Japan and South Korea about the appropriate response. We have consulted over the last several days, including this morning as well with the Russians and the Chinese.

So the U.N. Security Council will meet this afternoon in emergency session. I'll be going up there straightaway. And we will be discussing the appropriate response. The United States believes that this action is best dealt with -- the most appropriate response would a United Nations Security Council resolution.


So what will this international response be? Translation: NOTHING


STEPHANOPOULOS: So there will be new sanctions toughening...

RICE: George, we have 15 members of the Security Council and -- including the permanent five, so we all need to come together around this. But the United States' view is, this is serious, it's a violation, and it merits and appropriately strong United Nations response. We'll be...


So what will this international response be? Translation: NOTHING


STEPHANOPOULOS: But you can't say yet what those consequences will be. And there is no guarantee that the U.N. today or over the course of next week is going to impose sanctions on North Korea...

(CROSSTALK)

RICE: George, we need to continue to work closely with our allies Japan and South Korea, with partners in the Security Council to achieve united action. And that's what we will do.


So what will this international response be? Translation: NOTHING


transcript sources: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/04/susan_rice_on_this_week.html
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=7261522&page=1

Martha Raddatz said in the roundtable discussion that 'a forcebul statement' is probably all there is. She also said that Barack Obama is learning how difficult diplomatic relations can be and that the situation he is in is no different than what George Bush faced.

Maybe the US can join its partners at the United Nations to solve this problem.

UN Security Council fails to agree on North Korea reaction
Los Angeles Times - 3 hours ago
South Korea’s UN envoy Park In-kook, center, arrives for the UN Security Council emergency session in New York. The US sought a resolution as an appropriate ...

So what will this international response be? Translation: NOTHING

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

UN's Attack on the Industrialized Nations

We are following the Piped Piper of Death when it comes to the newest UN's walk down the Climate Change Lane. Let's see: we are under attack by the Islamists to destroy Western Civilization and throw us back into their 7th Century; by the United States Obama Administration's march into Socialism/Totalitarianism that even the EU Socialists say is too much; and now we have to deal with the U.N. 'Climate Change' Plan Would Likely Shift Trillions to Form New World Economy.

Let me add that in all three cases, we, the average American people, have no defenders in the "physical" realm except God if He wants to take further risks on us. Actually, our own government seems to be against us. Even one British MP says for us not to go down the road to socialized medicine but nothing will keep Obama from rationed health care. And his willful handmaiden, our own shrew, San Fran Nan, says we need to decrease our population - to paraphrase a time-worn mantra of "kill the unborn children." No need to limit ourselves to the unborn children when rationed health care can do the job by denying care to the very sick and/or the elderly.

And from Key Elements of a Global Deal on Climate Change by Nicholas Stern, Lord Stern of Brentford, we have (from page 3) an interesting note on "transfer resources and technologies to developing countries" by industrial nations - which would be the United States:

"Developed countries will need to take on immediate and binding national
emissions targets, demonstrate that they can achieve low carbon growth, and
transfer resources and technologies to developing countries, before developing
countries take on binding national targets of their own by 2020."

H/T to Matt Drudge and his link: "UN Climate Scheme: Reordering world economy, trillions in wealth transfer, sweeping 'industrial relocation'..." Americans have already "transferred" trillions of dollars of their wealth down the rabbit hole.

But I just cannot help myself and ask how much money Al Gore is getting with his "carbon footprints" hocuspocus magic trick?

Americans - as do many citizens in other industrial nations - need defenders and statesmen in elected office and right now they are few and far between.

To me, there is no question that the United Nations is in frontal attack against the United States of America. Let's kick them out of Turtle Bay and give the property to the homeless. They'd make better use of the place even if they trashed it...

(Cross-posted at Conservative Beach Girl)

UN SecGen Ban calls US "deadbeat"

Oh, the irony. We throw away over $1 billion annually, handing it over to an organization largely comprised of single party or totalitarian governments, lorded over by non-elected political appointees...and the presiding appointee wants to call the United States a "deadbeat"?

Wow. Take a good long look in the mirror, Mr. Ban. The organization you head is a true deadbeat, a political sacred cow that has long since lost its relevance to the world.

Obama, Race and Durban II

More on the Obama Adminisration and troubling trends are in the news. It is not a surprise nor necessarily atypical for a President of one political party to undo that of a former President of another party. The Obama Administration rescinded the Mexico City Policy ban on funding foreign abortions which has a history of reversals with each change in President of the opposing party. He appeared to be reversing policy on Gitmo but the jury is still out on that one. And the liberal fringe is not happy about the new President's action or inaction on Iraq and Afghanistan or some other matters.

Does it seem odd to you that the President Obama's first foreign trip was to Canada while his new Secretary of State headed for Indonesia and China and the rest of Asia? It is not unlike an opinion voiced by Rush Limbaugh on news the President does not favor the Fairness Doctrine. El Rushbo suggests we should not be optimistic about the news in that Obama did not say something like he would not sign or would veto such legislation. Alternatively, Limbaugh suggested it as a trait of the new liberal President to not spend political capital when he can get others to do it. That may also explain his trip to Canada. And Hillary is simply trying to add to her lacking resume' for 2012. But Canada is boycotting Durban II. Hmmm.

That brings us to this issue, Durban II. The US and Israel were the only countries to vote against it in 2001 or beyond. Now that Obama is in office funny how the UN's agenda on race again takes center stage. In the past there was the suggestion that opponents of Israel would use the opportunity to gain advantage by using international events to portray Israel and/or the US as racist. Given Obama and Holder's notable quotes on the topic this may be of some concern to the public at large. Another reversal of Bush 43 policy which may also prove to be dangerous.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Op-Ed: Boycott Durban II

Jewish Telegraphic Agency, NY - Feb 18, 2009
The April 2009 Durban II conference promises to top that fiasco, despite the Obama administration's decision to attempt to influence the process. ...

Can the United States fix Durban II?

Reuters - Feb 18, 2009
Israel and Canada have already announced they would boycott “Durban II,” as the conference is being called, and the Bush administration was opposed to the ...

Obama officials meet US Jews to explain their Durban II policy

Human Rights Tribune, Switzerland - Feb 18, 2009
Jerusalem fears that the "Durban II" summit, set to be held in Geneva this April, will be used by Arab nations and others as a forum to criticize Israel as ...

Obama, Clinton Send Political Clone to the UN

Another in a long list of additions to the Obama Administration reinforces the concern that while Hillary Rodham Clinton was unsuccessful in becoming President she succeeded in establishing a third Clinton term in spite of the loss. Susan Rice is US Ambassador to the United Nations and was a member of the Obama Biden Transition Team as well as senior foreign policy adviser for their 2008 campaign.

It has been said of Obama that filling vacancies from the previous administration demonstrates a preference for persons with impressive resumes' in both education and experience. This selection was no departure from that criteria or strategy. A Wikipedia account of Dr Rice states her father told her to 'never use race as an excuse or advantage' and that she was concerned her accomplishments would be viewed as the result of affirmative action. Her personal success is impressive. It is possible she hails from a family with above average means so affirmative action should be a moot point. But what if any is the role of nepotism?

Madeleine Albright is described in the same account as a family friend and mentor to Rice. She urged Clinton to appoint Rice as an Assistant Secretary of State in 1997. While she impressed many and certainly enough to be confirmed others felt she was inexperienced and inflexible. A few years in the Clinton Administration and then to the Brookings Institution. A common career path for unemployed public servants similar to former Congressman becoming lobbyists. Next up the Clinton Obama Wars and filling the Administration with former staff to appease the Clinton clan before the convention. Oh there's no nepotism here. And this is not a criticism directed at Rice for it is the case with most if not all Obama selections. So how is that working or shaping up for the average citizen?

Regarding President Obama's election UN Sec Gen Ban Ki Moon expressed 'Our goals are shared. Together, the United States of America and the United Nations can look forward to a new era of strong and effective partnership, delivering results and the change we need.' If you take that statement at face value avoid persons selling infrastructure in Brooklyn or vacant land in Florida. Moon had more to say. Earlier this week, he welcomed Mr. Obama's election “with great optimism,” noting that the UN and US have many common goals. By his own admission and that of Obama and Clinton these goals include but are not limited to the following:

United Nations reform (which will never happen)

Climate Change (or the promotion of more gloom and doom)

The Darfur Peace Process ( which does not exist, resembles the climate change item and is as likely to fail as that in the Middle East )

Global Economic Crisis (his words, and something these spendthrifts no nothing about )

But what Ban Ki Moon and the rest of the posse at the UN were really interested in was this.

UN Launches $613 Million Appeal for Gaza
By Lisa Schlein
Geneva
29 January 2009

The United Nations is appealing for $613 million to help tens of thousands of people in Gaza recover from the three-week Israeli military offensive in the Palestinian territory. The money will provide life-saving assistance over the next six to nine months. The U.N. appeal was launched at the annual World Economic Forum in the Swiss alpine village of Davos.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is the first world leader to enter Gaza since Israel imposed a blockade on the Palestinian territory in June 2007. He describes his distress at what he saw.

And how does Moon qualify for the designation in the report above as a 'world leader'? More to the point is what does the UN do besides make headlines and statements when they're not collecting money and using it for who knows what? Could it be that aside from all the other conspiracy theories about the UN that they are quite happy with the Middle East conflict as another venue to work their craft of separating people from their money and giving it to their friends? If you object to that suggestion please explain why none of their 'programs' end in success or just end? Sustaining conflict in the world would be of benefit to them given their methods of operation.

So what does Dr Rice bring to the party?

26 January 2009 – There is no more important forum for effective cooperation among States that the United Nations, the new ambassador of the United States to the United Nations stressed today, following her first meeting with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

“I am looking very much forward to engaging in a cooperative, constructive fashion with my colleagues here in New York. I will listen, I will engage and I will work to advance United States interests, recognizing that in many, many instances, our national interests are best advanced when we are working hand in hand with that of others,” Susan Rice told reporters at UN Headquarters in New York.

Ms. Rice said she had an “excellent meeting” with the Secretary-General, covering a range of issues including climate change, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), UN peacekeeping, non-proliferation, Sudan and the situation in the Middle East.

“The United Nations is a vitally important institution. It has great potential. It still has room for great improvement,” she said, adding that she and Mr. Ban also touched on the challenge of making the Organization more effective and more efficient.

She recalled that President Barack Obama had wanted to place the US at the centre of the fight against poverty, and had stated that the MDGs – the globally agreed targets to slash poverty and other development challenges by 2015 – were now US goals.

Based on President Obama rescinding The Mexico City Policy, the liberal thirst for abortion and a press conference by the executive director of the UN population fund the crew must be drunk with sadistic pleasure over the spoils of a political victory. Here's the damming evidence from the UN press conference in their own words.

“President Obama’s actions sent a strong message about his leadership and strategic vision to support causes that will promote peace and development, equity and dignity, equality for women and girls and economic empowerment of the poor in all regions of the world,” she said. With the resumption of United States funding, UNFPA would be able to maintain recent gains during the current financial crisis and provide support to women in the poorest countries of the world. United Nations Member States had repeatedly said that progress for all would not happen without progress for women. That meant making women’s health, rights and equality an international priority.

She also welcomed the decision of the new United States administration to revoke the Mexico City policy, which paved the way for a restored United States partnership with some of the world’s leading non-governmental organizations that provide family planning services around the world. Access to safe and effective voluntary family planning, as Mr. Obama had said, was one of the most effective ways of preventing unwanted pregnancies and empowering women and men to plan their families. If a woman could not take decisions about her own fertility, she could not make decisions about anything else in her life.

And the final expression of support for 'safe' abortions as 'family planning'.

To a question about family planning, she said that its importance was demonstrated by the fact that unsafe abortion was considered the second leading cause of death for African women. Women who did not have access to family planning would go to have unsafe abortions, which often led to death.

Translation:: The money is used to pay for abortions the 'patient' cannot afford which would lead to back alley practitioners who care less about the patient than the liberals care about the unborn child. And 'family planning' is liberal-speak for abortion. The only reason they support contraception is political. It gives them another pork item to support in legislation and lets them believe they have convinced you they are trying to do things the right way. Could it be any more pathetic?

So Dr Susan Rice will be doing the bidding of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Bill and Hillary Clinton. Keep in mind both Clinton and Obama rescinded the Mexico City Policy. Also notable is Obama's weakness for ACORN and voter and campaign finance fraud as well as the Clintons' scandal history including illegal transfers of sensitive technology via Chinagate. The perils of international politics grow larger. And the threat is not always from without but within.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com