Simon Deng - The United Nations: Accessory to Slavery and other Crimes

Simon Deng tells it like it is.

With thanks to Hudson New York

Like you, I came to this conference, The Perils of Global Intolerance to protest this third Durban conference which is an effort based on a set of lies, and organized by nations who are themselves are guilty of the worst kinds of oppression.

Durban III will not help the victims of racism. It will only isolate and target the Jewish state. It is a tool of the enemies of Israel. The UN has lost its way. Its obsession with the Jewish obvious: . For over 50 years, 82% of the UN General Assembly emergency meetings have been about condemning one state - Israel. Hitler could not have been made happier.

Given all the good Israel does in the world, given its democracy and its striving to follow the highest standards of human rights, even in the face of the most brutal, the most fanatic enemies, the Durban Conference is an outrage. All decent people know that.

But friends, I come here today to make a different case. I come with what you might at first think is a radical proposition: I come to tell you that there are peoples who suffer from the UN's anti-Israelism even more than the Israelis. I belong to one of those people.

By exaggerating Palestinian suffering, and by blaming the Jews for it, the UN has muffled the cries of those who suffer on a far larger scale.

For over fifty years the indigenous black African population of Sudan -- Christians and Muslims alike --- have been the victims of the brutal, racist Arab Muslim regimes in Khartoum.

In South Sudan, my homeland, Sudan, about four million innocent men, women and children were slaughtered from 1955 to 2005. Seven million were ethnically cleansed, and they became the largest refugee group since World War II.

Everybody at the United Nations is concerned about the so-called Palestinian refugees. They dedicated a separate agency to provide for them; this agency, UNWRA, treats them with a special privilege.

Meanwhile, my people, ethnically cleansed, murdered and enslaved, are relatively ignored. The UN even resisted using the word "slavery" to describe the enslavement of tens of thousands of my people. Why? Because slavery is a crime against humanity, apparently no one committing it wanted to end up before an international court. When Khartoum insisted that the term "abducted people" be substituted for the word "slaves," the UN, caved to Arab pressure and agreed. Try that in America. Try calling Frederick Douglas an "abducted person." It is outrageous.

The UN refuses to tell the world the truth about the root causes of Sudan's conflicts. Take Darfur, for example. Who knows really what is happening in Darfur? It is not a "tribal conflict." It is a conflict rooted in Arab colonialism, as it has typically been practiced in Africa. In Darfur, a region in the Western Sudan everybody is Muslim. Everybody is Muslim because the Arabs invaded the North of Africa and converted the indigenous people to Islam In the eyes of the Islamists in Khartoum, the Darfuris are not Muslim enough. And they also do not want to be Arabized. They like their own African languages and dress and customs. They resist Arabization. The Arab response is genocide. But nobody tells the truth about Darfur.

In the Nuba Mountains, another region of Sudan, genocide is taking place as I speak. The regime is targeting the black Africans -- Muslims and Christians. This happened to the Nuba people before. In the 1990's hundreds of thousands were murdered; a large number of women were raped; children were abducted and forcibly converted to Islam. Nobody at the UN told the truth about the Nuba Mountains.

Do you see a massive amount of outrage and reports and protests about this coming out of the UN or Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International? Do you hear them condemn Arab anti-black racism?

Look at the pages of the New York Times, or the record of the UN condemnations, What you will find is "Israeli crimes" and Palestinian suffering. My people have been driven off the front pages by the exaggerations of Palestinian suffering. Why? Because what Israel does is portrayed as a Western sin that we are all supposed to address.

The truth is that the West commits a real sin when it abandons us: the actual victims of non-Westerns. Our suffering has become almost taboo.

Let me return to the topic of slavery: while there are issues that divide public opinion, we can all agree that for one man to own another is a sin, and it should be stopped. The Americans tore themselves apart over the issue of slavery.

Chattel slavery, a centuries-long practice in Sudan, was revived as a tool of war in the early '90s. The Islamist regime in Khartoum declared jihad, or holy war, and thereby legitimized taking slaves as war booty. Arab militias were sent to destroy Southern villages and were encouraged to take African women and children as slaves. We believe that up to 200,000 were kidnapped, brought to the North and sold into slavery.

I am a living proof of this crime against humanity.

I do not like talking about my experience as a slave, but I do it because it is important for the world to know that slavery exists even today.

I was only nine years old when I was made a slave. An Arab neighbor named Abdullahi tricked me into following him to a boat destined to Northern Sudan where he gave me as a gift to his family. For three and a half years I was their slave going through something that no child should ever go through: brutal beatings and humiliations; working around the clock; sleeping on the ground with animals; eating the family's left-overs. During those three years I was unable to say the word "no." All I could say was "yes," "yes," "yes."

The United Nations knew about the brutal enslavement of South Sudanese by the Arabs from the early days of the conflict. Human Right Watch issued extensive reports about the issue. These reports gathered dust on UN shelves. It took UNICEF – under pressure from the Jewish –led American Anti-Slavery Group -- sixteen years to acknowledge what was happening.

As soon as the Sudanese government and the Arab League pressured UNICEF, the UN agency backtracked, and proceeded to criticize the Non-Governmental Organizations that worked to liberate Sudanese slaves. In 1998, Dr. Gaspar Biro, the courageous UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Sudan who reported on slavery, resigned in protest of the UN's actions.

My friends, today, tens of thousands of black South Sudanese still serve their masters in the North and the UN is silent about that. It would offend the OIC and the Arab League. So much for "human rights for everybody".

As a former slave and a victim of the worst sort of racism, allow me to explain why I think calling Israel a racist state is absolutely absurd and immoral.

I have been to Israel five times visiting the Sudanese refugees. Let me tell you how they ended up there. These are Sudanese who fled Arab racism, hoping to find shelter in Egypt. They were wrong. In 2005, the refugees camped outside the offices of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees in Cairo looking for mercy. Instead, the United Nations closed its doors and left the helpless women and children at the mercy of the ruthless Egyptian security forces who brutally slaughtered at least 26 of them.

After this event the Sudanese realized that Arab racism is the same, whether it is in Khartoum or in Cairo. So they continued looking for a shelter and they found it in Israel. Dodging the bullets of the Egyptian border patrols and walking for punishingly long distances, the refugees' only hope was to reach Israel's side of the fence, where they knew they would be safe.

The fact that even Darfuris, who are Muslims, chose Israel above all the other Arab-Muslim states of the area, speaks volumes.. Israel is racist? Israel is against the Muslim world? Ask the thousands of black Muslim Darfuris who found shelter inside the Jewish state.

When I asked the refugees about the treatment they receive in Israel, their response is absolutely the opposite of what the United Nations alleges. They were welcomed and treated like human beings. Compared to the situation in Egypt, they described their lives in Israel as "heaven." No-one called them "abid" – an Arabic word for slaves often used in Sudan, Egypt and other Arab nations.

Is Israel a racist state? To my people, the people who know racism – the answer is absolutely not. It is a state of people of the colors of the rainbow. Jews themselves come in all colors, even black. I met with beautiful black Ethiopian Jews in Israel. Israel is a state that has taken my own black people in, rescued them, and helped them.

So, yes … my claim may be a radical claim: I claim that the victims who suffer most from the UN's anti-Israel policy are not just the Israelis but all those people who have to be ignored in order for the UN to tell its big lie against Israel: all those victims of non Western abuse, especially all those victims of Arab and Muslim abuse: women, ethnic minorities, religious minorities, homosexuals, in the Arab and Muslim world. These are the biggest victims of UN Israel hatred.

So far, the Israelis have only been cursed by the UN. But look at the situation of the Copts, the Christians in Iraq, and Nigeria, and Iran, the Hindus and Bahais and Sikhs who suffer from Islamic oppression. We all suffer. We are ignored, we are abandoned so that the big lie against the Jews can go forward.

Before I conclude let me tell you a story that reflects a special connection that the people of South Sudan feel toward Israel. In 2005, I visited one of the refugee camps in South Sudan. I met a twelve year old girl who told me about her dream. In a dream she wanted to go to school to become a doctor, and then, she wanted to visit Israel. I was shocked and numb. How could this refugee girl who spent most of her life in the North know about Israel? When I asked why she wanted to visit Israel, she said: "This is our people." I was never able to find an answer to my question.

On July 9 of 2011 South Sudan became an independent state. We achieved freedom despite the opposition from the Arab world and despite the United Nations, whose General Secretary, Bi Ki Moon, lobbied for the unity of Sudan. For the South Sudanese, that would mean continuation of oppression, brutalization, demonization, Islamization, Arabization and enslavement.

In a similar manner, the Arabs continue denying Jews their right for sovereignty in their homeland; and the Durban III conference continues denying Israel's legitimacy.

As a friend of Israel, I salute the President of the Republic of South Sudan, Salva Kiir, who had the courage to state publicly that South Sudan embassy in Israel will be built--- not in Tel Aviv, but in Jerusalem, the eternal capital of the Jewish people.

I also want to assure you that my own new nation, and all of its people, will oppose racist forums like the Durban III. We will oppose it by simply telling the truth.

This originally appeared in a a slightly different form as an address at a conference titled "The Perils of Global Intolerance", in New York City, September 22, 2011.

Learn more about the new nation of South Sudan at Pickle92's Blog.

---

This is 2011! Why do we still have pirates?

Piracy should be a thing of the past.

Fox News: Four Americans Killed on Yacht Hijacked by Somali Pirates

(h/t: Bagua)

Four Americans aboard a yacht hijacked by Somali pirates were gunned down by their captors Tuesday.

U.S. forces responded to gunfire aboard the yacht Quest at approximately 1 a.m. Tuesday, but discovered all four hostages had been shot by their captors. Despite attempts to save their lives, all four hostages died of their wounds.

“We express our deepest condolences for the innocent lives callously lost aboard the Quest,” said Gen. James N. Mattis, U.S. Central Command Commander in a news release.

Two pirates died during the confrontation and U.S. forces found the remains of two other pirates already dead aboard the vessel. Thirteen pirates were captured and detained, along with two already in custody. A total of 19 pirates were involved in the hijacking.

The remains of the four Americans were taken aboard the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, as were the 15 pirates in custody. There is no word yet on where the pirates will be taken for trial. They could go to Kenya or they could come back to the U.S. There is a precedent for both.

Read it all.

Pirates belong in the history books or the movies, not in real life. The United States has adequate naval firepower to put an end to piracy in international waters. The US Constitution empowers the US Senate and House of Representatives to do what is needed to get rid of this scourge.

Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution empowers Congress

...To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;...

Obama failed to take any action until it was too late. Yoo-hoo, Obama and the US Senate and House: You can't pussyfoot around with pirates. It's YOUR DUTY to defend the US against foreign enemies. In case you haven't noticed, pirates are foreign enemies, they have attacked us, and it's your duty to do something about it, without delay. You have to clean pirates out of the sea lanes, you have to sink all their boats and ships, and you have to take out the villages and settlements where they are based. The Senate needs to enact a specific declaration of war against these pirates and the House needs to vote funding to back it up.

None of this "nation-building" - just clean them out once and for all. If you fail to do that, piracy will rapidly grow out of control and maritime transport will become more and more dangerous and expensive. Allowing this piracy to continue will cost us, and the rest of the world, very heavily in the long run.

Says Iron Fist on a recent thread on Blogmocracy:

mawskrat wrote:

well at least Obama approved action if the Navy thought the hostages were in danger.

I call bull**** on that. The hostages were in danger from the minute the Somali animals took them prisoner. They should have threatened to bomb the pirates’ village flat if any of the hostages were harmed. Now they should follow up on that. Kill the village. Everyone in it. Flatten it with fuel-air explosives. Sink any vessels that try and make port there afterwords.

One of the problems that is hamstringing the US and other nations in dealing with pirates is the UN. That organization serves only to protect and foster evildoers all over the world; it's long past time to get the US out of the UN and vice versa, but that is an argument for another day. The problem is that current maritime law as defined by the UN makes no provision for dealing with pirates.

DNA India: Why we still have pirates in the 21st century

Gwynne Dyer / Sunday, October 10, 2010 22:14 IST
[...]
How can it have come to pass that we have a major pirate problem in the 21st century? They sorted that out in the early 18th century. Why has it got unsorted again?

Blame international law. When they were codifying the law of the sea back in the 1970s, the world had no pirate problem worth talking about. So they dropped the rule of “universal jurisdiction” that had been the key to suppressing piracy in the bad old days. “Universal jurisdiction”meant that every navy could arrest suspected pirates of any nationality and try them under its own national laws, since pirates had been defined as “the enemies of all mankind.” That’s how piracy was wiped out in the first place.

But when they were writing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the 1970s, there were no pirates anymore, so they dropped the rule of “universal jurisdiction” in favour of a legal regime more attuned to modern notions of human rights and national sovereignty. What has replaced those old rules, in practice, is a legal quagmire where you can never be sure who has legal jurisdiction. So the navies (which could easily suppress the piracy if they were free to act) refrain from using force, and are reluctant even to arrest people at sea who are quite obviously pirates.

To extinguish piracy again, we need a modernised version of the old rules. That requires prompt action to create a comprehensive international agreement that gets around the Law of the Sea.

There is one other issue, of course. If we use serious force against the pirates, they will threaten to use force against their captives. Some of them might be killed. But since there will never be a time when there are no captives in the hands of the Somali pirates until and unless we crack down hard, that is a risk that we just have to take.

Read it all.

A better idea: Ignore the UN entirely and go after the pirates. If anybody complains, ignore them also.

We dealt with jihadi pirates two centuries ago, during the Thomas Jefferson administration. We can do it again.

---

Originally published on 1389 Blog.

---

Ms Clinton and the UN Gun Stealers

The United Nations, disguised as a well meaning arbiter of peace, decided a long time ago that regular people having guns is a bad thing. This fact would be undisputed by anyone who understood art and also noticed that large statue outside the UN (of a gun, with the barrel twisted in a knot. Note that this gun is not a military weapon). The reason for this - an armed citisenry like exists in Sweden and the US. Not knowing who has guns and how many of those would defend their rights against a one world or other hostile takeover would make taking over places like the US and Sweden a risky venture at the very least and quite possibly a fool's errand.

Enter Hilary Clinton. Enter the UN Small Arms Treaty.

Once again, this is not an effort to promote world peace. This is not a nuclear ban or a control of military might. Nebulously disguised as an attempt to prevent terrorism, global mafias and insurgencies (ie revolutions which might ouster one-world happy dictators), this treaty is a global gun control power grab.

In the end, it will require nations to register, confiscate and eventually ban firearms owned by private citisens. That's YOU and ME folks, not the mafiosi of the world. It's also, as usual, an assault on national sovereignty. Translation, another nail in the coffins prepared for independent minded nations like the United States.

Like everything else nefariously planned by the United Nations, it is a binding treaty which calls for Congress to approve of it. (Isn't that sweet, a nation voting for it's own demise?!)

Don't let your congress do this to you without your protest!! IT takes 65 Senate votes to approve of a treaty. As you know, once it gets passed congress, Obama will definitely sign it into law, so it's up to the Congress to stop it. But, there really isn't a solid pro-second amendment bloc in the Senate. Remember the confirmation of anti-gun Supreme Court Justice Sotamayor? Remember too how congress tends to back off making the President look bad on the world stage? And remember that our Secretary of State, appointed by the Obamanation himself, has promised to work closely with the United Nations to draft and promote this horrific idea.

Frankly the only way to defeat this nausea inspiring power grab is for every Senator in every district to believe that his or her seat is in grave danger if they get with this abhorrent program.

Money talks and B******* walks. They won't vote for it if they believe they will lose their jobs. Perhaps they will stand and say 'The people have spoken, we won't do this.' But I doubt it. More likely they will bury it in committee like they have with many other nauseating treaties. Or perhaps they will even disappear into the night to avoid this measure coming up at all like they did in Wisconsin...

Honestly, any of those would suffice, though I'd rather someone like Rand Paul or his father stand up and say "This is against our Constitution, take this treaty and shove it where the sun don't shine." Hey, I can dream, can't it?

Kosovo PM Linked to Sale of Human Organs

Reprinted with permission from 2.0: The Blogmocracy
By Rodan

Hashim Thaci who was trained by AL-Qaeda in Afghanistan in the late 90′s and was the leader of their Kosovar affiliate, The KLA which has been linked to drug and human trafficking. This is no shocker to anyone who has been following the events in that region knew that not only were they Muslim Albanian Jihadists, they were also a criminal syndicate. It was these crimes and their terror attacked on Serbian civilians which lead in 98/99 to Serbia’s crackdown in the province. As usual the Progressives and Muslim nations claimed this was genocide and create false stories about the Serbs, just as they are doing with Israel today. The United States by our bombing of Serbia, help create this Narco-Islamic state. This Islamic and criminal regime is propped up by our tax dollars.

Hashim Thaci, who won re-election in the fledgeling country on Sunday, was described as the “most dangerous” of the leading mafia figures who emerged from the former Kosovo Liberation Army a decade ago. The report says that the West was aware of Mr Thaci’s crimes, yet backed his rise to power.

Members of his criminal organisation were said to be behind the trade in human organs when speciallyselected, mostly Serbian prisoners, were killed for their kidneys in a deal with an Albanian clinic, the report states.
[...]
“As and when the transplant surgeons were confirmed to be in position and ready to operate, the captives were brought out of the ‘safe house’ individually, summarily executed by a KLA gunman, and their corpses transported swiftly to the operating clinic,” said the report, due to be debated by the Council of Europe tomorrow.
[....]
The report concludes that Mr Thaci became “untouchable” because of his sponsorship by the United States and other western powers who were looking for a powerful figure to emerge as a political leader. Mr Thaci and his cronies remain free because key potential witnesses have been violently intimidated or killed, the report concludes

Read the rest: Kosovo PM ‘is Mafia boss linked to drugs and sale of human organs’

This is failure of US foreign policy. We gave created a haven for criminality and Jihad in Europe. Kosovo is an illegal nation as it’s a historical Serbian province which we illegally severed. While we claim we are fighting war on terror, we have enabled a terror regime in the Balkans. As the picture above shows, Bush who claims he was fighting terror smiles and shakes hands with a terrorist. As an American, I am ashamed of us supporting a vile organization like the KLA which is the Hamas of Europe. Clinton bombed Serbia, but it was Bush who recognized these criminals as a legitimate state.

Nice war on terror we have, we fight one Islamic group, while we support one of their affiliates. As the pictures below shows, it’s a Bi-Partisan problem.

Here’s Thaci and Biden.

Here’s Madeline Albright and Thaci after the bombing of Serbia in 1999.

This is your tax dollars at work!

Please write your Congressmen to get all American aid to Kosovo cut off. We should have no part of a criminal regime engaged in terror and criminal activities.

---

But wait, there's more...

Organ-ized Crime: Kosovo organ trafficking busted

UN War Crimes Tribunal Aided the Continued Jihadi Organ-Harvesting in Kosovo

Warning: Raw language and graphic subject matter!

Also see:

• Documentaries on Jihad against the Serbs in Kosovo
• Crossing Continents
• Kidnapped and Murdered
• Kosovo: Can you Imagine
• Full KitmanTV Collection on Kosovo

---

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.

U.N. Site Truly a Garbage Dump

The United Nations' world headquarters in New York City lies on a foundation of rotten garbage — literally.

The world body recently began a six-year, $2 billion renovation project known as the Capital Master Plan. As workers began prepping the 38-story Secretariat for renovations, a "rotten eggs" smell began seeping from one of the underground levels below the building.

Suspecting that a gas line may have been punctured, workers for the Skanska Corporation, the lead contractor, had the U.N. order a limited evacuation of the Secretariat.

Several hours later, Skanska and U.N. officials, joined by utility company and fire department personnel, traced the smell not to a gas line, but to a vast underground landfill

Source Here - scroll down to No. 3.

Somewhere in the world, the person responsible is laughing hysterically and I am laughing with him.

How very, very fitting.

UN Threatens Religious Freedom and National Sovereignty

"First, they came for the socialists,
and I did not speak out
because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one
left to speak for me."
- Martin Niemoller (1892-1984)

I suppose it was only a matter of time before the one worlders in the UN decided to launch an attack on freedom of religion. Actually, they have been doing it for a while, but they are tightening the noose with greater and greater pressure on countries who believe it is in their best interest to bend the knee to the almighty UN. The one of the more recent abominations is the "UN Resolution on Defamation of Religion." The link goes to a UN press release about the monstrous document.

This is the brainchild of the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference). The OIC started ramming the idea down the throat of the world after 9/11 and increased the pressure after the infamous Mohammed Cartoons. According to Pakistani President Musharraf, it was necessary due to "desperation and injustice" felt in the Muslim world because of the cartoons, counter-terrorism measures, immigration laws and the like. The non-binding document passed 108 to 51, with 25 abstentions. The US was one of those who voted against it.

Leo said it was because 'this resolution is incomplete inasmuch as it fails to address the situation of all religions. We believe that such inclusive language would have furthered the objective of promoting religious freedom. We also believe that any resolution on this topic must include mention of the need to change educational systems that promote hatred of other religions, as well as the problem of state-sponsored media that negatively targets any one religion, or people of a certain faith.'

Well, he does partially get it.

The resolution benignly states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression. All well and good, everyone does have that right. However, the document is not a call to tolerance of all faiths. In addition, it is filled with lies. While pointing out a 'negative projection of Islam in the media,' it also says that 'Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.'

OK, so Buddhists and Jews populate Al-Quieda, I suppose. And I suppose that people in the Sudan are not enslaved and tortured for their beliefs? I suppose it is not a human rights violation to arrest a woman for being alone with the men who raped her. Right and I am a tiger lily.

The fact is that acts of torture under Islamic rule are verified, discrimination against non-Muslims takes place in many Islamic countries on a regular basis and non-Muslims are frequently persecuted in the name of the prophet. It is true that not every Islamic country persecutes actively. Kuwait is pretty tolerant, and Turkey as well. However, Muslims around the world need to acknowledge that there are places out there that do these things in the name of their faith.

And another thing, as pointed out by bloggers who were as diverse as the rainbow (such as Pagans, Christians, and Humanists), WHAT exactly is defamation?

Is it defamation to point out that the man who committed an honour killing last week was a Muslim? Is it defamation to mention that Mohammad had people killed if they disagreed with him? Is it defamation to criticise the tenants of Islam by doing a critique of the Koran? Without a definition, many atrocities could take place and persecution could result in countries that were not outwardly Muslim if a Muslim managed to be offended too strongly.

I know it has nothing to do with freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof as defined in the US Constitution. It does not take a rocket scientist to deduce this if you look at those who voted in favour of this resolution. Muslim countries could not possibly have meant to criticize their own behaviour; they could not have wanted to embarrass their own governments. Included in the list of those who voted for the resolution are: Bhutan: No idea what freedom of religion is. China: Not Free (they regulate everyone from Christians to Feng Shui experts) Cuba: not free for years Pakistan: They cannot even decide if it is ok for other Muslims to play instruments Russia: Not as bad as they were before, but the noose is tightening again. Saudi Arabia: Very oppressive. My ex could not buy a coke when he was stationed there because the company was 'owned by Jews' and magazines would be cut to pieces by censors before they arrived by anything other than military mail.

Not only this but the document sez what while 'everyone has the right to freedom of expression,' it should be 'exercised with responsibility and may' (there had to be a *but* in here somewhere) 'be subject to limitations as provided by law and necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals...' Ahem. In other words, freedom of religion can be regulated to death in the name of public order.

This is how non-secular Muslim nations behave now. And the hidden agenda of the whole exercise is to make it politically impossible to criticise Islam. And considering the fact that simply converting to another faith, belonging to another faith, or evangelising for another faith is illegal and punishable in many Muslim countries, it makes sense that defamation includes all of the above. Converting is a criticism of Islam. If Islam were fine, one would not leave it. Believing in another faith indicates that one does not put faith in Mohammad or the Koran, which indicates that you see error. In addition, evangelism often includes apologetics, which is a direct criticism, and involves at least one and possibly two of the other 'attacks' listed above even if no discussion of comparative religions actually occurs.

Therefore, you see, this resolution is an attempt to put a muzzle of the free expression of religion all over the world. (What the Muslims dont get is that eventually, in the New World Order, they will be outlawed too. Those who wish to dominate the world have no problem indulging 'fanatics' for a time in order to achieve their goals.) Judging from the blogs I have read, running the gamut including Pagan, Christian and Humanist, I think that many people have figured the first part of this out. And I am glad of it.

What few officials discuss, however, is the attack on national sovereignty this piece of work actually is.

The document states: The Council also strongly urges States within the framework of their own legal and constitutional systems to provide adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance.

In other words, the UN gets to tell other people what laws need to be enacted to make sure nobody picks on Muslims. We do not get to keep our own constitutions, unless of course they make the right provisions.

Then, the document 'urges States to closely control all public officials including members of law enforcement bodies, the military, civil servants and educators, so that in the course of their official duties, they respect different religions … and that training is provided to this effect.'

In other words, making stupid, unenforceable documents like the UN Resolution are not acceptable on a national level. Actual nation-states are supposed to create or train a thought police.

It is non-binding, of course. However, everyone knows that on the world stage, once the UN speaks people are expected to listen. And they have started to do so.

- Award-winning author Mark Steyn has been summoned to appear before two
Canadian Human Rights Commissions of vague allegations of "subjecting Canadian
Muslims to hatred and contempt" for comments in his book, "America Alone"
- In the United Kingdom, police announced plans to arrest a bloggers for
"anti-Muslim" statements.
- In the United States, a plaintiff sued his Internet service provider for refusing "to prevent participants in an online chat room from posting or submitting harassing comments that blasphemed and defamed plaintiff's Islamic religion."
(source)

The US needs to kick the UN off US soil and withdraw. Unfortunately, unless more people think like Ron Paul, it will not happen.

Sources for further reading:

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/hrcn1082.doc.htm (the original document)

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=13958&Cr=religion&Cr1= (Un Press Release)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69163 (WorldNet Daily Article)

https://www.aclj.org/petition/Default.aspx?AC=DNE0807017&SC=3359 (American Center for Law and Justice Petition ot the UN)

http://www.iheu.org/node/2816 (international humanist and Ethical Union Article)

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/un-resolution-protects-only-islam-from-defamation (Sweetness and Light - Scroll down to the "Ask the Imam" section, where an Imam describes what "Freedom of expression" and "Freedom of Religion" means in an Islamic State)

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1170874980.shtml (Interesting political theory about this topic)

http://www.aina.org/news/2008079165111.htm (The Assyrian take on it)

UN's zero-tolerance policy on child molestation a sham

From CNN:

Children as young as 6 have been forced to have sex with aid workers and peacekeepers in return for food and money, Save the Children UK said in a report released Tuesday.

After interviewing hundreds of children, the charity said it found instances of rape, child prostitution, pornography, indecent sexual assault and trafficking of children for sex.

"It is hard to imagine a more grotesque abuse of authority or flagrant violation of children's rights," said Jasmine Whitbread, chief executive of Save the Children UK.

In the report, "No One To Turn To" a 15-year-old girl from Haiti told researchers: "My friends and I were walking by the National Palace one evening when we encountered a couple of humanitarian men. The men called us over and showed us their penises.

"They offered us 100 Haitian gourdes ($2.80) and some chocolate if we would suck them. I said, 'No,' but some of the girls did it and got the money."

Save the Children says that almost as shocking as the abuse itself is the "chronic under-reporting" of the abuses. It believes that thousands more children around the world could be suffering in silence.

If you read the whole thing you'll find mention of an investigation that started last year, where a handful were jailed, and a few others faced the gallows, er, I mean they were dismissed or repatriated. Talk about effective deterrence.

The Balkan Crisis All Over Again?

Will tensions erupt over Kosovo's looming independence? That is the question that has sparked debate across much of Europe and in the United States.

British and NATO troops have been deployed to help maintain the peace which, as you might have expected, is a fragile one.

Russia, naturally, opposes Kosovo's independence, and does not recognize the new country, while America, the UK, Germany and Italy have all officially declared Kosovo's sovereignty.

The brutal civil war that swept across Serbia in the 1990's should be a reminder to all free nations that we must quickly intervene if violence spreads. Tyrant-States like Russia benefit from instability, but the Free World does not, and never will.

Britain has sent her last troops into the region, and hopefully other European nations will follow the UK's lead. While it is unlikely that the same levels of genocidal slaughter will occur, it is always better to err on the side of caution. In Africa thousands of lives could have been saved if the West had responded sooner in such critical locations as Rwanda and Liberia. The United Nations has made sure that this sort of swift, effective action will never occur.

This is the duty and responsibility of Free Nations. Our wealth, our strength, and our ideals all dictate that we stand up for Peace and Freedom wherever it is threatened, and at whatever cost. The alternative is allowing oppressive dictators of the world free reign.

There are greater dangers than terrorism in the world. Terrorism is just a symptom of a larger strategic battle, as is the instability and poverty and civil war in Africa. Poverty is a problem. The lack of women's rights is a problem. Islam is a problem. When poverty, the suppression of women, radical Islam, and no free speech or free press are combined, the seeds of terrorism and revolution are easily sown. This lack of stability is a perfect weapon for Tyrant States and Rogue Nations such as Syria, Russia, China, and Iran.

People have scoffed at Bush's "Axis of Evil." I only wish he had included more nations under that umbrella.

And isn't it also funny how many of these Tyrant States and Rogue Nations have a say in the UN Security Council? Does that not cast doubt on the validity of that organization?

It is high time that the Free World casts off the chains and constraints that the corrupt United Nations has bound us with. The UN should act as nothing more than a summit for diplomats. America and our Allies should not be held back by the agendas of the corrupt, nor by the policies of totalitarian, fascist, or theocratic States, whose agendas are beyond suspect. How can we ever hope to fight, let alone win, the War on Terror if we are forced to compromise with the Sudan, Syria, or other Terrorist sponsors?

A new alliance must be formed. America is the leader of the free world, but in the coming years we will need strong allies. Before Europe becomes Eurabia, let us hope they build up not just a strong military, but a social bulwark against Islamification. The first step in this process should be abandoning the UN, whose member States have banned any and all criticism of Islam, essentially rendering that organizations' efforts against terrorism null.

Interview with John Bolton at RWN

John Hawkins of Right Wing News interviewed former UN ambassador John Bolton. Here's a taste:

Hawkins:

Some... would like to see the United States pull out of the UN altogether. Do you think that would be a good idea? Why or why not?

Bolton:

I understand why people favor withdrawing, because it's so frustrating; it's ineffective, and it runs contrary to American interests and policies in many respects. But, I think being realistic, I think there are occasions when it can be useful as an instrument of American foreign policy and many of our friends and allies do rely on it and that's kind of a fact of life as well.

So, I think we need to have massive change in the way the UN operates and I would move the US away from mandatory or assessed financial contributions toward a system of voluntary contributions, but I think we shouldn't have any illusions about what the UN can accomplish. And, I certainly don't think we should limit or constrain American policy to only what we can get the UN to support.

Hawkins:

The United Nations comes across as a fundamentally anti-American and anti-Semitic organization. Do you think that's true and can you tell us a little bit about why that's the case?

Bolton:

Well, I think there is a lot of anti-American and anti-Israeli feeling in New York, but the UN is never going to be better than the geo-political reality in the world as a whole. But frequently, it's worse than that, because of the culture that develops in the various UN cities and especially in New York. People think that they can create facts on the ground by causing a fuss at the UN and as long as we react as if they really can succeed, they'll try and do it. So, I think you have to have a realistic and very skeptical view of the tempest in the teapot that boils up from time to time in New York and ... recognize that much of it is simply theater, and that's all.

Read the whole thing.

Ahmadinejad protest at UN Headquarters, NYC

From Cristy Li:

The Jewish Community is planning and organizing a rally on the 24 September to protest the visit to the United Nations of Iranian President Ahmadinejad

The rally scheduled for the 24 September opposite the United Nations, will protest Ahmadinejad statements about his Holocaust denials and belligerence towards Israel and the United States. The conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish organizations and the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York are sponsoring the event in cooperation with the United Jewish Communities, UJA Federation of New York and Jewish Council for Public Affairs.

Iranian President Ahmadinejad will be in NYC to speak before the opening session of the U.N. General Assembly.

UN and WMD

According to the UN's IAEA, Iran is making progress, producing less nuclear fuel potentially easing suspicions of any WMD program.

In other news, the UN was found to have WMD in the New York City Headquarters.

via Instapundit.

United Nations: Iraqi children less safe than a year ago

By Todd Anthony
http://rightisright.squarespace.com

According to Dan Toole, director of Emergency Programs for the United Nations Children’s Fun, “"Children today are much worse off than they were a year ago, and they certainly are worse off than they were three years ago."

Indirectly, that MUST be the fault of the United States, right?

Toole added that “Iraqis no longer have safe access to a government-funded food basket, established under Saddam Hussein to deal with international sanctions.”

I read this Associated Post report and couldn’t help but laugh. While no one is claiming that Iraqi is a modern day Babylonian utopia, would Iraqi civilians rather live under the Hussein regime?

Furthermore, taking the violence into account, let’s play the blame game for a second. Who is responsible for the current situation in Iraq?

Naturally, it HAS to be America’s fault right and its poor post-war prosecution, as well as the weak-willed defeatists on the Left?

Or is it the Nouri al-Maliki government, which has allowed cronyism and sectarian differences grossly interfere with running a credible?

Or could it be that the problem lies with the Iraqi people themselves for their failure to put aside ethnic and religious differences and take advantage of an extraordinary opportunity to forge a new, democratic Iraqi.

Sadly, while the first two reasons contribute to Iraqi state of affairs, the third reason very much belies lack of progress throughout the Muslim world. It is this incessant xenophobia that grips Muslim countries and produces terrorism. This fear of differing opinions has the mosques in its clutches.

This report clearly trumpets the “successful Oil-for-Food” program administered between 1991 and 2003. What the report fails to mention is the gross overindulgences of the Saddam government and the corruption that plagued the United Nations in its dealings with Saddam.

Toole adds the following, “Apart from shortages of items such as milk and baby milk formula, ‘the basic Iraqi food basket was fairly secure under the regime because there was food coming in and the government provided the food basket to its citizens.’”

Nevermind that children in general desperately require milk as a source for protein and calcium, other facets of the food program worked well, other than the random kidnappings, torture, and killings that occurred endlessly for those deemed to be political dissidents or anti-Baathist.

Aside from the Oil-for-Food program’s basic operations, the program essentially suffered from widespread corruption and abuse. For example, Benon Sevan, the program’s primary caretaker, refused to allow review and investigation into the program. He also stated that illegal payoff complaints should be formally filed with the whistleblower’s country of origin. As a result, Iraq could bar anyone who filed a report. Finally, Sevan ordered the shredded of several years worth of documentation.

Ultimately, an American-backed investigation, led by Paul Volcker, revealed that profits were used to curry favor with the UN and Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Also, Sevan had accepted over a hundred thousand dollars win bribes. That report and as well as other media reports concluded that 15,000 revealed a litany of individuals and programs that received oil sale contracts through the program, including several European outfits.

Perhaps before the United Nations publishes any Iraqi report it claims as facts, it needs to preface any such report describing its down-right criminal role in the Oil-for-Food program.

Coupled with its almost-inept positions in Darfur and Iran, does the United Nations really have ANY credibility? Or rather, is it more a Left-leaning institution completely unsuited to handle 21st century issues?

The UN Let's the Insane Run the Asylum

Imagine letting the nuts run the insane asylum, imagine letting the terminally lazy and stupid children run the school or imagine letting bank robbers manage the bank. That's what the Useless Nitwits are doing when they decided to let Zimbabwe head the U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development.

Zimbabwe won approval last night to head a key United Nations body charged with promoting economic progress and environmental protection despite protests from the U.S., European nations and human rights organizations.

The approval was voted 26-21 with three abstentions by the 53-member U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development despite the fact that the government of President Robert Mugabe presides over one of the world's worst-performing economies.

Despite the fact that the thug Mugabe took the once prosperous country of Zimbabwe and turned into a welfare nation. Despite him turning a country that was the "breadbasket of Africa" and turning it into a empty burger box of Africa, the UN voted to have them head up the Commission on Sustainable Development.

Let's see Zimbabwe's numbers on Sustainable Development:

...the once-prosperous Zimbabwean economy has all but collapsed under Mr. Mugabe, who has been in power for more than a quarter-century.

Zimbabwe has the world's highest inflation rate at over 2,200 percent. Unemployment is estimated at between 80 and 90 percent, and severe food shortages are common in a country once considered southern Africa's breadbasket.

Just this week, Harare announced daily power cuts of up to 20 hours for households across the country, to give struggling farmers enough electricity to run irrigation systems.

Wow, those are some impressive credentials Mugabe has racked up there. Yep, his country is perfect to head up the Commission, if you live in the wacky world of UN that is.


Mr Minority

UN Mandate for Women's Rights No More than a Sovereignty Grab

Another harmless UN initiative (hack hack) is the United Nations Treaty on the Convention of the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (AKA as CEDAW for those of us who hate to type mile long titles). In light of some barbaric forms of misogny such as female circumcision, there are people who would welcome this with open arms. A breath of fresh air, the end has come to the long history of mistreatment of women in some cultures, etc etc etc. It sounds wonderful, on the face of it, until you get down to what it actually says and does...

First of all, this is not social enlightenment. The cultures which condone female circumcision did not wake up one day from their collective funk and say, HEY, you know, as a nation we've been seriously mistreating our women, and we need to stop now. Geez we're really sorry guys, but it ain't happening again... No, that didnt happen. Same thing goes for the power hungry people who insist upon suppressing another ethnic group by hacking off women's breasts. They didn't have a conversion experience and do any form of penance or come forward with pleas for forgiveness. No, nothing even close has happened.

What did happen was a treaty. In other words, people didn't change...OTHER PEOPLE have taken it upon themselves to make them behave more humanely against their will. And they have done so by creating a treaty, which usurps the law of the land in any nation which signs on to it.

Nations which believe they aren't mistreating their women would be hard pressed to explain why they didnt sign on, as it would not have any affect on them would it? Think again. Women's rights, according to the UN, touch many many areas, not just the protection of breasts and other tender parts or the cessation of female slavery or the arrival of the right to vote. Women's rights are part and parcel to family law, parental rights, religious practice, abortion regulation, quotas for various things such as education or hiring...some of the most heatedly discussed social issues of our time.

If a soveriegn nation state signed on to this treaty, it would hand over the right to decide the way to handle these issues within the existing framework of a nation's heritage, societal structure, beliefs or religion. These issues, if not consistent with U N beliefs, would be decided by the New World Order.

While most treaties tend not to interfere with the internal workings of the nations which sign it, CEDAW interferes in a big way. CEDAW forbids us to recognize - or celebrate - that men and women are fundamentally different. The treaty defines "discrimination" as:

Any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex … in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.

This goes far beyond protecting women from rape, abuse, torture and the like. It dictates how families, individuals, religions and subcultures behave. Believing that a Christian nation would protect it's citisens is not enough, because a traditionally Christian framework goes completely against CEDAW. The preamble states:

A change in the traditional role of men as well as the role of women in society and in the family is needed to achieve full equality between men and women.

CEDAW, in Article 5a, requires countries to:

Modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices … based on … stereotyped roles for men and women.

This goes beyond equal pay for equal work, this goes into the ridiculous. While the people on the comittee for enforcement include China which aborts more baby girls than any nation on earth and other countries which traffic underaged females in the sex trade, nations which revere women as homemakers and mothers seem to be under the gun with CEDAW.

Here are examples of the way CEDAW has been applied. The committee rulings have...

Told China to decriminalize prostitution (an act which makes women sex objects and victims of sexual violence...and inherently demeans women)

Criticized Mexico for a "lack of access … to easy and swift abortion (which of course kills as many baby girls as it does baby boys)

Criticized Ireland for the Catholic Church's influence of attitudes and state policy (which is the right of the sovereign nation of Ireland to decide)

Told Libya to re-interpret the Koran in the light of CEDAW (Um since when does the state tell the people of faith how to interpret their holy materials?)

Derided Slovenia for having only 30 percent of children under age three in formal daycare (which must mean that children are better off raised by strangers so they can be brainwashed rather than lovingly taught by dedicated stay at home parents)

Reprimanded Belarus for celebrating Mother's Day (One would think a day honouring the most important job a woman could ever hold would be a good thing)

Told Armenia to "combat the traditional stereotype of women in the noble role of mother" (which is probably the most blatant attempt to marginalise women and usurp the social order and culture of a sovereign nation all in one fell swoop I've seen this week)

Criticized Croatia for "the refusal, by some hospitals, to provide abortions on the basis of conscientious objection of doctors. The Committee considers this to be an infringement of women's reproductive rights. (and I suppose the right to free exercise of religion by the doctors, some of them most likely female, do not count)

Told Mexico it "would welcome a more equitable redistribution of wealth among the population."(Yeah, tyrannies tend to like that, and end the end the government ends up with all the wealth, which in this cause would be the UN)

Told Italy to " sensitize judges, lawyers and law enforcement personnel … to Italy's international obligations, in particular those outlined in the Convention." (Telling a sovereign state how to conduct it's business, even in light of a treaty, is a power grab pure and simple. If Italy wants to belong to this treaty, it's for Italy to decide how to comply)

Urged Belarus to reduce "protective standards which often have a discriminatory effect on women in general and pregnant women in particular. " (Yeah, it really protects the rights of women to force the governments to force women to lift and work more than they are able when they are pregnant. And the sky is below my feet too.)

Told Kyrgyzstan "that lesbianism be reconceptualized as a sexual orientation." (And heterosexuality and motherhood and pregnancy obviously don't need protection, right? I see)

Based on the above, I see nothing protecting women, only the UN attempting to create a new world order based on an outmoded communist ideal through the use of a treaty which plays on our sensitivities because we've seen endless news reports of breastless, circumcised women who have been raped and brutalised in horrendous ways and "there really outta be a law" to prevent such things. Our global sense of outrage has been used to dupe the Nations of the world to sign onto this treaty so that global and social planners can rid the world of the beautiful diversity of some of our oldest cultures. I'm sorry that just doesn't fly with this girl.

Lady Raven

World Powers Agree on New Iran Sanctions

Crossposted from Conservative Thoughts.

From Breitbart/AP:

U.N. ambassadors from six world powers agreed in principle Wednesday on a proposed new package of sanctions against Iran and were expected to introduce a resolution to the Security Council on Thursday if their governments approve it, the U.S. ambassador said.

The package still needs to be considered by the 10 non-permanent members of the U.N. Security Council before it is approved. However, an agreement by the five veto-wielding permanent members of the council and Germany would be a strong signal that the key nations on the U.N.'s most powerful body want to send a united message to Iran to suspend uranium enrichment.

Read more »

US refuses to run for UN Human Rights council seat; Again

Crossposted from Conservative Thoughts

The United States has announced that it will not, once again, run for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. This is the second year in the row the U.S. has decided not to seek a seat on the Council.

From a press conference from the U.S. Department of State Spokesman Sean McCormack;

The United States will not run for a United Nations Human Rights Council seat in the Council’s first election, scheduled for May 9, 2006. There are strong candidates in our regional group, with long records of support for human rights, that voted in favor of the resolution creating the Council. They should have the opportunity to run.

Since the credibility of the Council depends on its membership, the United States will actively campaign on behalf of candidates genuinely committed to the promotion and protection of human rights, and which will act as responsible members of this new body. We will also actively campaign against states that systematically abuse human rights.

AP is also reporting details on the US' reluctance to run for a seat on the UN council;

Spokesman Sean McCormack said the council has had a "singular focus" on Israel, while countries such as Cuba, Myanmar and North Korea have been spared scrutiny. He said that though the United States will have only an observer role, it will continue to shine a spotlight on human rights issues.

Tom Lantos (D), the Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs called the decision an act of unparalleled defeatism. (source)

“This is the worst possible time for a U.S. retreat from its rightful role as the world’s champion of human rights. At a time when we are attempting to marshal the civilized world to stand up to extremism and terror, a retreat from Geneva sends exactly the wrong signal to those who are trying to defeat us. It is particularly appalling that the Administration would select the day it is releasing the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices to announce this decision. Eleanor Roosevelt surely must be turning over in her grave today.”

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R); most senior Republican member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, responds to the Adminstrations decision;

"Rather than standing as a strong defender of fundamental human rights, the Human Rights Council has faltered as a weak voice subject to gross political manipulation," she said.

Remember the UN Human Rights Commission under Kofi's watch? The one with Sudan, the country committing genocide in Darfur on it? Now the new 47-member commission is STILL made up of countries that are not free and fair democracies including; Gabon, China, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia and Russia.

The council is the successor to the U.N. Human Rights Commission, which was dismantled last year as part of a reform program. The United States felt the reform did not go far enough, and declined to compete for a seat when the council was formed in 2006.

Do you really believe with the current member list that this "council" will behave any differently than its predecessor?

The council will hold its annual meeting in Geneva starting next week and will take up a report commissioned by the panel that compares Israel's actions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to apartheid in South Africa.

Not likely.

The UN World Heritage Sites Violate National Sovereignty

Did you know that there are several "World Heritage Sites" in the U S? And if you did, would you have any idea how dangerous this is to US Sovereignty?

If you are like most people, you probably never even thought about it, and if you did you thought that this UN designation would be good for tourism and historical preservation of many national treasures. ANd that is how they get away with it.

According to the UN World Heritage Operational Guidelines, "The cultural heritage and the natural heritage are among the priceless and irreplaceable possessions, not only of each nation, but of mankind as a whole. The loss, through deterioration or disappearance, of any of these most prized possessions constitutes an impoverishment of the heritage of all the peoples in the world. Parts of that heritage, because of their exceptional qualities, can be considered to be of outstanding universal value and as such worthy of special protection against the dangers which increasingly threaten them."

This sounds innocuous on the surface of it, doesn't it? The UN does not directly control how the sites are maintained, and it never has done. The problem with the program is it's link to various treaties and agreements which would destroy the fabric of US sovereignty should congress ever ratify them. These treaties provide partnerships and other forms of cooperation between the US and the UN which gives the UN influence over US policies. This is in direct violation of the US constitution. ANd I'm not just paranoid. Here is an example.

In 1995, the Dept of the Interior decided it would be a good thing for the World Heritage Committee to Visit Yellowstone, in order to declare it a World Heritage Site...In Danger. The designation "IN DANGER" would then mandate the US to correct whatever put the Park in danger or face world scorn as the site gets removed from the list of Heritage Sites. Only the World Heritage Committee can remove this designation, and in order to do so, the US would have to abide by the UN recommendations, thus giving up our right to determine how our land and historical sites are to be preserved. Indirectly then the US has to give up it's rights to govern itself.

Some great, politically minded muckity muck (or probably quite a few of them) has decided that this sort of thing is for the greater good of society in the US. It is, however, a very dangerous precident. ANd there is more...

Like the topic of Buffer Zones...

According to Paragraph 44b of the Operational Guidelines for this program these buffer zones "Should include sufficient areas immediately adjacent to the area of outstanding universal value in order to protect the site...from direct human encroachment and impacts of resource use outside of the nominated area. The boundaries of the nominated site may coincide with one or more existing or proposed protected areas, such as national parks or biosphere reserves."

As is the case with most things in the US, the lands surrounding these World Heritage Sites are private property, which then leads to the federal government needing to control how the land outside the sites are used, in direct violation of the private property clauses of the US Constitution. In the case of Yellowstone, the feds wanted a gold mine to be halted, and it used the "IN DANGER" designation of Yellowstone to prevent it. Any land directly outside of Yellowstone is in danger of federal infringement due to the designation of the park. Such federal control of the land is in direct contradiction of the Constitution and the intention of the Founding Fathers. I could, if I were to travel so far, hear Jefferson rolling over in his grave.

Ok, so some environmental nuts prevented a gold mining operation, big fat hairy deal right? No so fast, lets look at what has been done in other countries. In Australia, this dude had a farm which included a small piece of rainforest (I didn't know there were rain forests in Austrailia, learn something new every day). He'd also preserved some ancient trees, which was a very nice thing to do, no doubt. However, the government found out and decided they wanted his land too, these types of trees had somehow disappeared from government protected property. They didn't ask for seeds, or cuttings, or to transplant the trees, no, they had to have the land too.

Austrailia is a signatory on the WHC treaty too, and the wet tropics became protected by the U N in 1988. Environmentalists counted and catalogued the trees and plants in and around this poor fellow's property. Despite the landowner's protest, the World Heritage Adminstrators claimed control of his land. He tried working with the agencies to preserve these plants, but apparently his small orchard adjacent to the forest somehow endangered the rain forest and his little orchard was regulated away. Finally he just couldn't take it anymore and sold what limited rights he did have to someone else who wanted to sponsor ecotourism.

See, the UN seems to think that the private citisen has no idea how to properly care for land and has no basic rights to property. Inevitably this belief will clash with the US Constitution and our rights to private property and freedom from interference. It's just what is going to happen, and someone should have pointed this out years ago. In the 1970s when this abomination called a treaty was signed.
Just another reason the US needs to get out the UN.

Lady Raven

----------
Oh, and here's the proper documentation, so you can see for yourself:
UNSECO WHSites Operational Guidelines http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines
RE Yellowstone: http://www.sovereignty.net/p/land/wildlandtom.htm
Re the Austrailian Farmer: http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/whpwans97.html#anchor1035023

U.N.’s ‘Cash for Kim’ Scandal

Crossposted from The HILL Chronicles.

The U.S. Mission to the United Nations for digging into the going on’s of the U.N. Development Program (UNDP) in North Korea and uncovering streams of cash flowing via the UNDP to Kim Jong Il’s regime is more proof of the corruption that lays within the UN.

The story broke last week by FOX News and the Wall Street Journal, presents the U.N.’s new secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, with his first big test. Ban has responded by promising an “urgent” outside investigation of the global U.N. system, in which this latest scandal tips the continual scandal ridden UN.

Claudia Rossett writes:

The challenge now is to ensure that Ban’s proposed investigation does not turn into yet another ritual cover-up, but instead marks the start of a real clean-up, both within the UNDP, and well beyond.

Most immediately under the microscope is some $27.7 million spent by the UNDP in North Korea over the past decades — with stunningly lax oversight.

The U.S. is questioning the extent to which the UNDP has been providing “Cash for Kim,” as the Journal, in deference to the U.N.’s Oil-for-Food debacle, dubbed the scandal.

In a press conference on January 19, defending the UNDP’s actions as perfectly aboveboard, Associate Administrator Ad Melkert, the organization’s No. 2 man, said, “We’re not talking about hundreds of millions of dollars.” Then, he added: “Over a period of 10 years it is of course tens of millions.”

Actually, this scandal points to a great deal more than that, even if Ban focuses for now only on U.N. operations in Pyongyang. The UNDP, while serving as coordinator of U.N. programs in Pyongyang, is just one of about a half dozen U.N. agencies that have been operating in North Korea, including UNICEF, the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) and the World Food Program.

Combined, these agencies have poured close to $2 billion worth of resources into North Korea over the past decade or so, according to U.N. records. They have done this on terms giving Kim big opportunities to divert goods and charge fees for the benefit not of hungry North Koreans, but for his military and his gulag-running, missile-vending, nuclear-bomb-testing regime.

Of these billions in U.N.-dispensed largesse, the biggest portion by far has come via the World Food Program.

With the exposure of this latest scandal, the new Secretary General Ban’s promise of a system-wide audit of U.N. funds and programs is a huge improvement over the stonewalls of his predecessor, Kofi Annan. But the real issue here does not stop with the book-keeping. should Ban goes down this trail, Rossett says, "he will quickly confront a core failing of the UN — the chronic bias, in the name of helping the downtrodden, toward supporting the dictators who tread them down. At that point, he may have to choose whose side he’s on."

It is a shame that one must chose whose side he’s on - but it has always been that way. Good vs. evil; good vs. corruption; evil vs. character and integrity. We are soon to find out just what Ban is truly made of.