Category Archives: UN

Saudi Arabian Execution Is A Good Excuse For the US To … Leave The UN

Foreign Policy, Middle East, Nationhood, UN

The role the US should play in the execution by Saudi Arabia of a Shiite cleric is twofold:

First, make clucking sounds and issue empty statements. Here’s an example, via RT:

“Human Rights Watch strongly criticized the Saudi executions. Regardless of the crimes allegedly committed, executing prisoners [en masse] only further stains Saudi Arabia’s troubling human rights record,” Sarah Leah Whitson, the group’s Middle East director said, adding that al-Nimr was convicted in an “unfair” trial and that his execution “is only adding to the existing sectarian discord and unrest.” “Saudi Arabia’s path to stability in the Eastern Province lies in ending systematic discrimination against Shia citizens, not in executions.”

Next, use the occasion to get the hell out of the UN, where Saudi Arabia plays a prominent role in … human rights affairs.

Through its many agencies, the U.N. works tirelessly to undermine the values of economic freedom and individual responsibility and to consolidate a coercive global economic order. If the people ought to govern, then it seems obvious that a centralized administration like the U.N., with considerable sway over “sovereign” nation-states, is a danger to the freedoms of all nations and their individual subjects.

That the UN is a terrible enterprise with too much power over the US is nothing new. “The mass execution of 47 including the Shia cleric,” by a mover and shaker of the UN’s Human Rights apparatus, would have simply afforded any moral government the diplomatic opportunity to say adios to the UN blight, for once and for all.

The second response is as likely as a snowstorm in the desert. “That the U.N. is working diligently to homogenize laws the world over is a source of delight to national leaders. These leaders don’t want to have to stay competitive in order to keep productive people and their capital in their jurisdictions. The real U.S. sovereignty violators then are successive American governments. By becoming signatories to global wealth-distributing agreements and assorted schemes that place Americans under U.N. jurisdiction, our own governments continue to betray us.

Why Does Paul Ryan Conflate Bill Of Rights With Refugee Bill Of Goods?!

Constitution, Homeland Security, IMMIGRATION, Law, Reason, Republicans, UN

Paul Ryan is no Ted Cruz. Ryan’s illogical statements already grate. On Fox News, the other day, Paul Ryan disavowed a religious test in accepting refugees. We believe in religious freedom, he said, hence a preference for Christians over Muslims is “not who we are.” (I dissect the “not who we are” cudgel in tomorrow’s WND column.)

Wait a sec, Mr. Ryan, the so-called right to immigrate here irrespective of religion is not the same thing as the right of religious freedom. From the fact that Americans have a constitutional right to religious freedom, it doesn’t flow that refugees from all faiths must be welcome.

Don’t panic. As it is, the US privileges Muslims: “2,098 Syrian Muslim refugees were allowed into America, but only 53 Christians.”

As reported by Breitbart.com, demographic change in the US is entirely the product of legal admissions–”it is a formal policy of the federal government adopted by Congress.” Thus,

Another major source of Middle Eastern immigration into the United States is done through our nation’s refugee program. Every year the United Stated admits 70,000 asylees and refugees. Arabic is the most common language spoken by refugees, and 91.4 percent of refugees from the Middle East are on food stamps.

In the same Fox News exchange, it transpired that Ryan loves our refugee laws—they are important legislation, he said on that occasion. But why? Like most positive law, US refugee law is written by and for special interests, starting with one of the most corrupt UN agencies, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Besides who approved these refugee laws? Likely fewer than 535 law makers legislating on behalf of 323 million people who have to live with the law’s consequences.

Yalta: Where Franklin D. Roosevelt Conceded To Communism

America, Britain, History, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Russia, UN, War

Richard Ebeling at Target Liberty (TL) reminded us in advance that “February 4th mark[ed] the 70th anniversary of the most famous and infamous Yalta Conference between Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin during February 4-11 of 1945,” who

… determined the fates of hundreds of millions of human beings:
All the people of Eastern Europe who were turned into the “captive nations” in the direct grip of Stalin behind the “Iron Curtain.” The destiny of mass of the Chinese population, as Stalin was given an entrée into Manchuria that opened the door for Mao’s communist conquest of China.
The division of Korea into North and South, that handed over the people of the North to a totalitarianism on a Stalinist model that stills rules today, and set the stage for the three-year Korean War that cost the lives of 50,000 American service men, and more than a million Koreans.
And FDR’s “dream” of the United Nations as a U.S. and Soviet-led organization to manage and redesign the world through the use of economic sanctions and global policemen using force to put down rebellions or disagreements with what the “Great Powers” believed was good for mankind.

At least in the excerpt provided at TL, Dr. Ebeling may have been hasty in lumping Winston Churchill with Franklin Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin. Yes, Churchill rolled over, because he was desperate for FDR’s financial support. But not before he attempted he save Greece, admittedly at a cost to the “rest of the Balkans.”

Franklin Roosevelt, in particular, like many pseudo-intellectuals of his time, explains historian Paul Johnson, regarded the Soviet Union as a “peace loving democracy, with an earnest desire to better the conditions of the working peoples of the world.” FDR’s advisers in Moscow considered Stalin a benevolent, genial democrat. “This monster, who was responsible for the death of 30 million of his own people,” was regarded by the American administration as “exceedingly wise and gentle.” “Grotesquely Stalinist” too were Harold Denny and Walter Duranty, the New York Times’ reporters in Moscow.

In his defense, Churchill was avowedly anti-communist and detested Stalin, which is why FDR thought of him as a “reactionary … an old incorrigible imperialist, incapable of understanding [Stalin’s] ideological idealism.” Against the wishes of Winston Churchill did FDR agree to “give Stalin what was not his to give.”

(A History of The American People by Paul Johnson, pp. 790-791.)

UPDATED: Both Bonking Moon and BHO Affirm Islam (Still, ‘ISIS Is Islam’)

Barack Obama, Islam, UN

I am unable to retrieve the exact comments of the UN’s Bonking Moon about Islam, but they were of a piece with BHO’s. Both the United Nations general secretary, whom the New York Times calls Mr. Ban (derived from Ban Ki-Moon), and the US’s Barack Obama made sure to affirm Islam in their respective addresses to the United Nations General Assembly, September 24, 2014. Asserted Obama:

“… we have reaffirmed that the United States is not and never will be at war with Islam. Islam teaches peace. Muslims the world over aspire to live with dignity and a sense of justice. And when it comes to America and Islam, there is no us and them – there is only us, because millions of Muslim Americans are part of the fabric of our country.”

The thesis of Samuel P. Huntington, author of “The Clash of Civilizations,” BHO, it would appear, dismisses with one sentence: “we reject any suggestion of a clash of civilizations.”

The goods on Islam:

* ISIS, as caliphate, is permitted to wage offensive Jihad by Islamic law.
* ISIS is practicing “purification Jihad”; the murders are for the expulsion of “hypocrites” (those who collaborate with the enemy) and apostates (Shiite).
* Islam does not forbid killing Muslims: If one becomes a Muslim and one commits adultery, leaves the faith or kills another Muslim—the offender can be killed.

MORE.

As I have written, “ISIS is Islam.”