American Elephants


On Being Nice to Muslims, Or Not. by The Elephant's Child

Last December, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) pushed through a U.N. resolution with the enthusiastic cooperation of the Obama administration, which was to condemn the stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of people based on their religion. Team Obama led the way. No member state called for a recorded vote on the text, so it was adopted “by consensus.”

They have been trying to pass this for years, though strongly opposed by Western democracies. The resolution received a smaller number of votes each year.  Critics regard this as a measure to outlaw valid and critical scrutiny of Islamic teachings. Many OIC states have controversial blasphemy laws at home.

This year the text was revised, dropped the “defamation” language, and included a paragraph that reaffirmed “the positive role that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information can play in strengthening democracy and combating religious intolerance.”

More bureaucratese about discrimination on the grounds of religion, violations of human rights, concern about incitement to religious hatred and the failure of some states to “combat this burgeoning trend.” Also knock off the religious profiling.

This has had the expected influence in Islamic countries to control storming embassies, crucifying Copts, shooting rockets at Israeli civilians, killing American ambassadors, and that sort of thing.  That is, no influence at all.

The intent, of course, is to make people stop criticizing Muslims. You are not supposed to notice the screaming angry Muslims firing RPGs and climbing the walls of the embassies. And stop claiming that Iran is trying to perfect a nuclear weapon, when it’s only about peaceful nuclear energy.

A Senior Iranian official says U.S. President Barack Obama could face legal action in connection with the production of an anti-Islam movie by an American Jew. “A complaint could be filed with US courts against Obama for his violation of articles 18 and 27 of the ICCPR, adopted by the United Nations, which stipulates that the religion and the rights of minorities should be respected, said Javed Mohammadi, the deputy head of the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution.

I think this falls under the category of “Hoist with his own petard”, or maybe not, I’m not too sure about my understanding of petards. Maybe it’s just tit for tat.



The U.N. Wants Us to “Go Green”—It Will Only Cost $76 Trillion! by The Elephant's Child

The United Nations has issued a new 251 page report with the benign sounding name of the “World Economic and Social Survey 2011” and it is filled with interesting phrases like “a radically new economic strategy” and “global governance.”  Add in “national energy use caps” and a massive redistribution of wealth and the survey is trying to remake the entire globe.

The report is an official United Nations document and the preface is signed by U.N, Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon — all part of the “goal of full decarbonization of the global energy system by 2050.” But it seems that it is not just about climate.

The U.N. has been a remarkably ineffective and corrupt organization, but people assume that its role as a meeting place where all nations can be heard is somehow useful. Ineffectiveness aside, the U.N. has always been notable for its ambitions to be in charge of the government of the world. It has been their hope to accomplish this takeover by way of the climate debate — “going green.” Unfortunately U.N. funds have a way of ending up in the Swiss bank accounts of corrupt 3rd world dictators.  And Maurice Strong, who founded the IPCC, is now living in China supposedly with the benefit of his proceeds from “Oil for Food.”

The climate debate has expanded to eradicating hunger and overcoming poverty. The report says that the need is to “achieve a decent living standard for people in developing countries, especially the 1.4 billion still in extreme poverty, and the additional 2 billion people expected worldwide by 2050.

Just two years ago, U.N. researchers were claiming that it would cost “as much as $600 billion a year over the next decade to “go green.” The new report has more than tripled that number to $1.9 trillion per year for 40 years, or more than five times the entire Gross Domestic Product of the United States. This is a “technological overhaul” “on the scale of the first industrial revolution.”  Except in this case the U.N. will control this next industrial revolution.  Ambitious!  The U.N. calls for a push toward the “green economy” even though it freely admits “there is no unique definition of the green economy.”

The survey’s introduction rationalizes the massive cost by explaining “the green economy concept is based on the conviction that the benefits of investing in environmental sustainability outweigh the cost of not doing so.” So, by that rationale, any cost is sustainable.

And, as in all things from the U.N., government is the solution: “Governments will have to assume a much more central role” in making the change to a green economy. Where there’s government, there must be control and “active industrial and educational policies aimed at inducing the necessary changes in infrastructure and production processes.”

Well, “going green.”  The Kyoto Protocol, the only binding international agreement signed since the global warming scare began, expires after 2012.  Canada, Russia and Japan have declared that they will not renew. China and the United States have never signed it, and  are not about to. Poor countries are losing their enthusiasm as they realize that hard economic times mean less restitution money coming their way.

The EU’s commitment to reduce CO2 emissions by 20 percent invites corruption, and German investigators found that 850 million euros disappeared into criminal enterprises taking advantage of  the opportunity. Italians found wind farm developers were billing the country but never producing electricity. The potential for fraud is widespread, and even Obama administration warmists are beginning to notice. At least the U.S. insisted  that countries subject their emission claims to verification.
The Left’s big idea is that prosperous countries owe the world restitution for the sin of engaging in the Industrial Revolution and becoming prosperous. The Global Warming Policy Foundation notes that:

While it is encouraging that the global warming camp no longer has things entirely its own way, celebration would be premature. For all the gnashing of teeth and complaining about corporate influence we hear from global warming bureaucrats and campaigners, the truth is that, today, the warmists are the establishment.

Billions are being redistributed to researchers, developing nations, carbon speculators, alternative energy investors and other carbon profiteers – who would like to turn billions into trillions. Pity the poor carbon traders whose markets expire with Kyoto. Not all have their villa in the sun yet.

But rest assured, they will do whatever is necessary to get theirs. Big Warming will not surrender its hold on Western taxpayers without a fight.



Oh By All Means, Let’s Have a Meaningful Dialogue! by The Elephant's Child

Wednesday, September 23— President Obama speaks to the United Nations General Assembly. He says “if the governments of Iran and North Korea choose to ignore international standards…then they must be held accountable.  The world must stand together to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that treaties will be enforced.”

Thursday, September 24— President Obama chaired a session of the U.N. Security Council.  When the Security Council passed a new resolution which never mentions Iran or North Korea, Obama pounded his gavel and proclaimed: “The resolution we passed today will also strengthen the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  We have made it clear that the Security Council has both the authority and the responsibility to respond to violations to this treaty.  We’ve made it clear that the Security Council has both the authority and responsibility to determine and respond as necessary when violations of this treaty threaten international peace and security.  That includes full compliance with Security Council resolutions on Iran and North Korea.  Let me be clear.  This is not about singling out individual nations….[W]e must demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that treaties will be enforced.”

Friday, September 25— Speaking to the G-20 in Pittsburgh, President Obama admitted that “yesterday in Vienna, the United States, the United Kingdom, and France presented detailed evidence to the IAEA demonstrating that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been building a covert uranium enrichment facility near Qom for several years….The existence of this facility underscores Iran’s continuing unwillingness to meet its obligations under U.N. Security Council resolutions…Iran’s decision to build yet another nuclear facility without notifying the IAEA represents a direct challenge to the basic compact at the center of the non-proliferation regime…[T]he size and configuration of this facility is inconsistent with a peaceful program.  Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow… [and is; threatening the stability and security of the region and the world."

So when President Obama spoke to the General Assembly and the Security Council, he already knew that Iran's latest violations of "international standards"  endangered peace, but he refused to put Iran on the agenda of the Security Council summit. So he made a perfectly useless speech, and got a perfectly useless resolution.

As a matter of fact, the president has known since last fall, before he was inaugurated that Iran had another facility at Qom. He knew when Iranians  took to the streets to protest an illegitimate election, and he refused to offer any encouraging words.  The demonstrations continue, but words in favor of liberty have not been forthcoming.

President Nicolas Sarkozy of France [France!] in the U.N.’s translation from the French said…“President Obama himself has said that he dreams of a world without nuclear weapons.  Before our very eyes, two countries are doing exactly the opposite at this very moment.  Since 2005, Iran has violated five Security Council Resolutions… I support America’s extended hand.  But what have these proposals for dialogue produced for the international community  Nothing but more enriched uranium and more centrifuges.  And last but not least, it has resulted in a statement by Iranian leaders calling for wiping of the map a Member of the United Nations.

As Jules Crittenden said: “It’s a sad state of affairs when a Frenchman mocks an American president and you have to go with the frog.”

From his statement on Friday, Obama said: “The size and configuration of this facility is inconsistent with a peaceful program.” Gosh! You think?

The regime in Iran is corrupt, willing to use terror as a weapon at home and abroad. It has demonstrated over and over that it will stop at nothing to acquire nuclear weapons, and that it is dedicated to the destruction of Israel and of the United States.

Lest you think that President Obama has no particular foreign policy beyond a mushy hope for “meaningful dialogue” maybe around December or so, that he is unconcerned about a nuclear holocaust, never fear.  He says that if the international community does not act swiftly to deal with climate change that “we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe.”

“The security and stability of each nation and all peoples —  our prosperity, our health, and our safety — are in jeopardy. And the time we have to reverse this tide is running out.” But then the World Wildlife Fund and other environmental activist groups say the President’s speech didn’t go far enough, that it was an opportunity missed.

Well, it’s always especially nice when everybody has their priorities straight.That one degree of warming we had last century, back before 1998, was really worrying. Now that the climate’s been cooling for the last ten years we are facing “irreversible catastrophe”— but nuclear attacks — that’s so, so 20th century!



Reducing the problem to bullet points. by The Elephant's Child

Abe Greenwald went to a “Democrats for McCain” event a couple of days ago, and was impressed with speaker Bartle Bull’s bullet points:

8 YEARS OF AN OBAMA-PELOSI-ACORN ADMINISTRATION WOULD GIVE AMERICA:

♦ 8 YEARS OF SPREAD-THE-WEALTH SOCIALISM,

♦ 8 YEARS OF CHICAGO-STYLE CORRUPTION ,&

♦ 8 YEARS OF UNITED NATIONS-STYLE FOREIGN POLICY

That is short and sweet. And factual.




Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 6,433 other followers

%d bloggers like this: