Category Archives: United Nations

Rubio Warns Of UN Takeover Of Internet

rubio_640
Senator Marco Rubio

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) plans to introduce strong belt buckle legislation to prevent a “takeover” of the Internet as we know it by the weak and corrupt United Nations or even another less friendly government regime. Speaking at Google’s office in Washington, the possible presidential contender said he will introduce legislation to codify U.S. support of an open Internet as other countries attempt to control its growth.

“Since the Web is worldwide—and since it has proven such an effective catalyst for pro-democratic revolution—it has become a battleground that many fight to control,” he said. Rubio pointed to 42 countries that limit the Internet within their borders and “now wish to take this further by exerting control over the way the Internet is governed and regulated internationally.”

“Many governments are lobbying for regulatory control by the United Nations or a governmental regime,” he said, and “opposing this takeover and preserving Internet freedom must be a top national priority.”

In a wide-ranging speech that touched on a broad array of economic topics, Rubio called for “new policies that encourage bold innovation.” He vowed to introduce legislation to reallocate federal government spectrum to the airwave-hungry wireless companies, who are looking to appeal to subscribers increasingly relying on their smartphone and other mobile devices. More broadly, Rubio called for an end to government involvement that impedes innovation and growth.

The U.S. can spend another century leading innovation, “but achieving this will require us to replace the antiquated policies and institutions of the last century with ones built for this new era,” he said. Rubio called for an overhaul to the tax system that would allow U.S. companies to avoid paying domestic taxes on revenue made and taxed abroad, and to take immediate deductions for investments. The Florida Senator is working on legislation with Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) that would make those changes.

Read more.

Will The Real Second Amendment Please Cock And Load?

Firearms
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
–Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).
Istumbled across this spot-on post by an insightful reader of The Federalist. Hat tip to Cylar.

It's sharply phrased and succinct, so I have chosen to republish it right here, a timely rehash of what we consider the one and only rather obvious interpretation of the personal protection against one's own rogue government as well as other proximity-tested threats to his person, family, property or state.

We suggest this moment in history is especially crucial, for even as we pen this silent outrage against us, the reckless, scheming United Nations and Madame Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton, both entities now firmly entrenched in the long range Obama administration strategy of neutralizing America for Pan-Marxist Islamic purposes, continue their assault against our sovereign rights as free democratic republican Americans with their so-called Small Arms Treaty set for signing later this month which calls for the confiscation of all small arms in America (worse case). This is a treaty we the people cannot let stand.

It has always struck me as a bit funny that while nine of the ten amendments of the Bill of Rights are clearly intended to protect the rights of individuals against government overreach, we still have some (too many, actually) who insist that the 2nd Amendment was inserted so as to confer a right on government itself.

(Sarcasm on.) Because, you know, conferring a collective right on a “militia” (rather than individual citizens) is entirely consistent with the right of free speech (1st), the right against unreasonable search (4th), the right against self-incrimination (5th), and the stipulation that the federal government is prohibited from doing anything NOT expressly authorized by the Constitution (10th). I’m sure Madison and the others paused in the middle of scribbling down these individual rights, and said, “Hang on. We need to make sure everyone understands the police and the army have the right to carry weapons. Just to clear up any confusion.” (Sarcasm off.)

Also, I hate to break this to the gun-grabbers, but “the militia” isn’t a government organization like the National Guard. It’s the whole citizenry, specifically able-bodied males 17 and older. Secondly, “well regulated” means disciplined and trained. It doesn’t mean “covered with lots of laws.”

The 2nd Amendment was clear from the word go, and two SCOTUS rulings have made it even more clear that it applies to individual citizens. Why there is still controversy on this point is a mystery to me.

But try explaining this to some gun grabber, and he’ll produce a strawman like, “So, this means I have the right to mount artillery on my pickup, then?” instead of arguing the point maturely and rationally.

If the framers had meant to say the “states” or the “state militias” in order to convey a collective right then they most assuredly would have, for these men were not lazy thinkers and writers. As pointed out in many a discussion of the topic, the writers used the words “the people” when reconciling this right of the people, first and foremost, just as they did in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th amendments, which have consistently been understood to convey rights to individuals, not the people collectively. The concerns of Madison, Jefferson et al are easily reconciled since the militia clause is explanatory, not limiting. In fact, the majority of SCOTUS said the same thing when they struck down the Chicago gun ban two years ago.

From Complacency To Apathy

bust78
Full benefits for me and thee, or bust!

A ROBUST DEMOCRACY CANNOT EXIST as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage. Evidence that is consistent with conventional theories of why democracy emerges and is sustained has been hard to come by. Recent statistical analyses have challenged modernization theory by demonstrating that there is no reliable evidence for the claim that democracy is more likely to emerge when countries become wealthier, more educated, or less unequal. In the 21st century, democracy has become such a popular method of reaching decisions that its application beyond politics to other areas such as entertainment, food and fashion, consumerism, urban planning, education, art, literature, science and theology has been criticized as "the reigning dogma of our time". The argument is that applying a populist or market-driven approach to art and literature for example, means that innovative creative work goes unpublished or unproduced. In education, the argument is that essential but more difficult studies are not undertaken. Science, which is a truth-based discipline, is particularly corrupted by the idea that the correct conclusion can be arrived at by popular vote.

Scheme To Criminalize Christians

Beheshti
Islam Wants You!

DOZENS OF BROKEN NATIONS dominated by Islam are pressing the United Nations to adopt an anti-"defamation" plan that would make Christians criminals under international law, according to a United States organization that has launched a campaign to defend freedom of religion worldwide.

"Around the world, Christians are being increasingly targeted, and even persecuted, for their religious beliefs. Now, one of the largest organizations in the United Nations is pushing to make a bad situation even worse by promoting anti-Christian bigotry," the American Center for Law & Justice said yesterday in announcing its petition drive.

The discrimination is "wrapped in the guise of a U.N. resolution called 'Combating Defamation of Religions,'" the announcement said. "We must put an immediate end to this most recent, dangerous attack on faith that attempts to criminalize Christianity."

"They're attempting to pass a sinister resolution that is nothing more than blatant religious bigotry," the ACLJ said in its promotion of its petition. "This is very important to understand. This radical proposal would outlaw Christianity...it would make the proclamation of your faith an international crime."

Around the globe events like these continue to happen:

  • Award-winning author Mark Steyn has been summoned to appear before two Canadian Human Rights Commissions of vague allegations of "subject[ing] Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt" for comments in his book, "America Alone," the group said.
  • In Pakistan, 15 people were accused of blasphemy against Islam during the first four months of 2008, the organization said.
  • Another Pakistani man sentenced to life in prison for desecrating the Quran was jailed for six years before being acquitted of the charge.
  • In Saudi Arabia a teacher was sentenced to three years in prison plus 300 lashes "for expressing his views in a classroom."
  • In the United Kingdom, police announced plans to arrest a blogger 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."

    Read it all.

  • Obama's New World Order

    pocket
    The truth about some of us, and those who don't even need pockets.

    THE UNITED STATES SENATE MAY vote any day on the stealth imposition of what could amount to an $845 BILLION United Nations style global tax on American citizens? It's called the Global Poverty Act (S.2433), and it is being sponsored by none other than Senator Barack Obama. According to conservative sources, this disastrous legislation could eventually force U.S. taxpayers to fork over as much as 0.7 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product—or $845,000,000,000.00—on welfare to third-world countries. Here's what Phyllis Schlafly, conservative activist and founder of Eagle Forum, recently wrote: "Obama's costly, dangerous and altogether bad bill (S. 2433), which could come up in the Senate any day, is called the Global Poverty Act. It would commit U.S. taxpayers to spend 0.7 percent of our Gross Domestic Product on foreign handouts..."

    Time is of the essence because Senator Joe Biden, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee just issued a report on the Global Poverty Act and it was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar on Thursday, April 24. That means that time is of the essence as this potentially massive surrender of your hard-earned tax dollars to the third world may be close to a vote. That's why we must act today. BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!

    The Senate Shell Game...

    Advocates of the Global Poverty Act are claiming that it does not really commit the United States to anything—that it won't really cost anything—that it simply requires the President—in conjunction with the Secretary of State—to "develop" strategies to alleviate world poverty.

    In fact, Biden's report incredulously states, "implementing S. 2433 would cost less than $1 million per year." Technically he's correct—after all, it doesn't really cost that much to develop and formulate strategies.But such a cleverly worded contention begs the question:  Why formulate or develop a strategy if there is no intention to follow through on that specific strategy? eagleAnd what would it cost to actually follow through on a strategy to alleviate world poverty? The Global Poverty Act intentionally gives no specific figures but it does contain clues, and those clues are stated repeatedly in the legislation's reliance on the United Nations Millennium Development Goal. WorldNetDaily.com quotes Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media as saying: "The bill defines the term 'Millennium Development Goals' as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration. In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child."

    As for specific figures, WND reports:

    "Those U.N. protocols would make U.S. law on issues ranging from the 2nd Amendment to energy usage and parental rights all subservient to United Nations whims."

    "[T]he legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years would amount to $845 billion 'over and above what the U.S. already spends.' The plan passed the House in 2007 'because most members didn't realize what was in it.' Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require."

    And, how would the United States pay for this $845 BILLION commitment?  According to Kincaid, who published a report on the legislation; "A global tax will clearly be necessary to force American taxpayers to provide the money."

    Presume that $845 BILLION global tax is in addition to our nation's current Foreign Aid programs, which, in 2006, cost American taxpayers about $300 BILLION! Senator Obama's Global Poverty Act has already passed the House (many Members unfortunately voted in favor of it without carefully noting exactly what was in it) and President Bush may very well sign it! That's why it must be stopped, and it must be stopped NOW! It Gets Worse!

    Here are some of the additional provisions of the Millennium Development Goal:

    • a "currency transfer tax," that is, a tax imposed on companies and individuals who must exchange dollars for foreign currency;
    • a "tax on the rental value of land and natural resources";
    • a "royalty on worldwide fossil energy projection—oil, natural gas, coal";
    • "fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for airplane use of the skies, fees for use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees on foreign exchange transactions, and a tax on the carbon content of fuels."
    • a "standing peace force," meaning a standing United Nations army that might, in time, be large enough to force us to bend to its will;
    • a "UN arms register of all small arms and light weapons," the beginning of the end of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution;
    • the "eradication of poverty" by the "redistribution [of] wealth and land"

    How do you suppose the United Nations expects to "redistribute" the land and the wealth?  And what country do you think the third-world majority will go after first?

    • cancellation of "the debts of developing countries,"
    • "a fair distribution of the earth's resources."
    • "political control of the global economy."

    In other words, it's a blueprint for a world government, owned and operated by the United Nations. One thing is clear: the Millennium Development Goal is a dagger aimed at the heart of America. While the Global Poverty Act, as presently championed by its Senate supporters, embraces certain aspects of the Millennium Development Goal, one should wonder if some of our legislators also support land and wealth "redistribution."

    We must stop this bill dead in its tracks. We must stop this subversion NOW!  Don't let Senator Obama's Global Poverty Act sneak through the Senate. 

    Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent and personalized Blast Fax messages to President George W. Bush and each member of the Republican leadership of the United States Senate. Let them know in no uncertain terms that you are watching and you will not tolerate massive United Nations style giveaways that are passed in the dark of night—or in broad daylight for that matter. Tell them that putting us on the road to give billions to petty tyrants and dictators is NOT a solution to poverty. This bill can come up for a vote at any time. Demand that our conservative legislators do whatever it takes—a filibuster if necessary—to stop this bill dead in its tracks.

    Click here to keep America free from global plundering.

    Kicking The United Nations Out

    betsy-ross-old-glory
    Bringing the US back means kicking the UN out...

    We must quit the United Nations. Then we must nationalize the UN properties, and send those carpetbagger delinquents, I mean delegations of Islamic appeasement, packing. Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post discusses the dire implications of the UN's willingness to throw freedom of speech overboard to placate the Islamic world.

    The West stands by idly as its foundations are rent asunder. Last Friday the UN's Human Rights Council took a direct swipe at freedom of expression. In a 32-0 vote, the council instructed its "expert on freedom of expression" to report to the council on all instances in which individuals "abuse" their freedom of speech by giving expression to racial or religious bias.
    The measure was proposed by paragons of freedom Egypt and Pakistan. It was supported by all Arab, Muslim and African countries—founts of liberty one and all. European states abstained.

    The US, which is not a member of the Human Rights Council, tried to oppose the measure. In a speech before the council, US Ambassador to the UN in Geneva Warren Tichenor warned that the resolution's purpose is to undermine freedom of expression because it imposes "restrictions on individuals rather than emphasiz[ing] the duty and responsibility of governments to guarantee, uphold, promote and protect human rights."

    By seeking to criminalize free speech, the resolution stands in breach of the UN's Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19 of that document states explicitly: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

    The Europeans' decision to abstain rather than oppose the measure seems, at first glance, rather surprising. Given that the EU member states are among the UN's most emphatic champions, it would have seemed normal for them to have opposed a resolution that undermines one of the UN's foundational documents, and indeed, one of the most basic tenets of Western civilization.

    But then again, given the EU's stands in recent years against freedom of expression, there really is nothing to be surprised about. The EU's current bow to intellectual thuggery is of course found in its response to the Internet release of Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders' film Fitna.

    The EU has gone out of its way to attack Wilders for daring to exercise his freedom of expression. The EU's presidency released a statement condemning the film for "inflaming hatred." Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende issued statements claiming that the film "serves no other purpose than to cause offense."

    Then, too, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon blasted the film as "offensively anti-Islamic."

    These statements follow the EU's quest to restrict freedom of speech following the 2005 publication of cartoons of Muhammed in Denmark's Jyllands Posten newspaper. They also come against the backdrop of the systematic silencing of anti-jihadist intellectuals throughout the continent. These intellectuals, such as Peter Redeker in France and Paul Cliteur in the Netherlands, are threatened into silence by European jihadists. And the governments of Europe either do nothing to defend the threatened thinkers or justify the intellectual blackmailers by sympathizing with their anger.

    IT IS axiomatic that freedom of expression is the foundation of human freedom and progress. When people are not allowed to express themselves freely, there can be no debate or inquiry. It is only due to free debate and inquiry that humanity has progressed from the Dark Age to the Digital Age. This is why the first act of every would-be tyrant is to take control of the marketplace of ideas.

    Yet today, the nations of Europe and indeed much of the Western world, either sit idly by and do nothing to defend that freedom or collaborate with unfree and often tyrannical Islamic states and terrorists in silencing debate and stifling dissent.

    So why is the UN still in the US? The original headquarters is old. It was built when membership was half (at least) what it is now. The UN expects the US taxpayer to foot the bill for a new HQ in NYC. Why aren't the wealthier nations of the world paying up? It's not 1945. The US shouldn't need to pay 25% of the UN's operating costs. It shouldn't need to pay 15%. Even 10% is high, but it's acceptable. Journalist Fareed Zakaria describes this as a post-American world. Let's move the UN to a post-American locale. How about somewhere in Asia?

    Read it all.

    Islamic Nations Rip Free Speech

    Not exactly big news, But aren't we giddy that someone in the West is actually taking up this hot potato! Not that they will run with it very far before tossing it aside so as not to offend the offenders.

    Geert Threat
    Threat from Indonesia

    The government of the world's most populous Islamic state says YouTube has two days to take down a Dutch lawmaker's provocative film on the Koran or it will block access to the popular video-sharing Web site. Yes. Islamic nations rip free speech every chance they get. The warning by Indonesia came as the U.N.'s primary human rights watchdog ended a month-long session amid allegations by Western member-states and non-governmental organizations that Islamic nations are working to curtail free speech.

    Geert Wilder's 16-minute film linking Islam's revered text with terrorism has sparked protests in a number of countries. It also drew criticism from the Arab League, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and the European Union.

    In Indonesia, a former Dutch colony, Information Minister Mohammad Nuh told a press briefing in Jakarta Tuesday he had sent a letter to YouTube demanding the film, "Fitna," be removed. If it did not comply, he said, the government in cooperation with Internet service providers would block the site.

    As of early Wednesday afternoon Indonesian time, attempts to view at least one earlier-available upload of the movie on YouTube brought up a message saying, "This video has been removed due to terms of use violation."

    But the film has been uploaded on YouTube by multiple users and can still be found with a simple search in both its English and Dutch versions...

    Why not block it now? Why make such a big public issue? Because Islam is hypocritical about free speech just as it is about everything else. One rules for Islam. Another rule for kafir. They're trying to squeeze as much out of this puffed-up issue as they can because they're trying to publically "face down" the infidel. If they really want to block it, simply block it. No need to do or say anything else.