YET ANOTHER TOP-NOTCH ACHIEVEMENT BY THE U.N.

As reported by www.EyeontheUN.org, Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann of Nicaragua, the current UN General Assembly President, used his position on November 24 to attack Israel. He accused the Jewish state of apartheid and called for a campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions. Brockmann also said that Israel is crucifying his Palestinian "brothers and sisters." The occasion? The annual UN Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.

What next?

As I wrote only yesterday, the UN has outlived its usefulness.

Now, for the record, I wish to go a step further. The UN does more harm than good, and every day that it stays open for business is a stain on humanity's already-compromised reputation. The sooner President Obama sends the UN packing, the better for us.

I wonder if he has any idea how wildly popular that would make him? Just a thought...

THE WORLD WITHOUT THE UN

This, from Mere Rhetoric (www.mererhetoric.com/): today, the UN is commemorating its annual International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People with a film depicting Jews as Nazi-equivalents and a public exhibit mourning the sixty years of Israel's existence. This day of solidarity comes just days before November 29: a reminder that, on that day in 1947, the UN voted to establish Jewish and Arab states in Palestine. (Which the Arabs rejected, thereby creating the Palestinian problem in the first place…)

Anne Bayefsky, editor of www.EYEontheUN.org rightly adds that “[t]he event is an annual reminder that the UN's real agenda is to delegitimize the birth - and the perseverance - of the state of Israel."

To which I say: What intelligent response can a halfway civilized human being make to such a show? Rage? Tears? Despair?

Well, neither. Let us simply make the UN go away.

Based strictly on the UN’s atrocious record on Israel, this once-respected organization appears to have outlived its usefulness. When you also consider the UN’s secretive and wastrel ways (a cool billion buckaroos to refurbish the Palais des Nations when millions are starving?), byzantine structure, thousands of do-nothing jobs and humiliating subservience to the most tyrannical nations on Earth today, the appearance morphs into certainty.

I believe that the demise of the UN will yield no major disasters. Other international structures will step into the breech. And we, we will find it easier to sleep nights. Conscience, y’know…

Perhaps we can try again in a few decades. It might be a waste of time, but the idea of a respected world body where nations can converse and settle their differences is a timeless and wonderful one. One day, we might succeed. But today’s UN is not it.

Mr. Obama, send ‘em packing. Now that would be change I can believe in!

I AM DYING TO SEE HOW MR. BERGSTROM WILL “MAKE AMENDS"

The AP has revealed yesterday that a Mr. Gunnar Bergstrom, a "former Communist," has apologized for sympathizing with the Khmer Rouge. In August 1978, he and three other members of a leftist Swedish “friendship delegation” had sat down with Pol Pot to a yummy seafood banquet and – apparently – a highly satisfying intellectual discussion of the many joys and virtues of the Khmer Rouge revolution. Now, we are told, Mr. Bergstrom realizes he was mistaken about Pol Pot's brutal regime and wants to make amends.

Sorry, Gunnar. All the essential facts about Kampuchea were out there even as you munched oysters with Southeast Asia’s very own Mr. Genocide. By then, millions had already died, and anyone who cared to know it, knew. You are thirty years too late.

But if you are truly sincere about making amends, why don’t you produce a kind of supplement to the Black Book of Communism, focusing on the near-universal leftist tradition of non-Nazi genocide denial? List all significant deniers from around the world and explain their rationales and motivations. That will not bring anyone in the killing fields back to life, but it just may open a few eyes.

Of which there are millions out there, veritably screaming for help with jacking up their lids.

THUS SPAKE SPAK, AND GOOD FOR HIM!

Hans von Spakovski, a visiting legal scholar at the Heritage Foundation, has highlighted a significant ongoing action to prevent fraudulent voting in Arizona (http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,452407,00.html). At issue is Arizona's Proposition 200 that requires positive identification and proof of citizenship to vote. Proposition 200 was overwhelmingly depanded by the people of Arizona but predictably opposed by the usual suspects, who tried to block it by injunction. The injunction was ultimately dissolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

As "the Spak" points out, the honor system that traditionally underlay the American voting process has failed. It is therefore time for more positive measures. Opponents of Proposition 200 have claimed all manner of "oppression" of the allegedly disenfranchised, but the rights of ordinary citizenry must also be respected. (By the way, because it is so easy to ignore or dismiss their concerns, I refer to ordinary citizenry as "the flyoverites" even though they - i.e. we - really live throughout the United States.) The courts are dead on when they say that "...preventing voter fraud was an important governmental interest that justified the proof of citizenship requirement, particularly when the state had actual evidence of non-citizens who had actually registered and voted illegally in Arizona in past elections." And: "...Proposition 200 enhances the accuracy of Arizona's voter rolls and ensures that the rights of lawful voters are not debased by unlawfully cast ballots." (Both quotes are extracted from the above mentioned article.)

Right!

HELPING WHEN HELP IS NO LONGER NEEDED

American and Iraqi troops have fought long and hard to triumph in Iraq. Now that they have done the bleeding, the European Union wants to muscle in on their success. We are told that "...the European Union intends to re-engage in the country without delay.”

But the EU is leaving itself an out, since this re-engagement (whatever that is) is linked to an improved security situation. As we are told by European diplomats: "At the moment, the country is probably still too insecure. But we’re starting the discussion now. The better things get, the more we can do.” And: "We are certainly concerned and we are thinking of ways of how to help stabilize the country...” So, "without delay" may really mean "never," since perfect security is a pipe dream.

But in case the EU is serious, there are still useful things to be done. Here is a short list:

• recompense the American people for 60% of all war-related expenses,
• immediately assume all material, manpower and financial responsibility for helping rebuild the Iraqi civil infrastructure, with a target completion date of 2011,
• immediately assume military responsibility for securing the Iran-Iraq and Iraq-Syria borders, stopping all infiltration, so American and Iraqi forces can finish mopping up in country.
• continue adequate military support for Iraq as long as it is required if/when the Obama administration pulls out U.S. troops before the job is done and then cuts off all material support to Iraq so that Iraqi forces will not longer be able to operate effectively (cf. U.S. Congressional actions during the last years of the Vietnam struggle).
  

However, the most useful things for the EU to do are moral in nature.

First, the EU must publicly apologize to the Iraqi and American people for the EU's lack of support to date, and publicly acknowledge that minor ideological differences with the U.S. administration are not a sufficient reason for evading solidarity in a struggle against terrorism and genocidal tyranny.

Second, the EU should finance a comprehensive study of how much more effectively the conflict in Iraq would have been fought, and how much shorter it would have been, had the EU done its moral duty and stuck with the coalition.

IT'S LOWER-CASE "D" DEMOCRACY, STUPID!

Valerie Jarrett, the co-chair of Barack Obama's Transition Team, told Tom Brokaw of Meet the Press this weekend that "...it's important that President-elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one."

Val, you're kidding, right? Val? Anybody home?

I seem to remember that Barack Obama was elected President, not el Supremo.

There is a world of difference between "assuming the responsibilities of the office" "really tak[ing] power and begin[ning] to rule."

I permit myself to hope that this was just a slip of the too-glib tongue that has come to typify the Obama machine; but if it is not, it sounds a lot like you guys are planning a restaging of the world-famous "Berlin 1933 Comedy Hour."

THE OBAMIZATION OF EASTERN EUROPE?

In Munich in 1938, the western powers decided to abandon the democratic and well-armed Czechoslovakia to National Socialist Germany even though honoring their military commitments would very likely have caused the fall of Hitler. What followed is, as they say, history.

Now, exactly seventy years later, we hear a rumor that President-elect Obama seems to be getting lukewarm on affirming his support for yet another courageous Eastern European nation, this time when the Russians have rattled their sabers. For Poland, which had made a major commitment to U.S. and NATO security by accepting U.S. anti-ballistic missiles on its territory, the implications of any waffling on the U.S. President's part are staggering.

I hope these rumors are untrue; but one way or another, I submit that Mr. Obama must now come out with a clear statement of support for our European allies. This is easy enough with regard to the leftish regimes in Western Europe; but it will take genuine statesmanship, not to mention cojones, to declare unconditional support for all those newly liberated nations in Eastern Europe which have suffered for so many years from depredations by the powerhouses of terror to their immediate west and east, and which are still clearly at risk from the east.

Mr. Obama, all you have to say is this: “The United States of America remains true to all its commitments to all our European allies. All plans to improve European security will proceed as planned. This includes the deployment of an anti-ballistic missile system to Poland and the Czech Republic to guard against the nascent missile threat from Iran and other rogue nations. I reiterate that this system is not, and never was intended to be, a threat to Russia.”

If Mr. Obama blinks and tragedy strikes, whether swiftly or insidiously, it may be that we will soon speak of the Obamization of Eastern Europe where, just a few decades ago, we had spoken of Finlandization -- or worse. This is not a legacy that this lower-case "d" democrat would want on his conscience.

THE AVARICE OF HOPE

President-elect Barack Obama wants still more money.

This time, it is to finance his transition to the White House. To collect, he has set up a non-profit corporation, the Obama-Biden Transition Project. It is true that transition teams have solicited funds before, but I suspect it has never been done in such a systematic, purposeful manner.

The main thing is this: if this so-called non-profit intends to use the shady shakedown methodologies for which the Obama campaign will live in infamy, we have a major problem. Now, I will be the first to point out that accountability that comes with public money is quite limited - any clever politician can tap-dance around it - but it is a damn sight better than NO accountability that comes with private donations from unknown sources in unknown locations. It strikes me that the President-elect is thumbing his nose at us.

Let us set some definitive rules for this kind of solicitation:

• no Internet donations at all,
• no single-use credit cards or any other instruments that cannot be fully traced,
• all donations must be completely transparent and traceable – name, U.S. address, proof of U.S. citizenship or residency,
• all donations must be made public within 6 hours on an Internet web site set up for this specific purpose, or they must be returned,
• a citizens’ panel shall be appointed to monitor this process at the non-profit’s expense - and no, the non-profit shall not have any power to appoint anyone to it or to block anyone's appointment,
• if this panel encounters any obfuscation by the non-profit on any single donation, the non-profit shall immediately surrender $500,000 of monies collected, to be used for, say, rehabilitating people falsely accused of racism, and for exposing their accusers.

Mr. Obama, it is time to start showing a commitment to democracy that goes beyond mere appearances. Like it or not, you are, in fact, responsible to us. The brouhaha over your Obamajugend plans – and the hasty changes that your troopers have already made to it on your Change website to contain the furor – should give you an indication that you have to be at least as moral and upright as us flyoverites.

OBAMA'S SECURITY APPARATUS (SA) IS FORMING IN A HURRY

Well, that did not take long, did it? The Obama transition team already has plans for coercing our children into the SA to do community service – 50 hours for the little ones, 100 for the bigger ones every year. (read all about it at http://change.gov/americaserves/).

Based on the President-elect's past record, I suspect that “community service” really means “community organization.” In other words, our youngsters will be indoctrinated, then marched somewhere and made to organize people to do Mr. Obama’s bidding, whether or not these hapless people need or want such “help."

This is a manifestation of President-elect Obama’s well-documented impatience with enumerated powers in the Constitution that limit excessive concentrations of power. He seeks more: much more. He wishes to be the supreme arbiter of what is right and wrong, moral and immoral, and to codify it in an ukase. He would issue diktats to us, taking charge of our lives and giving us no option to make decisions for ourselves. And he would frog-march the youngest and most impressionable ones among us out to do his dirty work.

Learn your history in a hurry, folks. That is the way it always happened in real socialist countries like my native Czechoslovakia of 1948-1989.

This how things will work for you under the Obama plan (as they did for us then). If you do not obey, you will not graduate. Your opposition will be noted down in a secret political reliability file (kádrový posudek, it was called). All potential employers will have to review this file before even granting you a job interview. Despite the size of the country and the population, this is a piece of cake, what with nationwide digital databases and instantaneous communication. Evidence of political unreliability, permanently entered in your file, will keep you out of any job other than hard manual labor - digging ditches or shoveling manure, for instance. Finally, if you do not land a job (a real possibility for an ideological adversary), you will be classified as a vagrant and a burden to society after 30 days or so - and you will get to do your "community service" anyway, only on chains.

Conveniently, those of us who are over 55 are only “encouraged” to take part - for now. There are sound strategic reasons for this sashay. First, given our age and life’s experiences, we are (theoretically) least vulnerable to brainwashing. Second, we are most likely to oppose this “change” since we know more about our rights under the Constitution than the younger set. Third, knowing a little more history that the young ones, we may have actual facts to impart about the real meaning of forced labor - because that is what the Obama plan proposes. We could create havoc by pointing this out, and make still more trouble by mentioning such simple but inconvenient truths as the complete lack of precedent for this in a free society. The closest analogy are FDR’s programs like the CCC, but these were voluntary, for adults only, and they paid. So they are really no precedent at all. The true precedents for the Obama plan are the forced labor systems of all the great, failed socialist experiments of the Twentieth Century: the USSR, National Socialist Germany, Fascist Italy, and all their more recent spawn like Khmer Rouge Cambodia.

My fellow oldsters, consider two things.

First, we are at risk, too. If history has anything of value to teach us, then, once the system is in place, we will no longer be able to opt out. And, if we do not obey…well, just recall that the first “reeducation camps” were set up for the domestic opposition – e.g. Solovki and Belbaltlag (and hundreds more) in the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, Oranienburg and Dachau in National Socialist Germany. So we, too, will be given an opportunity to serve the cause of change in such places if we do not obey.

And second. When, in the 1920s, details about the Soviet "community service" camps began to leak out, the British Anti-Slavery Society - one of a number of organizations and individuals still unafraid to speak out - actually started an investigation into the matter. I submit that we must duplicate that feat now, while we still have freedom of speech and freedom after speech; and shout out forcefully on behalf of our children.

Because if we do not, there will be no one left to even whisper for us when we are made to go.

SHAM SEXUAL HARASSMENT TRAINING AT UC IRVINE

Professor Alexander McPherson, a biologist at UC Irvine, has refused to undergo mandatory sexual harassment training and has been relieved of duty without pay. To him, such training is a sham, a “naked political act by the state that offended [his] sensibilities, violated [his] rights as a tenured professor, impugned [his] character and cast a shadow of suspicion on [his] reputation and career.”

Which is absolutely true.

I know. I am a survivor of many such “training” sessions. All have been subtle or not-so-subtle variations on the prepubescent girl theme that “boys are bad but girls are nice.” All were spiced with lurid descriptions of the evils of “male power,” all described women as poor, sweet, innocent, helpless victims. All cited oodles of advocacy - as opposed to real - research to support their arguments. Each time, I felt the impulse to search high and low, under chairs and in closets to find the kind of “evil male” that the highly paid “instructors” were talking about – because they certainly were not talking about me, or about any man I know. Each time, I left feeling frankly violated.

Good on you, Professor McPherson! Let us seek out and encourage those who want to resist this kind of ideological brainwashing, achieve critical mass, and finally banish this monster! In the meanwhile, I wish you the best of luck.

FAIRNESS AND CONSISTENCY (a.k.a. FREEDOM OF SPEECH vs. PORNOGRAPHY)

Democratic Campaign Committee Chairman Charles Schumer wants to reinstitute the so-called Fairness Doctrine for talk radio. “I think we should all be fair and balanced, don’t you?” he told Fox News. And: “…the very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC to limit pornography on the air….I am for that . . . But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

Minor problem. These are two different animals. The first essential difference is this. Political speech, regardless of orientation, is a right embedded in the Bill of Rights. There is no earthly way anyone can “balance” it without violating the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. Pornography, on the other hand, being a matter of taste, is not protected by anything unless you view it as an issue of freedom of speech, either directly or as an art form (to me, ma-a-a-ybe). But, Bill of Rights aside, freedom of speech is not damaging to human minds, especially young ones. Pornography is. That is the second essential difference. The makes porn a rightful target for some kind of formal or informal regulation: we would keep it away from kids for the same reason that we seek to keep guns away from them.

The lack of consistency that Senator Schumer complains about simply does not exist. What really rankles, I suspect, is the spectacular success of conservative talk radio. So what does a disapproving bureaucrat to do except to legislate it out of existence?

I would not like to be in Senator Schumer's shoes on this, but I can think of one way out his predicament. Let us give him consistency by instituting the Fairness Doctrine across the board: talk radio, TV, telephone campaigns, newspapers, magazines, anything at all on the Internet; in short any medium, existing or future, capable of delivering any message to anyone anywhere. Imagine the New York Times having to fire hundreds of left-leaning employees so they can attain 50% conservative staffing! Or the Huffington Post! Moreover, who will decide who is conservative and who is not? A governmental panel? Each organization that must reorganize? Senator Schumer himself? Talk about consistency issues in that bag of worms!

Come on, Senator! Nothing is stopping anyone from growing non-conservative talk radio shows on non-conservative radio stations. That is the only way to achieve fairness while remaining true to the Constitution.

THE MIRACLE OF THE VOTE

Just got back from voting. Funny, 43 years and 1 day ago exactly (11/03/65), our family and I landed in New York: bare-bottomed refugees from a Communist country. Ever since then--the miracle of freedom and democracy. I still cannot get over it. And this voting business: incredible. You walk into a polling station, and there are people of all kinds, from all walks of life, free to choose their destiny by making their voices heard. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, nothing is more important to democracy than a little man with a little pencil, making a little mark on a little piece of paper. This is the very heartbeat of freedom, and I for one do not know anything more sacred.

Let us hope that, even after today, this supreme gift will remain ours.

SHARE, BARRY!

In my view, a prospective President Obama must voluntarily tax himself and his friends under his sharing plan, before taking anyone else’s money. After all, he avers that he represents a new style of leadership.

And we all know that the most successful form of leadership is by example.

Here is as I see it:

- The Obama family - an extra $578,115.91 per year, in perpetuo.

- The Biden family - an extra $1,032,784.05 per year, in perpetuo.

- Each Obama supporter, individual or organization, making under $250,000.00 per year BEFORE adjustments and taxes - an extra $53,539.75 per year, in perpetuo.

- Each Obama supporter, individual or organizational, making more than $250,000.00 but less than $2,000,000.00 BEFORE adjustments and taxes - an extra $330,510,22 per year, in perpetuo.

- Each Obama supporter, individual or organizational, making more than $2,000,000.00 but less than $10,000,000.00 BEFORE adjustments and taxes - 41.5% of their unadjusted gross income per year, in perpetuo.

- Each Obama supporter, individual or organizational, making more than $10,000,000.00 BEFORE adjustments and taxes - 53.8% of their unadjusted gross income per year, in perpetuo.

Further, all Obama supporters who have ever salted any money offshore (how unpatriotic, right?) shall immediately make public all their offshore assets, move them all back into United States banks and, within twenty four (24) hours, retroactively pay the full tax rate, plus any penalties, on each penny moved offshore, from the date of transfer. All such proceedings will remain on the public record for the next fifty (50) years, for all Americans to see and monitor.

All monies thus collected shall be used to (a) pay off the national debt and (b) to bring to justice those Obama supporters who would so very unpatriotically resist this golden opportunity to lead by example.

My guess is that, when this sharing plan is implemented, the national debt will be eliminated within ten years. Talk about change we can believe in!

At first sight, this plan may not look “fair,” but to paraphrase Michelle Obama, we must look at things not they way they are, but as they SHOULD be.

mahout34

The Security Apparatus (SA) of The One Party

"Loving your country shouldn't just mean watching fireworks on the 4th of July," [Senator Obama] tells us. "Loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change it. If you do, your life will be richer, our country will be stronger.

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set[.]..."We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."

First of all, why exactly can't we rely on our military for all or a major portion of our national security objectives? Isn't that what the military is for?

Second, we already do have a "civilian national security force," which completes the picture. It's called police, in many different guises; from federal organizations like the FBI and DEA to state police forces, city and local police forces, sheriff's departments, etc. etc. That Senator Obama seeks a massive "national security force" over and above what we already have is a truly ominous development. What "national security objectives" does he have in mind?


Actually, this is not hard to understand. Given his ideological bent, Senator Obama seems to be in favor of a permanent single-party state. Just for fun, let us call this perpetually ruling party The One Party (TOP). To assure its survival, TOP must have a powerful paramilitary apparatus, the TOP-SA, as a counterweight to the traditional security forces, with a separate chain of command that answers only to TOP--and to The One. The purpose of TOP-SA will be to enforce every wish of TOP. My guess is that if Senator Obama gets his way, the TOP-SA will ultimately develop into a heavily armed force that is above the law. In its ranks will march, side by side, opportunists, starry-eyed fools, and anyone and everyone with a real or imagined grievance. All will believe that the end always justifies the means, and will be liberally rewarded for their exertions and loyalty. In other words, this is the end of the rule of law and of democracy.

It's not as if we haven't seen all this before. Remember the combined police/SA patrols in National Socialist Germany of the 1930s, with police having to look the other way whenever the SA wanted to kick someone around--or worse. Remember the "people's militias" and youth organizations like Komsomol and Pioneer in Communist countries. And then, in all these dispensations, there were the secret police forces, block committees, political snitches, etc. etc.: all part of the massive security apparatus without which the wheels of single-party states cannot turn.

But here is one crucial difference. The Europeans were at the mercy of their ruling elites. Americans are by an large an armed citizenry that insists on its rights and freedoms under the Constitution. That is a potent counterweight against the future TOP-SA or any similar totalitarian manifestation.