We have written about the Islamic OIC-led assault on free speech many times here, but the Election Blah is so thick these days that few other sites have taken much interest -- despite the fact that this resolution, if it succeeds, could destroy the basis on which they operate. No one really thinks it can happen here. But it can -- our opposition to this measure could change with the change of administrations.
"U.S. fights Islamic anti-defamation push," by Betsy Pisik for the Washington Times, September 2:
UNITED NATIONS | The Bush administration, European governments and religious rights organizations are mounting a new effort to defeat a General Assembly resolution that demands respect for Islam and other religions but has been used to justify persecution of religious minorities.The resolution, called "Combating Defamation of Religion," is sponsored by the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and has been approved by the world body annually since 2005. It comes up for renewal this fall.
U.S. officials said they hope to persuade moderate Muslim nations - among them Senegal, Mali, Nigeria and Indonesia - to reject the measure, which lacks the force of law but has provided diplomatic cover for regimes that repress critical speech. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic.
Religious rights groups say other U.N. measures, including statements by the Human Rights Council in Geneva, replicate the language of the resolution.
"Before, it was one resolution with no impact and no implementation," said Felice Gaer, chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a bipartisan federal body that investigates abuses and proposes policies to advance "freedom of thought, conscience and religion."
"Now we are seeing a clear attempt by OIC countries to mainstream the concept and insert it into just about every other topic they can," Miss Gaer said. "They are turning freedom of expression into restriction of expression."
European governments are also concerned.
The European Center for Law and Justice filed a brief with the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights in June warning that such anti-defamation resolutions "are in direct violation of international law concerning the rights to freedom of religion and expression."
U.S. officials working on human rights said the resolutions are being used to justify harsh blasphemy laws in countries such as Pakistan, Egypt, Sudan and Afghanistan.
The OIC said most of the language in the Combating Defamation of Religion resolution has been used in conventions on cultural and civil rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and resolutions to combat racism.
The densely worded document is meant to safeguard religious ideas and allow religious minorities to lead "a life of respect ... free of coercion, fear or threat," the OIC office in Geneva told The Washington Times in an e-mail. The office noted that U.N. human rights rapporteurs have been reporting an increase in the number and intensity of "racio-religious" discrimination.
Incidents cited include remarks last year about Islam by Pope Benedict XVI, the publication of cartoons in Danish newspapers that contained unflattering images of the prophet Muhammad and religious rulings issued against iconoclastic Muslim writers such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Salman Rushdie.
The most recent version of the anti-defamation resolution, passed by the world body in December, cites the erroneous connection of Islam to terrorism and "stresses the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions and incitement to religious hatred, against Islam and Muslims in particular."...
It's a jihadist initiative, meant to stifle discussion of the elements of Islam that jihadists use to justify violence and supremacism, at a time when Islamic supremacists are on the march as they have not been for centuries.
U.S. officials said they hope to persuade moderate Muslim nations - among them Senegal, Mali, Nigeria and Indonesia.
1. "Moderate Muslims" - this is a modern media chimera.
2. Is there free speech in these countries?
3. Can non-Muslims speak freely or have guarantied civil rights in these countries?
4. Is Sharia law practiced in any of these countries?
5. Why would they care about this issue?
Can anyone imagine an Obama administration taking this kind of stand against the OIC -- especially after the publication of Doudou Diène's report on his ACLU-shepherded US tour appears early next year and the "Durban II" Islamophobiafest is held next April?
http://greenspiece.blogspot.com/2008/06/dine-and-obama-perfect-storm.html
Let no one suppose we don't have a dog in this election fight.
I recommend this latest video from Pat Condell in which he tackles this very issue.
To great effect.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JIq7tsVvEoY
Which OIC member country allows ITS OWN religious minorities to lead "a life of respect ... free of coercion, fear or threat"?
Physician, heal thyself.
quote:""Now we are seeing a clear attempt by OIC countries to mainstream the concept and insert it into just about every other topic they can," Miss Gaer said. "They are turning freedom of expression into restriction of expression."unquote
Gaer didn't realize that her statement showed sheer ignorance/stupidity/irresponsibility/willful ignorance on her part. There have been plenty of statements from the jihadists clearly stating their intent on submitting the whole world to their terrorist religion.
Now that this resolution has been on the UN agenda for the past several years, it would be more difficult to repudiate it. It should not have been passed from the very beginning.
That's how the jihadists do their 'peaceful' jihad, by inching their way in slowly, slowly, slowly and by the time the infidels realizes that one of their rights have been or are going to be severly curtailed, if not taken away, it's very difficult to fight back.
It starts with accommodating the jihadsts by little things like foot baths, separate times for women to use swimming pools, etc. etc.
I sure hope that the leaders in the west will conscientiously do their job and do whatever is right to uphold our laws and freedoms and not vote with an eye on how many votes they could get from their muslim constituency.
"... the erroneous connection of Islam to terrorism ...". What erroneous connection?
What year is this?
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
Dead on, Papa Whiskey.
There are many here who are so vexed by Republican short-comings that they think things couldn't get any worse. They are sorely mistaken.
The UN has been without function or purpose since Durban.
Collect the parking fines and send them on their way.
I hear there's a nice site in Ouagoudougou available.
Pat Condell calls it "legalizing evil"
"Pat Condell calls it "legalizing evil" "
It's worse than that--it's protecting evil by punishing attempts to call attention to evil.
Cornelius,
You bet things can get a lot worse. But let's stop blaming it all on Obama. If Obama is the fast jihad then McCain is the slow jihad. If we're extremely lucky then we can expect no more from a McCain adminstration than putting the jihad in neutral. Even that will require draconian changes in our immigration laws, which McCain is not prepared even to propose, let alone implement. It was pulling teeth to get him to agree to protect the border.
How is McCain different from Obama? No one's a terrorist unless he's caught on film blowing someone up or planning to. A strong military is not enough.
Perfectly stated, Jasmine.
PMK: "How is McCain different from Obama?"
My God.
"How is McCain different from Obama?"
On Iraq.
On Iran.
On taxes.
On energy.
On political-correctness (the former has dared use the term "radical-Islam" on several occasions)
On the fairness doctrine.
On abortion.
On Supreme Court nominees and judicial activism.
On health care.
On labor union voting procedures (Obama supports an end to the secret ballot)
The list is practically endless.
No "religion" defames others as much as Islam. And no book defames others' beliefs as much as the Koran. If this resolution is passed, the OIC should be hoist by its own petard.
Cornelius,
Nice evasion.
From taxes on down, the issues you list are meaningless when we are confronted with the jihad.
How is McCain different from Obama ON ISLAM and on the JIHAD?
I believe he is the same as Bush: there are bad Muslims but most are good people and we need to accept them on their terms and let's all just get along. Everyone must be treated with utmost respect and the koran handled with gloves and the people not made to feel unwelcome.
Iraq is beside the point.
Iran is beside the point.
Even if we put everyone in both of those countries in a trance, we would still be in danger.
AMERICA is the point.
Here is some suggested reading:
Well my system is breaking down but you can check www.islamwatch.org
The top article is the wake-up call for the West.
Cornelius,
Here's the link. It's preaching to the converted but this guy goes right to the heart of our national policy regarding Islam. HOW will McCain differ from Obama in this regard?
http://islam-watch.org/Others/Islam-Awakening-for-Infidel-World.htm
This is another reason we should withdraw from the U.N.
The Difference between Obama and McCain on the Jihad issue is that Obama is viewed as a fellow muslim by muslims outside the United States. By virtue of being born of a muslim father, he is a muslim in the eyes of muslims.
And he has been endorsed by Hamas, Ahmanutjob, Chavez, Castro, etc. etc.
PMK: "Iraq is beside the point. Iran is beside the point."
RESPONSE: I guess the entire Muslim world is beside the point, eh?
Sorry friend. Our respective world-views are quite divergent on this and many other issues. Like Bush and every other politician in America save for a select few like Tancredo and Santorum, I'll certainly concede that McCain is behind the learning curve when it comes to Islam. Having said that, to suggest there will be no real difference between McCain and Obama in confronting our enemies is - in my humble estimation - a tell-tale example of political myopia.
But by all means PMK, vote for Obama.
The resolution, called "Combating Defamation of Religion," is sponsored by the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and has been approved by the world body annually since 2005. It comes up for renewal this fall.
This WILL absolutely come to pass sooner or later. WHEN it does, it WILL be set in stone and will be irreversable.
The question that needs to be seriously considered NOW is exactly how this will impact JW?
PMK, at least McCain would fight a war for our nation
Important stuff. Much more than the election 'Blah', which we in our country deal with in just 3 weeks, then move on to real issues.
I've posted the story on my blog, and circulated the information.
Callidus,
You think so? Let's all stop living in the past.
I think the impact of this being passed is mainly the UN being further discredited. Which may not be that bad a thing, after all.
Cornelius,
I asked a simple question. You don't have the answer. FINE.
You misunderstand me. Obama terrifies me. I'm not voting for him. I don't understand why you think McCain is the answer. If you think electing McCain means we will fight the jihad then think again.
I'm still looking for an answer. We know Obama won't fight the jihadist threat IN THE US! But what makes McCain any different? What policy statement has he made that separates him from Obama ON THIS ISSUE? Whether you like it or not, Iraq is a done deal.
That McCain fought a war thirty years ago is a point in his favor but it's not enough. We have had many war heroes seek to become president. Some of them lost. We can't fight yesterday's wars over again. We are in a different situation with a different enemy and a different danger. What would McCain, given the power, do to protect AMERICAN CITIZENS from Islamic jihadists?
Has he given the slightest indication that he has a new insight?
George W. Bush went from "if you're not with us you're against us" to attending prayer breakfasts with CAIR officials in a matter of MONTHS. How is a McCain administration going to differ?
If I'm supposed to vote for him based on his tax policies, forget it.
PMK: "I asked a simple question. You don't have the answer. FINE."
RESPONSE: I have answered already. I shall do so in greater detail.
Iran - McCain would be much more likely to destroy Iran's nuclear program than Obama. This might not account for anything as far as you are concerned; it's a HUGE component in the success of the anti-Jihad as far as I'm concerned.
Iraq - Obama's opposition to the surge - even now after its success - speaks volumes...(perhaps you yourself were/are also opposed to the surge).
terminology - McCain's willingness to even use the term 'radical Islam' is indicative of a more realistic, less politically-correct mindset than his dhimmified opponent.
PMK, You see McCain as no different than Obama just as you see those Muslims trying to kill our boys in Iraq and Afghanistan as no different than those who are fighting and dying alongside them.
You seem to have a very ideologically rigid world-view, one that prevents any appreciation of nuance and subtlety in tactics and strategy. I'm not trying to be critical, I'm trying to bring to your attention what I believe is a serious short-coming in your world view. In fairness, I could be wrong.
"anti-defamation push..."
-- from the article above
The phrase "anti-defamation" puts one naturally in mind of the Anti-Defamation League, a group formed to fight group defamation of Jews. The word, in that case, fit.
But the word does not fit, when used by members of the Islamintern International, who are attempting not to stop "defamation" but to shut down any real study -- beyond the most transparent of apologetical toe-dipping (three abrahamic faiths, etc.)-- of Islam, or any critical analysis of its texts, tenets, attitudes, atmospherics.
What C. Snouck Hurgronje, Joseph Schacht, Henri Lammens, Charles-Emmanuel Bouquet, Edmond Fagnan, K. S. Lal, Samuel Zwemer, St. Clair Tisdall, and dozens of other dedicated scholars of Islam wrote about Islam does not constitute "defamation" but scholarly and disinterested study. What defectors from the army of Islam -- Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, and hundreds of others -- tell us about the Islam they were born into, and raised within -- does not constitute "defamation."
It constitutes, rather, the truth, or rather, a series of truths, both scholarly and simple home truths, that can easily be shown to have a basis in the Qur'an, the Hadith, and Sira. The world-wide effort is on by powerful Muslims to shut down any examination of Islam by the very people whose lives, whose laws, whose everything, are threatened by the march of those conducting Jihad, which is nothing more, and nothing less, than the "struggle" to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam. And the greatest obstacle, in the Bilad al-kufr, the Lands of the Infidels, to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam is knowledge, detailed and deep, of what Islam is all about.
And therefore an essential part of the world-wide Jihad is this attempt to stifle all study and analysis and criticism of Islam. It is more of a threat to the wellbeing of Infidels than anything else, because unless those Infidels can somehow acquire -- or at least a critical mass acquire -- a knowledge of the meaning, and the menace, of Islam, there may not be time to diminish a threat that, at this point, is still manageable. Manageable despite the Money Weapon (that can be cut down to size, in a hundred ways), and the Campaigns of Da'wa (those, too, can be exposed, and opposed, and quite successfully if a certain attitude is brought to bear on the making of policy ), and demographic conquest in Western Europe (ditto). Manageable if the tenets of Islam, the immutable tenets and the attitudes to which Islam naturally gives rise, are understood. Manageable, yes. Just.
So, we have to follow a religion in curbing our free speech rights?
This is no religion that I know of - but one that is a fascist movement. Well, no kidding - islam is imperialistic, and an offensive attack on not only our senses, but against our lands, religions, rights, and everything we hold dear.
I agree that we indeed do have time to make sure islam doesn't take a foothold, but I am finding that people are ready and willing to blog, but when the time comes for action... well, getting the spatula out and digging it under their butts to get them to move is another story.
I blog on the Catholic forums and am able to stop da'wa quite often - in fact, I send the muslims in a tizzy when I appear. Of course, I have learned what I can and cannot say - but find that showing them their own ahaditha and koran - I can show the others that what the muslims/islam is all about.
If we cannot do such a thing if the muslims squash free speech worldwide, I would suspect that all web owners will be forced to disallow even this.
This is most unfathonable in our society. In fact, I am having a hard time fathoming that muslims can take away our 1st Amendment rights. I think that I am in shock that we even have to deal with this at the UN.
Here are some interesting things about why our own are having such a hard time in discussing religious tolerance, religious rights, or anything when islam is involved:
Islam and the Problem of Rationality
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/12/islam_and_the_problem_of_ratio.html
Pope and Prophet article:
http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=178&Itemid=48
Occasionalism
http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/rep/K057.htm
Thank you, R_not.
From your reference Islam and the Problem of Rationality
For which reasons mohammedanism is and must remain an amoral doctrine.
A doctrine of power for its own sake and sacrifice for its own sake.
BTW ... Somebody ought to call up the silly D'Souza and tell him the jig is up.
“From taxes on down, the issues you list are meaningless when we are confronted with the jihad.”
Posted by: PMK
So PMK,
“On Supreme Court nominees and judicial activism.”
(Which is below taxes)
In the foreseeable future, a lawsuit is filed by a Saudi funded group against an individual (say Robert Spencer for instance) claiming that their “freedom of religion” and “freedom of expression” is being illegally denied by “false” criticism of their religion. They seek huge monetary damages and a “cease and desist” order against those who “falsely” criticize Islam. The issue is masterfully framed (by the best lawyers money can buy) as a “civil rights” case, brought by poor “disadvantaged, minority” Muslims, who only wish to practice their “peaceful” religion without harassment from “right-wing bigots”.
How would Obama, mentored for 20 years by “reverend” Jeremiah Wright and given his political start by America hater, Bill Ayers, see this issue?
More importantly, how would the Supreme Court Justices appointed by Obama rule in this case?
Could you count on the appointees of Obama to protect our freedoms – or would they see it as a liberal, multicultural “we gotta find a way to protect these poor people against the evil right-wing Christians” issue.
Still think it doesn’t matter Obama vs. McCain?
"The office noted that U.N. human rights rapporteurs have been reporting an increase in the number and intensity of "racio-religious" discrimination."
Well, yeah--If you give Muslims a veritable license, almost a mandate, to whine about how rotten the Kaffir is, he's going to take advantage of it, and you will see an increase in complaints! No complaints department=no complaints! Why is that so hard to figure out?
Also, am I the only one who hasn't heard of this "racio-religious discrimination" crapola, before today? Is it new, or am I just woefully out of touch with the latest jargon?
The UN has got to go! God (or Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Space Aliens) deliver us from the UN!
Hugh,
I love the expression "Islamintern" as heartily as I detest what it signifies; still, "Islamintern International" is redundant--I think you mean, simply, "Islamintern."
I would say, "Islamic International" with as much fear and distain as Jew-baiters refer to "International Jewry" with.
Of course, Comintern--the Communist International--is brought to mind.
This can be used as a two-edge sword... all the Sharia requirements for Dhimmitude can be used against them.
Coptics, Hindus, Buddhist, Maronites, Atheist, Agnostic, and anyone else oppressed or to be oppressed by Sharia Law should begin to compile legal briefs and law suits based on this "International Law" (a joke if you ask me). After all having another religion tell you how you are “allowed” to worship and live is most deffenaintly a defamation of your religion/beliefs. (Note no other religion has imposed requirements on Mohammedan, as of yet, well other than not violating the basic human right to life.) They should do this publicly and with as much publicity as they can get so the Mohammedan can see the hammer about to fall. If they push through this "law" then all their treatment of other belief system will be subject to "International Injunction". If on the other hand they suddenly stop this "law" they will still expose the hypocrisy for all to see and they should be ridiculed and scorned for their repugnant ideology.
But we still must oppose this "law", for one reason and one reason only. We do not want the UN to regulate anything but their own toilet tissue.
You are right. The word "Islamintern" contains the "international" within it. But when I wanted to model or calque the word, based on "Comintern," I for some reason felt that "Islamintern" was not enough, that the "intern" would be possibly connected to the word "internal" rather than to the word "international," so to rub the notion of a global effort I added the (to some) unnecessary "international." Still, I like the sound of "Islamintern International" and may, while having fessed up to the redundancy (not clear to all), continue to use it. If I do, I hope you'll forgive but not forget.
I thank you. Sidney Reilly thanks you. Willi Munzenberg thanks you. Richard Sorge thanks you.
"Comrade Abdul, if you have problem with kaffir, just call the Islamintern International, or just II. They will help you with infidel infestation."(in bad russian accent)
I like it. Kills two birds with one stone. Shows the subversive side of the BS going on in western nations with groups like CAIR, while at the same time giving the connotation of the foreign supported local useful idiots ala the Cold War days who have obviously latched on to a new "cause". Nice job Hugh, et al.
http://greenspiece.blogspot.com/2008/06/dine-and-obama-perfect-storm.html
Let no one suppose we don't have a dog in this election fight.
Posted by: Papa Whiskey
Thanks for the link Papa Whiskey.
So, we could go from a president who thinks Islam is a religion of peace to one who fauns over the word "Islamophobia" as though this were a legitimate term, instead of the vile red herring that it is.
McCain doesn't quite "get it", but he is not afraid to use the term "radical Islam". Barry Hussein not only doesn't "get it" at all ... he is showing every sign that he is capable of becoming a useful tool for Islam
Anyone who has time should write a letter or email to their UN representative telling them what a farscical, bigotted and yet dangerous thing OIC rejection of human rights and freedom of speech (related to Islam, as usual) is.
My email was scathing and rude. It's probably better if you can avoid the latter - but even if you can't the people at the UN are in serious need of a reality check. They'll get one if everyday people let them know what they really think.
Globalist types who started the UN in the first place must be frustrated to see so much of its decisions and actions influenced by Islamic members.
Even at the UN level they demand special treatment.
In Islamic theory and practice, muslims should not have anything to do with kuffir organizations like the UN. That a muslim government would sign on at all, can only be for purposes of stealth type jihad.
That may be an interesting discussion for Islamic scholars. Is membership and participation in a kufr organization, un-Islamic and haram,
unless it is a form of jihad? If that's the case, the UN is full of jihadists...But I didn't have to tell that to you, did I?
The UN's functions should be limited to international humanitarian aid, and not include
social engineering. But social engineering is what the UN is all about, and Islam has a big influence on that.
Why proposals such as this are given any credibility, and discussed at all, indicates just how defunct the UN is.
The US should get out of the UN, and get the UN out of the US...
Cornelius,
How come you can't point to anything but Iran and Iraq? I am worried about America and how John McCain will defend our rights from Islamic encroachment right here in our own country. Just look at what is happening in his own home state. Will we be required to adapt ourselves to Islam or will they be told to adapt to US and OUR LAWS or else leave? I see McCain doing the former.
You keep pointing to Iraq and to judges. You're dodging the question. If you can't give me an answer, that's okay. I just wish you could not resort to name-calling. I voted for Bush in 2000. I just couldn't do it in 2004. In these eight years I've become a single-issue voter and that issue is the security of these United States and the preservation of our freedoms. Illegal immigration and jihadism threaten that. All other issues are secondary. If that makes me rigid then I plead guilty. I've watched McCain for eight years. His performance on Iraq has been admirable. He's an ardent supporter of the military. For the last time, it's not enough.
Davegreybeard,
Yours is a good scenario and you have a point.
We face it right here, right now, even after eight years of a Republican president. Why wouldn't we face it after four more years? If memory serves, seven of the sitting Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican presidents. Even so, appointing judges isn't all there is to the presidency and your scenario requires that all deciding votes be cast by the next president's appointees. The question remains: what makes McCain any different from Obama where fighting Islamic jihadism WITHIN the United States is concerned? What makes you think McCain will nominate conservative judges AND fight for them?
The question isn't what the courts would do. It's where does McCain stand? Paleologus pointed out that at least McCain isn't afraid to speak about "radical Islam". That's a start but what does that term mean to McCain? What does it mean when dealing with a lot of issues that come up here in the US, not in Iraq? Are the Saudis still our friends? Should Wahabbist mosques continue to spring up across the US? Will Dearborn, for example, be allowed to establish Sharia law if the people vote for it in a referendum?
The president is asked his opinion on a lot of things that go on in the US. The bully pulpit is very important. I'd like to understand where McCain differs from Obama on protecting the freedom of all Americans who don't accept Allah as their god or Muhammad as a prophet. Pointing to Iraq and Iran is not an answer. Both are governed by sharia law. Iraq and Iran aren't filing suits in American courts. They aren't refusing to pick up passengers at airports. They aren't demanding footbaths in the workplace. The governments of Iraq and Iran aren't setting up shop in the US. If they attack us directly, then we can fight them but they won't. They already have an army of conditioned soldiers who will be sent to the US and be accepted as friends or as "refugees". IF any of them attack us, Baghdad and Tehran will wash their hands of the "apostates", just as the Saudis did after 9/11. Why can no one say what John McCain would do as president to reverse the ongoing dhimmification of the US? Does he care?
This resolution is the last nail in the coffin of "FREE SPEECH".Finally the Islamists want to shut down free speach at the UN level. The minorities in islamic countries have already been shut up with Death threats, looting, killings, rape, Conversions. Minorities have no rights are second class citizens, with insults thrown in every day.
Dont give in to "ISLAMOFACISTS".
"I for some reason felt that "Islamintern" was not enough, that the "intern" would be possibly connected to the word "internal" rather than to the word "international...""
There's another "intern" I hope someday sooner than later we associate with Islam...
Felice D. Gaer directs the Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights of the American Jewish Committee (AHRAJC), according to the USCIRF website. She has lost any credibility in the eyes of most regarding being able to be impartial regarding matters that are sensitive to Muslims. No doubt, she has been for Israel over Palestine despite the fact that they have violated many UN Resolutions.
If we replace laws on the books pertaining specifically to anti-Semitism to apply to all faiths and groups, then Americans and the world would be more inclined to accept with favor the decisions of people like Ms. Gaer.
What Muslims would be elated with, as any other group, is to have their human rights be equivalent to that sought out by (AHRAJC) regarding anti-Semitism. Whatever she complains about regarding inclusion of Islamophobia in all parts of society she doesn’t complain about with matters such as the supposed favoritism given, for example, by the US Commission on Civil Rights home page having Ending Campus Anti-Semitism in the heading as the only specialized group identified with the fight for civil rights in the U.S. when the Jews make up only about 1-2% of U.S. population.
The efforts against the OIC are purely sending a message that only certain groups are worth fighting for. As far as I’m concerned, she abused her post in performing her duties. This evidently makes her stance Islamophobic, and is a tool of the U.S. and Israel in going against bringing about a just harmony around the world. 5pillar.wordpress.com
PMK,
I usually find your posts informative and right on target – but every once in a long while, you seem to wander off the logic path into the great, deep dark swamp of confusion.
McCain would not be my first choice for president, or even my second or third. As you point out, he leaves MUCH to be desired in combating the Jihad here in the U.S. So call him lukewarm, to at worst, indifferent in this regard.
With Obama you have a man with absolutely sterling anti-American credentials. He sees America AS THE PROBLEM that must be “fixed”. Contemplate Obama, listening to his “spiritual mentor” Jeremiah Wright, close associate of Nation of Islam’s Farrakhan FOR 20 Years! With regard to Islam, take a guess as to what Obama would try to do to “fix” America.
On the one hand you have McCain who passionately believes in America and will defend it with all his strength. However, because of his lack of knowledge about Islam, he seems to be an indifferent defender of this country against this enemy. (This would change once he and the general population became more educated as to the true nature of Islam)
On the other hand, you have a man (Obama) who sees America as DEEPLY FLAWED – he will ACTIVELY ASSIST the stealth Jihad as part of the “solution”.
The UN is soooo irrelevant these days anyway. If for nothing else, I will always be grateful to Bush for this legacy. Going to Iraq was the nail in the UN's coffin. It wasn't 'shock and awe' as promised, at least initially, but was 'f-off to you, UN; we'll do it ourselves, ad we'll take every free world nation except dhimmi France with us, tyvm.' They're just slitting the throat of a corpse with this one.
This is why McCain has to win. Because Biden's 'Palestine'-funding UN will regain its strength under Obama. He will do what the UN dhimmis and the terrorists in his cabinet tell him to do. McCain will act unilaterally, like Churchill, and work with NATO when it suits his purposes. He will do the right thing with regard to international relations. He recognizes that we have enemies, something Obama refuses to do out his unfathomable cultural, moral, ethical, legal, and even intellectual relativist mindset (but what else could you expect from the son of an anthropologist and a polygamist Muslim who spent his life introducing and furthering terrorist legislation in Kenya?). He recognizes that there is no negotiating with terrorists, which seems to be the entire purpose of the UN these days. Obama has promised to negotiate with terrorist Iran because he himself is a terrorist - at least, if you believe in guilt by association, which I do - and because he was educated in a madrassa and doesn't know a thing about history. Harvard Law or no, street smart or no, he lacks the equivalent of a free-world 5th-grade education.
Whose brilliant idea was the UN anyway? Whose idea was it to give America, Britain, Australia, India, and South Korea as much say as Bosnia, Mali, and Cuba? Oh that's right! It was Democrats who only supported our fighting Nazism and Shintoism so long as we were in cahoots with Stalin. That was the last time they supported us going to war, btw. This is not a coincidence.
McCain has proposed another organization be started with admittance confined to democracies that practice justice for all and adhering to the fundamental values of Western Civilization. Basically to bypass the UN and discredit its decrees, and remove the likes of the OIC, Russia and China from having any voice. In short marginalize the UN as a soapbox for tyrants, such as the OIC and all their members.
John Bolton once suggested removing the top ten stories of the UN headquarters. Better to remove them all and send this den of subversives back to their home countries,
This is good news - these Islamic nations are making a joke out of the whole protection of human rights process - imagine giving special protection to the stoning of women to death - because the act comes under Sharia law - a legal system with special religious status under Islam.
We need the free nations of the world to stand up to this. For a while there I thought we were on our own!
Hugh,
I concede that seeming redundancy can be purposeful.