It's all under control...

Yup...North Korea performed a "marginally successful" nuclear test yesterday about 20 times more potent than their first one. Let's see how the United Nations is addressing this distressing news:

UN Headquarters in New York will be closed on Monday for the Memorial Day holiday.
The noon briefing will resume next Tuesday, May 26.

Good grief!!! Shouldn't they be working on a "strongly worded letter" or something?

Guess who owns the mouth...

Hey...who do you think this is about?

In response to a question from a Nigerian journalist as to why his opposition to the ICC’s decision was at odds with the majority of suffering Darfur civilians who supported the decision, Brockmann blew off the whole premise of the question by replying that his views were in concert with the leaders of the Arab League and African Union. Then he launched into a nasty personal attack on President George W. Bush for having been the first world leader to charge the Sudanese leadership with committing genocide in Darfur.

"That should tell you quite a bit already. Can you imagine Al Capone calling the police to say that somebody stole milk from the market? It's Al Capone standing for uprightness," said Brockmann in comparing the former president of the United States with the Chicago mobster.

Not surprisingly, the only countries that Brockmann denounced during his press conference were the United States and Israel.

It's the president of the General Assembly of the United Nations, Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann.

Giving a cretin a time-out...

As a result, relief groups said, more than one million people are without adequate food, clean water and health care as a meningitis outbreak looms. United Nations workers remain, but Mr. Bashir said Monday that he wanted all foreign relief organizations out within a year. The Obama administration denounced the expulsions. After a meeting with Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general, Mr. Obama called the Darfur crisis one "that we care about deeply" and said it was important "to send a strong, unified, international message that it is not acceptable to put that many people's lives at risk."

I was always a proponent of corporeal punishment when the unruly are unable to control themselves. However, the "politically correct" do-gooders of our society advocated (and litigated) the position that such actions were "abuse." Actually, they were disciplinary and educational when done in moderation. Having been on the receiving end of such acts growing up (and deservedly so), it didn't take long for me to change my behavior (and keep it changed).

I mention this, because the same faulty philosophy of "child rearing" can be found as the staple of the United Nations...and the new Democrat president:

"The Obama Administration denounced the expulsions."

"...send a strong, unified, international message..." (a literal written message, mind you)

The UN and President Obama really do think that a murderous, bigoted despot jackass like Bashir will hop-to when he receives a strongly worded reprimand. They are actually giving a tyrant a time-out.

Please name one instance in which a country receiving a strongly worded reprimand from the United Nations has made a difference and resulted in (dare I say it)...change.

As an extremist...do I get a free tote bag?

But Kert Davies, a climate campaigner for Greenpeace who is attending the Heartland event, said that the experts giving talks were "a shrinking collection of extremists" and that they were "left talking to themselves."

As a full member of the "shrinking collection of extremists," I hereby open membership to the masses.

Rasmussen finds that 60 percent of Americans believe that finding new energy sources is more important than reducing the amount of energy Americans now consume, while only 32 percent believe the opposite. And 51 percent believe that more nuclear plants should be built in the United States, while 31 percent disagree. Some 45 percent believe that global warming is caused primarily by long-term planetary effects, while 38 percent believe that human activity is to blame. Anthropogenetic global warming may be the consensus view of the elite (including corporate leaders who are scrambling to make money off cap-and-trade systems), but there is no such consensus among the public. Rather to the contrary; most Americans think the media is portraying global warming as worse than it is.

Wow...that was fast!!! We now have more extremists.

And, Kert Davies is correct. We are "left talking to ourselves" because those of Mr. Davies' ilk haven't the faintest idea what it means to have an open mind about the issue. In his case...an open mind would show an empty head.

But...I'm not satisfied...let's go get some more extremists:

Ipsos MORI polled 1,039 adults and found that six out of 10 agreed that 'many scientific experts still question if humans are contributing to climate change', and that four out of 10 'sometimes think climate change might not be as bad as people say'. In both cases, another 20 per cent were not convinced either way. Despite this, three quarters still professed to be concerned about climate change.

By God, they have extremists over there in the United Kingdom as well. And, incidentally, the left leaning Guardian skewed the actual results of this poll by trying to imply that thee quarters still professed a concern over climate change without qualifying whether it was an anthropogenetic issue or not. And, they didn't reveal the questions that made up the poll, which leaves open the possibility of a "this or that" trap question that would shape the results as well.

So...in the UK 60% of the populace question whether scientific experts have made the connection between man made carbon emissions and warming. In the United States, 7% more of the populace don't believe that it is a man made issue, than those who do. BUT:

Yvo de Boer, head of the UN office running the meetings leading to a new global climate treaty, said, "I don't believe that what the skeptics say should provide any excuse to delay further" action against global warming.

Arrogance wrapped up in the redistribution of wealth du jour. We extremists have the audacity to request bona fide proof before throwing hard earned money down a rat hole...in in the UN's case...into the til of organized crime.

Who's a betting man?

PLEASED by the International Criminal Court's issuing of an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar Bashir, the Obama administration is reportedly reopening the question of whether the United States should join the court.

It's a bad idea: The ICC is as concerned with politics as with justice - and the people it aims to please are often not America's friends.

Yes, Bashir deserves punishment for the waves of massacres he has sponsored. But Washington shouldn't lend any legitimacy to the ICC.

We are going to be hip deep in the International Criminal Court before the end of President Obama's first term. Any takers? Anyone?

Now...let's make it more interesting:

UNITED NATIONS - Islamic countries Monday won United Nations backing for an anti-blasphemy measure Canada and other Western critics say risks being used to limit freedom of speech.

Combating Defamation of Religions passed 85–50 with 42 abstentions in a key UN General Assembly committee, and will enter into the international record after an expected rubber stamp by the plenary later in the year.

An International crime to "blasphemize" Islam. At the moment, it is a non-binding resolution. However:

...Pakistan’s Ambassador Masood Khan reminded the UN’s Human Rights Council this year that the OIC ultimately seeks a “new instrument or convention” on the issue. Such a measure would impose its terms on signatory states.

I'd hate to be hauled before the International Criminal Court for pointing out that Islam is an "oppressive, chauvenistic, and unethical cult that condones murder, conjugal relationships with minors, and slavery?" It's all true in my opinion, but that wouldn't save me from an indictment of blasphemy.

The soft Jihad is wrapped up in everything, and it wouldn't take long before the ICC became a tool of their ambitious goals. The International Criminal Court would fast become an anti-American...anti-Freedom instrument of many of the worst enemies to liberty and true justice.

In his quest to make the rest of the world "feel better" about the United States, I could easily see his influence and efforts used to make us a member state of that kangaroo court.

Romper Room shake-up

The question, he said, is whether countries want the world to be run by small groups of economically and politically powerful nations or "by the only legitimate global institution that we have, and that is the UN."

This ought to scare the living crap out of you...for a whole host of reasons.

First, it totally discounts the concept of sovereign nations. Secondly, it is a thinly veiled initiative to remove the five permanent members with veto power; the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France (probably in favor of full rotating members without veto power so that the usual despots, tyrants, and anti-semitic cesspools can dictate the soft Jihad more efficiently). Thirdly, any time the word "legitimate" and "UN" occurs in the same sentence I go into convulsions.

On a bright note...the UN has not accomplished anything of substance and importance in a long, long time. I doubt that they will accomplish anything in reference to the Security Council. Instead, they have become the anti-Hallmark institution of "strongly worded letters of disproval."

Here's an idea...put Israel on the permanent member list with veto power...I'll get behind that.

AP's time machine...

Asif Ali Zardari made the appeal in a speech to a U.N. interfaith conference initiated by Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah and designed to bridge differences between religions and cultures.

President Bush, who spoke just before Zardari in what was likely to be his last address to the world body, echoed the call for moderation.

How, exactly, do you echo something that hasn't been said yet? The conference, itself, strikes me as the usual United Nations circle-jerk. Although, Zardari gets points for painting a bull's eye on his chest.

On a related note, I happened to be coming back from lunch on Water Street and watched President Bush fly by in one of the two Presidential Limos along with about a 40 cycle/ vehicle escort. He was having a rather animated conversation with whomever was tagging along. I couldn't see the other guy's face too well. A couple minutes later, Marine One shot out of the heliport (usual depature).