Bloodthirsty Liberal

Brilliant riff on Obama, violence, liberalism. Enjoy.

Last week, we reported that one of Obama’s human rights posse acknowledged the obvious: the UN’s Human Rights Council is so discredited by institutional antisemitism, it might as well try another name-change (having once been the Human Rights Commission).

May I suggest the Wannsee Conference II?

Geneva, 14 May 2012

Dear Madam President,

Following the March session of the Human Rights Council, I wish to formally inform you of Israel’s decision to suspend its relationship with the Human Rights Council and with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, both in Geneva and in Jerusalem.

This decision was reached in light of the ongoing, unrelenting singling out of Israel in the Human Rights Council, which has been persistent since its inception in 2006, continued through the review process, and exists to this day. The Council and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, respectively, have become a political tool and a convenient platform, cynically used to advance certain political aims, to bash and demonize Israel.

Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

Aharon Leshno Yaar
Ambassador
Permanent Representative

Good for Israel, and long overdue. It is shameful enough that the American regime sees fit to do business with these jackals. Israel doesn’t have the luxury of lying down with dogs.

I welcome this and all—but where you been?

One of President Obama’s top human rights officials has accused the UN Human Rights Council of anti-Semitism.

…

Citing Natan Sharansky’s 3-D test to identify where sharp but legitimate criticism crosses the line into anti-Semitism — namely, where there is demonization, delegitimization or double standards — Rosenthal provided examples of such anti-Semitism occurring at the United Nations:

In the recently concluded UN Human Rights Council session, once again a grossly disproportionate number of the resolutions targeted Israel. Clearly, this is holding Israel to a different standard. No less, when the United Nations first passed its “Zionism is Racism” Resolution that singled out Israel as the world’s only racist country, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia was committing genocide and receiving little or no attention for their crimes against humanity.

Rosenthal added that it was important for the US to be present at such bodies in order to fight from within.

No, it’s not. I could be a member of the Aryan Nation to fight it from within, but I’d rather not be associated with it at all. If the US really wanted to fight the UN’s institutionalized antisemitism, it would divorce itself from all manifestations: the Human Rights Council, UNRWA, UNIFIL, UNESCO—the entire UN-iverse of global Jew hatred.

Right position, wrong response, Ms. Rosenthal. Very wrong.

You know how I often say the UN is incompetent at best, malevolent the rest of the time? Well, anyway, I just did.

Here’s just another reason why:

“There is no food and no clean water, nothing,” Mahmoud, a 12-year-old boy from Homs, Syria, told Reuters Thursday. “There is no shop open and we only have one meal a day. How can we live like that and survive?”

According to the World Food Program, half a million people don’t have enough to eat in Syria. Fears are growing that the regime is using hunger as a weapon.

This is the kind of emergency which should attract the attention of the UN Human Rights Council’s hunger monitor, who has the ability to spotlight situations and place them on the world agenda. Yet Olivier de Schutter of Belgium, the “Special Rapporteur on the right to food,” is not going to Syria.

Instead, the UN’s food monitor is coming to investigate Canada.

That’s right. Despite dire food emergencies around the globe, De Schutter will be devoting the scarce time and resources of the international community on an 11-day tour of Canada—a country that ranks at the bottom of global hunger concerns.

Yes, but there are excellent hookers in Montreal! Or so I am told by the Secret Service.

Anyhow, back to those gaunt Canadians:

I asked De Schutter if his time wouldn’t better be spent on calling attention to countries that actually have starving people.

“Globally, 1.3 billion people are overweight or obese,” he responded via his spokesperson, “and this causes a range of diseases such as certain types of cancers, cardio-vascular diseases or (especially) type-2 diabetes that are a huge burden.”

In other words, the hunger expert is not even that interested in hunger, but the opposite. Sure, we should all eat less fries, but do Canadians need a costly UN inquiry to tell us that?

What’s that, Mr. De Schutter? I can’t understand you with your mouth full of coq au vin and moules marinière.

But you thought I cited this article as an example of UN incompetence, didn’t you? Guess again:

First, consider the origins of the UN’s “right to food” mandate. In voluminous background information provided by De Schutter and his local promoters, there’s no mention that their sponsor was Cuba, a country where some women resort to prostitution for food. De Schutter does not want you to know that Havana’s Communist government created his post, nor that the co-sponsors included China, North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe.

These and other repressive regimes are seeking a political weapon to attack the West.

…

De Schutter’s consistent argument is that if there is hunger, Western countries are to blame. His attacks on international trade are so ideologically extreme that even Pascal Lamy, head of the World Trade Organization and a member of the French Socialist party, criticized De Schutter’s approach for threatening to drive food prices higher and “exacerbating the negative impacts on poor consumers.”

Second, even when they visit the right countries, Ziegler and De Schutter reach the wrong conclusions. Ziegler went to Cuba, but it was a staged visit that hailed Castro’s policies as almost divine. De Schutter went to Syria—in 2010, long before the current crisis — and mentioned several problems, but his report took pains to repeatedly praise the Assad regime.

My experience is that when you hear the phrase “Special Rapporteur” you should put one hand over your wallet and the other over your testicles (sorry, ladies) because one’s about to get picked and the other about to get kicked. I’ve come to believe that the UN is so malevolent, it uses incompetence as a mere means to its baleful ends (awesome word from my online thesaurus!).

On the other hand, maybe Obama is a metrosexual. He likes the UN, after all, which is about as emasculated and effeminate a position as you can take. (I know. I’ve been there.)

Turmoil in the Middle East has exposed the vulnerabilities of President Barack Obama’s listless foreign policy. As Iran closes in on its nuclear prize and props up Assad’s bloody regime in Syria, the United States has the opportunity to deal a crippling blow to its oldest, most dangerous enemy in the region. U.S. military strikes could topple Tehran’s close allies in Damascus and destroy the mullahs’ nuclear infrastructure, potentially ushering in more democratic regimes that would be at peace with their neighbors.

But instead of seizing the initiative, the White House has wrapped itself in a web of international law and institutions that have brought only paralysis and indecision. From the top down, administration officials have suggested that they need the blessing of the U.N. before they can use force to advance American interests in the Middle East. “For us to take military action unilaterally, as some have suggested, or to think that somehow there is some simple solution, I think is a mistake,” Obama recently said about Syria. “What happened in Libya was we mobilized the international community, had a U.N. Security Council mandate, had the full cooperation of the region, Arab states, and we knew that we could execute very effectively in a relatively short period of time. This is a much more complicated situation.”

Libya taught the administration the wrong lessons. What the White House sees as a successful strategy of acting as part of a United Nations coalition was in fact a near-disaster. Waiting on the U.N. Security Council for approval of airstrikes allowed Muammar Qaddafi’s regime to come within a day or two of wiping out the Libyan resistance. The delay reduced our ability to exert influence on the new regime that has emerged since. The Obama administration hopes to reassure those who distrust American unilateralism by submerging our national interests into those of an undefined world community. The result is that America still carries the main burden of maintaining international peace and stability, but with a loss of speed, flexibility, and decisiveness.

Other than that, it’s aces.

Is it just me, or is there something wrong with a president who bends over backwards to appease the nattering nabobs of do-nothing-ism at the UN, while flipping the bird to Congress?

Crossing party lines to deliver a stunning rebuke to the commander in chief, the vast majority of the House voted Friday for resolutions telling President Obama he has broken the constitutional chain of authority by committing U.S. troops to the international military mission in Libya.

He didn’t bother with Congressional permission to send forces into harm’s way against Qaddafi—he said he didn’t need to. But he won’t wipe his behind without Security Council say-so. I’m sorry, but that’s just weird.

The UN supports them:

The upcoming United Nations environmental conference on sustainable development will consider a breathtaking array of carbon taxes, transfers of trillions of dollars from wealthy countries to poor ones, and new spending programs to guarantee that populations around the world are protected from the effects of the very programs the world organization wants to implement, according to stunning U.N. documents examined by Fox News.

The main goal of the much-touted, Rio + 20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, scheduled to be held in Brazil from June 20-23, and which Obama Administration officials have supported, is to make dramatic and enormously expensive changes in the way that the world does nearly everything—or, as one of the documents puts it, “a fundamental shift in the way we think and act.”

Oh yeah, we all want the UN to shift the way we think and act.

God forbid:

Among the proposals on how the “challenges can and must be addressed,” according to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon:

–More than $2.1 trillion a year in wealth transfers from rich countries to poorer ones, in the name of fostering “green infrastructure, ” “climate adaptation” and other “green economy” measures.

–New carbon taxes for industrialized countries that could cost about $250 billion a year, or 0.6 percent of Gross Domestic Product, by 2020.

…

–Further unspecified price hikes that extend beyond fossil fuels to anything derived from agriculture, fisheries, forestry, or other kinds of land and water use.”

…

–Major global social spending programs, including a “social protection floor” and “social safety nets” for the world’s most vulnerable social groups for reasons of “equity.”

–Even more social benefits for those displaced by the green economy revolution—including those put out of work in undesirable fossil fuel industries.”

As if that weren’t enough, how’s this for a kicker?

–A guarantee that if those sweeping benefits weren’t enough, more would be granted.

Even in instituting massive global socialism (administered by the UN, of course), the UN reserves the right to seize even more sovereignty if their putsch proves ineffective. (No way!)

Never forget, all such proposals (including ObamaCare) are about seizing power only.

The Mommy Wars were intense when I was raising children, and then quieted down. Leave it to the liberals to reignite them for the election.

Mitt Romney’s “I know you are, but what am I?” strategy, declaring President Obama the real perpetrator of a “war on women,” got an assist from CNN Democratic analyst Hilary Rosen Wednesday, when she questioned whether Romney should use his wife, Ann, as his expert on women’s issues when she “never worked a day in her life.” As feminists have known thanks to the silly Mommy Wars over the last 20 years, every mother is a working mother. Rosen, who is herself a mom who also works outside the home, has now apologized, as has every prominent Democrat from President Obama to Debbie Wasserman Schultz to David Axelrod (and probably FDR, from the grave).

But Republicans still won’t shut up about it. An aggrieved Ann Romney even told Fox News, “I will tell you that Mitt said to me more times than I can imagine, Ann, your job is more important than mine,” and added that as the mother of five grown boys, “I know what it’s like to struggle.”

Well, I’d like to demand that Ann Romney apologize to all women for equating the “struggle” of a wealthy mother who had full-time household help to that of a poor or working-class job-holding mother, who must choose between her job and her children when a child gets sick. How dare you, madam? Have you no shame? I’d like to demand that Mitt Romney apologize for his wife’s remarks, too. I’d like to hear every prominent Republican denounce Ann Romney for her heinous insensitivity to non-wealthy mothers who must work outside the home.

Wait. Ann Romney’s not a Democrat, and I’m not a Republican, so that’s not how the world works. Sorry about that. I apologize.

Here’s a giant… I almost said a naughty thing… here’s a giant: I Strongly Disagree With You! to the writer. The Mommy Wars were awful then and, if anything, seem uglier today. We all struggle raising kids. Our culture only makes it more difficult. Ann Romney raised five sons while she coped with both breast cancer and MS. And she pulled it off rather nicely. Question to the writer: You sound jealous of her wealth. Would you have it if it also meant being a young woman with MS? And breast cancer? Are there any takers?

Trust me. The nastiness expressed in the quotes above are cover for a much meaner culture of dismissal and rudeness underneath the surface. I am friendly with women who know that I fall on the conservative side of the spectrum but simply cannot hold it in their heads, because I am such an interesting, nice person. Your ears would burn if you could hear what was said about conservatives in even the most casual, public conversations. It truly is shocking.

What is even more disheartening about the lurch into Liberal Fascism that we are witnessing comes here, towards the end of her article:

It reminded me of when Bill O’Reilly told Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, “I’m not black so I don’t know your struggle and you don’t know my struggle because you’re not white.” Nobody knows the troubles Bill’s seen, growing up on the mean streets of Old Westbury. I’m not saying that white people can’t face injustice, but to equate the black and white “struggles” is just ridiculous.

The Left has made the decision to overlook Tawana Brawley, Crown Point, and Freddie’s Clothing Mart. We at BTL have not. Al Sharpton gave angry, antisemitic speeches on two occasions that resulted in the deaths of nine human beings. Eight people died of gunshot wounds and fires set by his followers in Freddie’s Clothing Mart, and one twenty-six year old student from Australia died in an antisemitic riot in Brooklyn. He was stabbed to death by a crowd screaming, “Kill the Jew!” The facts of the Tawana Brawley case are more well-known.

The Left has decided to raise Al Sharpton to the level of a spokesman for its views. Recently, Eric Holder, the top law enforcement official in the United States, appeared at a fund-raising event for Al Sharpton’s group. His picture appears in every elevator in the Labor Department in DC. And he has his own talk show on MSNBC. As a Jewish person, the turn of events in the United States frightens me.

- Aggie

First, the background:

A battle waged by the U.N.’s top internal watchdog against fraud, waste and abuse, backed by the U.S., to bring more daylight to the world organization’s internal operations has wound down — and the U.S. is the loser.

The idea, to put the reports of the agency on a public U.N. website, has been mired for months in the quicksand of U.N. procedures by a coalition of developing-world countries, including Cuba and Nicaragua, with the behind-the-scenes backing of China and Iran.

On April 2, as the U.N.’s powerful fifth Committee on finances ended its session, supporters of the reform acknowledged that they had lost the campaign, at least for now — though they vowed to renew fighting in the near future.

…

The U.S. pays 22 percent of the U.N.’s regular budget, plus 27 percent of its multibillion-dollar peacekeeping efforts.

See where I’m headed?

“Some critics argue that we should withhold our U.N. dues to try to force certain reforms, or that we should just pay for those U.N. programs we like the most,” [UN Ambassador Susan] Rice said in prepared remarks to the World Affairs Council of Oregon later on Friday.

“This is short-sighted, and it plain doesn’t work.”

The United States, the biggest donor to the United Nations, paid over $6 billion to the world body in fiscal year 2009.

That’s a double-sawbuck for every American. Imagine the stimulus possibilities!

So, the Obama administration thinks it can influence the UN from the inside. And we get a Human Rights Council that seats the most disgusting tyrants and murderers (and exists solely to slander Israel). We get a commission on women’s rights that seats the most misogynistic cult besides the membership of Augusta National Golf Club, Saudi Arabia. We get rampant corruption and unashamed cover up.

Heckuva job, Bambi.

Just look!

Earlier this month, two Palestinian terrorists attacked an Israeli soldier in Hebron and stabbed him with a knife. Despite his wounds, the soldier managed to shoot both terrorists, one of whom was killed while the other was injured.

PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas sent a condolence telegram to the family in which he called the killed terrorist “courageous.” The soldier’s act of shooting the terrorist who tried to kill him was defined by Abbas as an “assassination.” The official PA daily referred to tje soldier’s self-defense as a “loathsome crime,” while the attempted stabbing of the Israeli soldier was called “legitimate struggle.”

A few days later, Mahmoud Abbas sent his personal representative, Abbas Zaki, to visit the families of both terrorists and to express the leadership’s “solidarity.” Zaki said that the death of Aram was “cold-blooded murder” and “expressed the pride of the Palestinian leadership in this generation and in this heroism.”

Palestinian Media Watch reported last year that Abbas sent a grant of $2000 to the family of a terrorist who was killed while attempting to attack Israeli soldiers with pipe bombs.

Of course, Abbas, the “good” terrorist leader, is only trying to keep up with Hamass, the “bad” terrorists, who got a good reception of their own:

Today the UN Human Rights Council and its UN staff in Geneva advertised and facilitated an event that handed a UN pass, and a UN microphone, in a UN room, to a representative of the terrorist organization Hamas.

…notwithstanding the fact that the grotesque antisemitic charter of Hamas advocates the murder of Jews and the obliteration of the Jewish state – – and the organization’s members are continuing to use unspeakable cruelty and violence to realize that horrendous goal.

When it comes to depravity, the UN Human Rights Council seeks to redefine the answer to the old question, how low can you go?

I said “serf”, not “surf”!

Hey, I give credit to CNN. Others have been talking for years about slavery still being practiced in Africa, but if the Most Busted Name in News finally gets the scent, why should we quibble?

An estimated 10% to 20% of Mauritania’s 3.4 million people are enslaved — in “real slavery,” according to the United Nations’ special rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, Gulnara Shahinian. If that’s not unbelievable enough, consider that Mauritania was the last country in the world to abolish slavery. That happened in 1981, nearly 120 years after Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in the United States. It wasn’t until five years ago, in 2007, that Mauritania passed a law that criminalized the act of owning another person. So far, only one case has been successfully prosecuted.

The country is slavery’s last stronghold.

As I say, good for CNN. As many as 680,000 people are held in slavery in Mauritania. (The cite I link to above, iabolish.org, notes that Sudanese—now South Sudanese—suffer from the same affliction, or did until very recently.)

But I knew I had something to add. Maybe that Mauritania is a Muslim country—when Islam is supposed to forbid the abomination of slavery. No, as messed up as that is, I knew there was something else I had to add.

Oh yes, now I remember:

Mauritania is a member of the UN Human Rights Council.

Just trying to do my part.