The Incompetent Susan Rice Gets Promoted

The Incompetent Susan Rice Gets Promoted

By Richard Grenell
Thursday, June 06, 2013

United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice will be the next National Security Advisor to President Obama. Her appointment from President Obama does not require the approval of the U.S. Senate. As the President’s National Security Advisor running the National Security Council, Rice will be responsible for settling bureaucratic disputes between the Department of Defense, the State Department and other U.S. government agencies. The job requires someone willing to speak up and make decisions based on facts. Susan Rice will undoubtedly be a failure – we have seen her struggle with these same issues in her current role all too much.

While most Americans will only remember Rice as the face of the Sunday shows where she spun the tale about a YouTube video as the reason radical Islamists attacked U.S. embassies and consulates in the Middle East and North Africa on the anniversary of 9/11, she has a long history of failing to lead or even speak up on important issues.

While the national media debates whether or not she knowingly misled the public on the Sunday shows, her failings and shortcomings before the Benghazi terrorist attacks have not received the attention they deserve.

Here are 30 reasons (that have nothing to do with Benghazi) why Susan Rice should not have received the promotion she did this week:

1.   failed to call an emergency meeting of the Security Council after the 2010 Haiti earthquake 
2.   skipped the Security Council debate and vote to add new UN Peacekeepers in Haiti after the earthquake 
3.   led the US during the most inactive Security Council since 1991 during her first year as Ambassador 
4.   held her first press conference with the UN Secretary General on the pressing international issue of texting while driving 
5.   failed to speak out when Col. Gaddafi’s Libya was elected to the UN Human Rights Commission 
6.   waited 17 months before voting on the one and only UN resolution on Iran passed during her tenure 
7.   dismissed by Hillary Clinton from negotiating most of the Iran resolution with the French 
8.   lost the support of more nations on her one Iran resolution than the previous five Iran resolutions combined 
9.   took 103 days to move the Security Council to issue a statement after a North Korean submarine sank the South Korean ship that killed 46 sailors 
10.   took 18 days to lead the Security Council to action after a North Korean nuclear test (it took John Bolton 5 days in 2006) 
11.   failed to support the Iranian opposition during their Green Revolution 
12.   failed to speak out when Iran was elected to the UN Women’s Commission 
13.   skipped the UN Security Council‘s emergency meeting on the Gaza flotilla crisis 
14.   snubbed Israel to the point they skipped President Obama’s 2010 UN speech 
15.   took more than 2 years to find someone to head America’s UN reform team 
16.   failed to address the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to ascertain how erroneous scientific claims were added to official UN reports 
17.   painfully slow in getting a UN resolution on the Sudan-South Sudan referendum 
18.   ignored Canada’s pleas for help in getting elected to the Security Council 
19.   negotiated with the UN’s Arab Group to condemn Israel’s settlements 
20.   failed to lead the Security Council during Tunisia’s Arab Spring protests 
21.   didn’t speak out on the Libya crisis until the French, British and Arab League had done so 
22.   failed to attend the first Security Council meeting on the Arab Spring protests 
23.   failed to get the support of allies India, Germany and Brazil on the UN’s Libya resolution 
24.   failed to lead the Security Council during Egypt’s Arab Spring protests 
25.   failed to lead the Security Council during Yemen’s Arab Spring protests 
26.   failed to lead the Security Council to confront Bashar al-Assad’s brutal violence where US resolutions received an unprecedented three vetoes on three different votes 
27.   agreed to send former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to Syria where he failed miserably 
28.   skipped the last open meeting before the planned UN vote to recognize Palestinian statehood 
29.   failed to speak out when Iran was elected Vice President of the Global Arms Treaty negotiations 
30.   delayed Security Council action and the UN report on Rwanda 

 

UN Treaties Erode US Sovereignty, Exert Control – Tea Party Nation

UN Treaties Erode US Sovereignty, Exert Control – Tea Party Nation.

By Alan Caruba

Following the end of World War II in 1945, the idea of a United Nations, an international body devoted to avoiding future wars must have had a lot of appeal despite the fact that, not that many years earlier, the League of Nations that emerged after World War I had proven to be a toothless failure.

In the years since, the United Nations has prevented major world conflicts, but it has done little to curb others. It seems to exist to give its blessing to them and the U.S. has long acted as if it could not engage in a war without its permission. From the Korean War in the 1950s to Vietnam in the 1970s, to the wars in the Middle East, the U.S. has ceded its sovereign right to pursue wars in what it regarded as its national interest. Korea and Vietnam were proxy wars during the period of the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

The wars in the Middle East have been a response to 9/11, first in Afghanistan and later the need to remove the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, who had waged war against Iran and Kuwait. The U.S. actually lent support to the war against Iran because we have technically been at war with Iran since 1979 when our diplomats had been seized and held hostage. Kuwait is an oil-rich nation and, if Saddam had been allowed to take over, he would have turned his attention to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations. In the Middle East, it is always about oil. And now we must add to that equation, the rise of fanatical Islam.

In all the cases cited, the United States has had to do the heavy lifting, the bulk of the fighting. World War II left us the only superpower in the world and the only one with atomic bombs. We put Western Europe back on its feet as a counterweight to the Soviet control over Eastern Europe. When it collapsed in 1991, the balance of power changed, but by then China was already on the rise economically, having embraced capitalism, but retaining Communism as its governmental system. The dictators who ran the Middle East, many of whom the U.S. either tolerated or lent support, ran into a buzz saw of discontent from their oppressed populations.

One of the largest cliques in the United Nations is made up of Middle Eastern, African and other largely Muslim nations. They and others like the Chinese and Russians have no love for democracy or freedom. The result has been the rollout of treaties intended to (1) generate enough income to make the UN financially independent and (2) exert a centralized global control over commerce and the individual lives of people worldwide.

The UN is the center for the entire global warming/climate change hoax and its Kyoto Protocols to reduce so-called greenhouse gas emissions. It is the home of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which just finished its 18th conference to continue its intention to transfer money from the developed nations to those that are not. The U.S. Senate unanimously rejected this treaty in 1997 when it was initially proposed.

There is, however, a Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) that is seeking ratification by the U.S. and is supported by the Obama administration. It would give the UN control over offshore drilling, requiring the U.S. to pay half of its royalties to unelected UN bureaucrats who could spend it any way they want. Moreover, it would require the U.S. to make our offshore drilling technology available to any nation that wanted it and to do so for free despite the millions spent to develop it. One fears that a lame duck Senate might ratifies it. The most recent effort to ratify it was rejected in July.

What most Americans do not know is that international treaties trump the U.S. Constitution. They have the same status as constitutional law and must be enforced by U.S. Courts. Thus, our most sacred right as a nation, our sovereignty, is eroded by such treaties. It was the reason that the Congress rejected membership in the League of Nations. We should have done the same with the United Nations, but for decades since we have provided a quarter of its budget while having just one vote in the General Assembly.

There is no doubt in my mind that the worst of the UN treaties is the current effort to exert control over the Internet. This month, representatives of the 193 member countries of the International Telecommunications Union will meet in Dubai to discuss ways to control the international exchange of Internet traffic across countries and how to extract money from it.

Gorden Crovitz, writing in The Wall Street Journal on November 25th summed up the danger this represents. “Having the Internet rewired by bureaucrats would be like handing aa Stradivarius to a gorilla.”

He noted that “The Internet is made up of 40,000 networks that interconnect among 425,000 global routes, cheaply and efficiently delivering messages and other digital content among more than two billion people around the world, with some 500,000 new users a day.” More importantly, “The self-regulating Internet means no one has to ask permission to launch a website, and no government can tell network operators how to do their jobs.”

It is an irony that the Internet had been the platform by which Egyptians came together to overthrow its longtime dictator, Hosni Mubarak, but which has led to the takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood and a new constitution that is based on sharia law; a huge step back to the seventh century that makes women chattel and endorses slavery. One step forward, ten steps back.

Control over the Internet is control over the free flow of ideas and information. It is control over a large portion of the world’s population. Authoritarian nations hate it and seek to control it. Its implementation would turn the world into one large prison camp.

There are other UN treaties that need rejection and the U.S. Senate this week did reject the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities which former Sen. Rick Santorum, joined by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) denounced as a “direct assault on us and our families.” It, too, was an attack on our national sovereignty and the rights of parents to determine how their children are educated and cared for. It was signed by President Obama in 2009, but the Senate’s action avoided its ratification. A treaty on small-arms control would render the Second Amendment null and void.

For years conservatives have called for the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations. That act alone would likely collapse this evil international institution. It won’t happen so long as the current administration is in power.

© Alan Caruba, 2012

 

DRIESSEN: Government eyes crippling climate-control measures – Washington Times

DRIESSEN: Government eyes crippling climate-control measures – Washington Times.

Raising energy costs will stifle economy, kill jobs

By Paul Driessen

carbontaxThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is ready to unleash its first wave of carbon-dioxide regulations. Some members of Congress want to tax hydrocarbon use and carbon-dioxide emissions. Moreover, United Nations climate alarmists are trying to devise a new treaty to regulate energy use at the international level. Even one of these government actions would send shock waves through the economy. If all three are imposed (or worse, imposed in conjunction with Obamacare and other tax increases on job and wealth creators) the impacts will be devastating.

This climate crisis threatens our energy use, economy, jobs, living standards, health and welfare. The actions are being justified by assertions that they will stabilize the Earth’s climate, prevent global-warming disasters and raise hundreds of billions of dollars to cover “essential” government spending.

Our planet’s climate has never been stable and never will be. Despite rising carbon-dioxide levels, average global temperatures have not risen for 16 years. There is no empirical evidence to support assertions and computer models that claim carbon dioxide drives climate change or to suggest that greenhouse gases have supplanted the complex natural forces that have produced big and little ice ages, floods and droughts, and stormy and quiescent periods throughout Earth’s history.

These inconvenient truths are irrelevant to anti-hydrocarbon campaigners, who are using “dangerous man-made climate change” as the best pretext yet devised to control energy use and economies. They simply hypothesize, model and assert that every observed weather phenomenon is due to human carbon-dioxide emissions. Whether it’s warmer or colder, wetter or drier, more ice or less, more storms or fewer storms, “It’s exactly what we predicted,” climate alarmists say.

This is not science. It is political science, rooted in an ideological loathing of fossil fuels, economic growth and humanity itself.

youlie2The consequences for average workers and families will be dire.

These actions are intended to increase the cost of the hydrocarbon energy that powers our economy. Yet raising the cost of transportation fuels, electricity, lighting, heating and air conditioning will raise the price of food, materials and equipment. This will severely impact the bottom line for factories, utilities, offices, farms, shops, airlines, shippers, hospitals, schools, churches, charities and government offices. The poorest families may get rebates for their increased energy costs, but institutions will not. They will be forced to reduce wages, hours and benefits, hire fewer full-time employees, lay off people, outsource operations to countries where energy costs are lower or even close their doors.

Taxes paid by companies and employees will dwindle. Instead of paying taxes, newly jobless workers will collect unemployment and welfare benefits from shrinking government coffers. Charities will have much less money, even if deductions for donations remain in the U.S. tax code.

Unemployment will bring reduced nutrition, increased stress and higher rates of heart attack and stroke, spousal and child abuse, alcohol and drug abuse, suicide and premature death. The social, economic and health care costs will further “fundamentally transform” America, as President Obama says he is determined to do.

Even if Congress legislates carbon taxes, nothing suggests that EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson will refrain from imposing EPA’s anti-hydrocarbon rules on top of them or that the White House and Senate will reject any new U.N. treaty. There is no hint that the Interior Department will cease using the Endangered Species Act and other laws to shut down oil and gas drilling while ignoring the growing slaughter of eagles and whooping cranes by wind turbines. The Energy and Defense departments, the EPA and Congress are unlikely to stop spending more in borrowed funds to subsidize corn ethanol and Navy biofuel schemes.

These anti-hydrocarbon policies also mean the U.S. Treasury will be deprived of hundreds of billions of dollars in lease bonuses, royalties, taxes and other revenues that it would realize from the development of our nation’s vast oil, natural gas and coal deposits. Instead, the United States will be forced to pay billions more for imported oil, often from unethical, environmentally reckless countries.

New hydrocarbon energy restrictions and “green” energy demands will deprive developing-nation families and communities of abundant, reliable, affordable energy; obstruct economic and human rights progress; and keep entire nations impoverished. They will kill millions more from lung infections (from burning wood and dung), intestinal diseases (from contaminated water), malnutrition and diseases of poverty and eco-imperialism.

Those countries will receive far less foreign aid from increasingly cash-strapped Western nations. Little good will come of the Green Climate Fund cash the United Nation says industrialized nations should transfer to kleptocratic rulers in poor countries as reparations for supposedly causing climate change.

For every nation, this coerced energy and economic deprivation will make it increasingly difficult to adapt to future climate changes that nature inevitably will bring our way. So much for the modern era. Mankind ought to have the wealth and technology to adapt far more easily than our ancestors were able to do.

Climate alarmists are doing everything in their power to avoid discussing these issues and to vilify anyone who brings them up. However, we need to have this debate, and we need to have it now — especially in Congress and our state legislatures — before destructive decisions are imposed on us and our children.

Paul Driessen is senior policy adviser for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow and author of “Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death” (Merril Press, 2012).

 

Obama: As Weak on Global Internet Takeover as on Global Islamist Uprising – Tea Party Nation

Obama: As Weak on Global Internet Takeover as on Global Islamist Uprising – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Seton Motley

Note: This first appeared in PJ Tatler.

 

The Barack Obama administration has been engaged in non-stop global bungle-buffoonery.  And that’s giving them the benefit of the doubt – it may be that these horrific anti-American Interest results are their intention.

 An example: Allegedly, President Obama — given his partial upbringing in Islamic Indonesia – was going to have a better understanding of and relationship with the Muslim World.

 But a year after the Obama-backed “Arab Spring,” at least twenty U.S. Embassies were attacked on this year’s 9-11 anniversary.  In Benghazi, Libya, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were brutally murdered.

 And as the Muslim World rose nearly as one against us, the administration issued pathetic statements/apologies, generated much sterner stuff against Governor Mitt Romney and lied their faces off about why it all was happening.

 And all the while the President campaigned and raised coin for his reelection effort and blew off world leaders to instead meet with David Letterman and the ladies of The View.

 Yet another global demonstration of Obama Administration fecklessness.  The president extends to our enemies an open hand – and they crush us again and again with their clenched fists.

 Not all the attacks on U.S. interests are violent.  Sometimes the thugs dress up in suits and ties and head to Turtle Bay for a little United Nations (UN) America-abuse.

 Looming before us is a prospective titanic international attack on American Internet interests.  The Web wing of the UN is the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) – and they in December will vote on whether or not to power grab much greater control of all things ‘Net.

 The Obama administration has expressed their opposition to ITU Web-control passage.  As on all things, Obama’s opinion has meant to the rest of the world exactly nothing.

US Ambassador: Internet Fee Proposal Gaining Momentum

 U.S. Ambassador Terry Kramer warned on Friday that a proposal to give a United Nations agency more control over the Internet is gaining momentum in other countries….

 Powerful influence, Mister President.

 (A) proposal by the European Telecommunications Network Operators’ Association could force websites like Google, Facebook and Netflix to pay fees to network operators around the world.

 Kramer said the idea of an international Internet fee is “gaining more interest in the African states and also in the Arab states.”

 Oh – the same Arab states that are setting ablaze our embassies and consulates.  Here again is another potential clenched fist to our face.

 Clearly the vaunted President Obama persuasiveness is again failing him – and us.

(Kramer) said the United States delegation to the conference will have to redouble its efforts to convince other countries that the proposal would only stifle innovation and economic growth.

Seriously, genuinely – good luck with that.  We absolutely need to stop this US-and-global-economy-crushing proposal.

 The Obama Administration’s demonstrably degraded world standing has weakened our efforts to stop this UN power grab.  Another problem is the administration has been on this issue utterly schizophrenic.

 While proclaiming opposition to an international Internet takeover, they have stateside illegally imposed multiple Web takeovers of their own – like the all-encompassingly-bad Network Neutrality and forced-cellular-network-sharing.

 So we have an enfeebled Obama administration standing on the world stage, asking the United Nations to – PLEASE!?! – “Do as we say – not as we do.”

 

The Voter ID Thing – Tea Party Nation

 

The Voter ID Thing – Tea Party Nation.

By Alan Caruba

On September 25th, according to Congressional Black Caucus Chairman, Emmanuel Cleaver, “we cannot even find an instance of voter fraud” but the NAACP would disagree as it strives to keep Voter ID laws from being passed.

The NAACP is so concerned about voter rights that it has taken its case to the United Nations, claiming that “Millions of United States citizens are denied the right to vote because they have been previously convicted to a felony offense.

At a NAACP-sponsored panel, a member of its board of directors, Lorraine Miller, called upon the UN Special Rappateour “to investigate racially discriminatory elections laws” given that many felons are black and many states deny voting rights to convicted felons. The NAACP is on a tear to defeat Voter ID laws, claiming they are racially based.

At this point, between thirty-one and thirty-three States have enacted laws that require all voters to show an ID at the polls in November, depending on whether the laws are declared strict or not.

Rep. Cleaver is, shall we say, misinformed. According to a Justice Department fact sheet dated July 2, 2008, more than 140 individuals have been charged with election fraud offenses and more than a hundred have been convicted since the Attorney General’s Ballot Access and Voting initiative was launched in 2002. This is, in actuality, a fairly pathetic enforcement record.

On September 19, one day after being sued over a controversial ballot box citizenship question, Michigan Secretary of State, Ruth Johnson, said there were an estimated 4,000 non-citizens on its voter rolls of the estimated 305,000 non-citizens that live there. This is why Ms. Johnson is insisting that Michigan’s 7.34 million registered voters be asked to confirm they are citizens on Election Day in November.

The election outcome in 2000 had to be decided by the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore and this initiated efforts to avoid a repeat by tightening voter laws to avoid all manner of fraud.

In their book, “Who’s Counting: How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk”, authors John Fund and Hans Von Spakovsky, say that “Election fraud, whether it’s phony voter registrations, illegal absentee ballots, vote-buying, shady recounts, or old-fashioned ballot-box stuffing, can be found in every part of the United States, although it is probably spreading because of the ever-so-close tight red state/blue state divisions that have polarized the country and created so many close elections of late.”

“In 2012, the voter rolls in many American cities include more names than the U.S. Census listed as the total number of residents over age 18. Philadelphia’s voter rolls, for instance, have increased dramatically as the city’s population has declined.”

In 2008, following the election of Barack Obama, ACORN which engaged in widespread voter fraud had its operatives indicted in fifteen States. “At least 54 individuals who worked for ACORN have been convicted of voter fraud or related activities,” noted Fund and Von Spakovsky. It did not go unnoticed that ACORN had earlier hired Obama as a “community organizer.”

But Benjamin Jealous, the president of the NAACP asserts that blacks are the victims of “the greatest assault on voting rights…since the days of Jim Crow.” As noted, the NAACP has gone to the United Nations claiming Voter ID laws are a violation of human rights.” This is absurd. The former civil rights organization has devolved into little more than a stooge for the Democratic Party.

As Fund and Vop Spakovsky point out, “The evidence from academic studies and actual turnout in elections is overwhelming that—contrary to the shrill claims of opponents—voter ID does not suppress turnout, including among the ranks of minority, poor, and elderly voters.”

It has broad implications for the passage of laws such as Obamacare that was imposed by the slimmest majority in the Senate in 2009. In August 2009, Bill Frezza, writing in Forbes, noted that “The latest revelations that illegal votes may have given Al Franken (D-Minn) his 312-vote margin of victory in his 2008 Senate race—out of the nearly 3 million votes cast—gives one pause.” Franken’s vote was critical to its passage.

“Despite this,” noted Frezza, “Eric Holder’s Justice Department is pulling out all the stops to defeat the passage of voter ID laws, arguing that they place an undue burden that could result in some eligible voters being disenfranchised.”

How absurd is this? Valid ID’s are required by the DMV, airports, hospitals, pharmacies, when donating blood, by banks, gun shops, adoption agencies, the Social Security Office, pawn shops, courts, union elections and, yes, when voting in local, state, and national elections.

Voter fraud is not a racial issue. It is the central issue of the republic to ensure the accuracy and credibility of the election process and is crucial to the outcome of the forthcoming elections that will determine which party controls Congress and who will be President in the coming four years.

© Alan Caruba, 2012

 

GOP platform opposes U.N. tax plans – Washington Times

 

GOP platform opposes U.N. tax plans – Washington Times.

Levies infringe on U.S. rights, supporters say

TAMPA, Fla. — Republican platform writers put the party officially on record Wednesday opposing attempts by the United Nations, some backed by Democrats in Congress, to assess a special tax on all Americans and to give the money to Third World nations.

“The United Nations has proposed three global taxes and a global monetary governance mechanism to raise $400 billion a year to aid developing countries,” the Republican National Committee says in a resolution passed in the opening session of its annual meeting preceding the party’s presidential nominating convention that begins here Monday.

The resolution cites in particular reports that Ottmar Edenhofer, an official with the U.N.’s major international panel dealing with climate-change issues, “claimed that climate-change policy was a way to redistribute wealth globally.”

The move also could have the practical effect of complicating the ability of the U.S. to participate in such international accords as the Law of the Sea Treaty, which the U.S. Senate has never ratified, and successor agreements to the Kyoto global-warming pact.

The RNC’s resolution, which puts the national GOP in the center of the global wealth-distribution controversy for the first time, says the world body also has proposed a carbon tax, a currency transaction tax and a billionaires’ tax, “as well as allocation of the International Monetary Fund’s Special Drawing Rights,” which have been proposed by some as a replacement for the U.S. dollar as the common currency all nations use for international trade.

The Congressional Budget Office issued a report earlier this year asserting that the financial transactions tax could kill jobs in the U.S. Such a move, financial experts say, could also undermine the nation’s long-standing role as the dominant global financial power.

The transaction tax was sponsored by Rep. Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon and Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, both liberal Democrats, late in 2011. Citing similar taxes imposed in Europe, the two said the measure could raise revenue for the Treasury while simultaneously curbing excessive financial market speculation.

“The first step on the long path to recovery happens when we rein in the excessive speculative activity that has destabilized our financial system,” Mr. DeFazio said at the time.

Republicans here said the tax could cause American stock traders to move their businesses offshore and create ways to avoid the tax.

Approved by the standing resolutions committee, the document will be presented to the full 168-member RNC for approval Thursday.

“The United Nations has not evidenced its capability to properly handle foreign aid and has in face been shown to be wasteful and scandal-ridden, ” the GOP resolution notes.

The resolution’s sponsor, Demetra DeMonte, an RNC member from Illinois and a founding member of the RNC’s Conservative Caucus, said the U.N. appears bent on encroaching on U.S. sovereignty.

Jeff Grossman, a delegate-at-large to the national convention, said he “wished the resolution had gone further.”

“In truth, the U.N. has no authority to impose a tax on the citizens of the United States,” said Mr. Grossman, who supported Mitt Romney in the Republican presidential primaries.

He argued that the GOP must take the stand it did Wednesday because “it would be a violation of America’s sovereignty and of the Constitution to ratify such a tax.”

 

DANIELS: I won’t just shut up and sing – Washington Times

 

DANIELS: I won’t just shut up and sing – Washington Times.

America still a land of free speech

By Charlie Daniels

Because I’m part of the Nashville music community, my mostly conservative views do not make me the anomaly or oddity I would be in the more urbane entertainment capitals. As many of my compatriots expound the value system of God, family, country and work just as I do, and as I tend to spend my off time among a mostly blue-collar crowd, I have very few face-to-face confrontations.

Most of my more vocal critics tend to hide behind Twitter avatars and email names, and most of them make ridiculous assumptions, such as if you oppose Obamacare, you want to sit back and watch all the poor people in the nation die, or if you want to see sanity at the border, you hate all Hispanics.

A while back, there was a lady who just couldn’t understand why I don’t think it is my obligation to pay for her contraception, as if it were an American woman’s right to assign her responsibility for getting pregnant to somebody who didn’t even participate. In my book, if you’re going to play, it’s your place to pay, and if she wants to stand at the door of a men’s room at a service station and hand out coins for the boys to use in the condom machines, that’s her business. I’m just not going to give her any quarters.

Sometimes I’ll receive valid, courteous questions about why I feel the way I do about certain issues. I respond in kind, and there is potential for constructive conversation. There are always two sides to every story, and nobody is wrong all the time, with the possible exception of a few people on Capitol Hill.

Of course, I ignore the “I hope you drop dead with an incurable virus” kind of comments because responding only fans the flames, and you may as well try to reason with a cement mixer.

Some people really seem to think they’re insulting me when they call me a redneck, but I don’t think those people even know what an honest-to-goodness redneck is. You see, a redneck is not somebody riding around in a pickup truck shooting at road signs with a handgun and throwing empty beer bottles on the side of the road. Where I come from, a redneck is just a hardworking man who gets up before the sun does and spends the day working outside, getting the back of his neck rosy in the process. I happen to think those folks are the salt of the earth, and I’m honored to be considered one.

I’d say one of the most appalling things about America today is the lack of original and informed opinion, as some of the most vocal of the amateur pundits quote verbatim something they’ve heard or read. When they’re asked to explain, their position fades away into cyberspace, and they’re unable to put up even a cursory defense of something they’ve stated vehemently just a few moments before.

I am not a man of letters and have no claim or ties to academia, no degrees and actually feel extremely blessed to have made it through high school. But my opinions are all my own, based on 75 years of experience and what I call cowboy logic, which is 2 plus 2 is always 4, water never runs uphill, and if there’s smoke, there’s a fire somewhere.

I personally believe that man-made global warming is an international scam; I happen to think the United Nations is an anti-American, corrupt and toothless debating society that has violated its charter and its very name, for that matter; and I’m firmly convinced that the Southeastern Conference is the greatest football organization ever instituted by mankind.

So you probably can see where I have a few detractors.

With all her wrinkles and warts, the United States of America is still the most exciting place in the world. Waking up in a nation where every day a cure for cancer, a workable biofuel or a mind-numbing discovery at the bottom of the sea could be announced is unparalleled. We live in a place where a new technology or computer chip could propel the economy into hyperspace all over again, and that can’t happen just anywhere.

This is a place where diversity makes us colorful but unity makes us strong, and when we reason together, it becomes stronger still.

Let your voice be heard. I know I’m going to.

Charlie Daniels is a country music legend and author of “Ain’t No Rag” (Regnery, 2003) and “Growing Up Country” (Flying Dolphin Press/Broadway Books, 2007).

 

INHOFE AND DEMINT: U.N. treaties mean LOST U.S. sovereignty – Washington Times

INHOFE AND DEMINT: U.N. treaties mean LOST U.S. sovereignty – Washington Times.

Liberals intent on imposing backdoor globalism

By Sen. James M. Inhofe and Sen. Jim DeMint

For years, liberals and misguided State Department officials have pushed for the U.S. Senate to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). This treaty would convey ownership of the oceans to a United Nations agency and give international bureaucrats veto authority over U.S. naval operations and could force the United States to comply with international carbon emissions caps.

Last week, we defeated LOST by securing commitments to ensure it cannot gain the 67 votes needed for ratification.

However, no sooner had the 34th Republican senator signed a letter opposing LOST than the surrender of American sovereignty was put back on the table by foreign diplomats and their internationalist allies in the federal government.

With LOST dead, the new treaties being promoted to take its place include the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Disabled, which calls for government agents to supersede the authority of parents of disabled children and even covers abortion. Also, the Obama administration has begun negotiations on a new U.N. treaty to create international gun control rules that could slowly erode our Second Amendment.

The globalist ideologues behind these treaties are either ignorant of or hostile to the universal human experience that problems are best solved by the people and institutions closest to them. So assured are these masters of their mandate to direct the lives and wealth of other people that they see their routine failures to do so efficiently at the local, state and national level merely as reason to ascend to new heights of international command and control.

Our nation’s founders understood this hubristic temptation of public officials. Thomas Jefferson stated in his inaugural address the principle of “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” Instead, America sought to constrain our actions within the confines of the consent of the people. It is this measure of accountability that fetters both policymaking and policymakers. This is precisely why internationalists prefer to elevate authority wherever possible above democratic accountability.

This explains the feverish effort to join the United States to so many international treaties and conventions on every subject under the sun. It is a backdoor effort to impose extreme liberal policies on Americans who would never vote for them if given the choice.

That was precisely the motivation behind President Obama and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John F. Kerry’s effort to ratify LOST in a lame-duck session of Congress, when public scrutiny and accountability would be minimal.

They argue that we need this treaty, which the Senate correctly has ignored since its original completion in 1982, to ensure America’s access to the world’s shipping lanes. Of course, we already have such access, no thanks to a piece of paper, but to the world’s most powerful navy.

In exchange for gaining something it already has, then, the United States would, under LOST, surrender billions, possibly trillions, in royalty payments for oil and gas produced from our Outer Continental Shelf. At the same time, the treaty would expose our citizens to frivolous lawsuits in international courts.

LOST would trade in our Constitution for a vague 200-page compact drafted by foreign diplomats. It would trade in our Founding Fathers for the United Nations, and “we the people” for “you the foreign secretaries we’ve never heard of and didn’t elect.”

This desire to substitute the received wisdom of international committees, led by nations like Sudan and Russia, for the electoral judgment of the American people is the motivation behind LOST and every other sovereignty-peddling treaty making the rounds.

It explains the Kyoto Protocols, which would have handed over American energy policymaking to international green-ocrats. It explains the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which would supersede federal, state and local laws, mandating choices and decisions best left to parents.

The same is true for the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which would empower international bureaucrats to set local laws concerning abortion, marriage, day care and even Mother’s Day.

In the end, for all their titles and credentials, the globalists are just liberal politicians with well-worn passports. It is not some new form of international harmony they seek but just larger institutions from which to impose their old, discredited agenda.

They see the U.S. Constitution as an obstacle to progress and so seek to supersede it by any means available to them. The debates about these treaties are not about the legalistic minutiae they contain but the sovereign citizenry they threaten.

The American people’s God-given and constitutionally protected right to self-government must be protected. The fact that our people remain skeptical toward the schemes of international diplomats is a sign of their enduring wisdom.

LOST is dead, for now. But new efforts to hand over American sovereignty to international authority already are under way. Only with the ongoing help and vigilance of the American people can we hope to defeat the next generation of unnecessary, unrepublican and undemocratic treaties.

Sen. James M. Inhofe is a Republican from Oklahoma. Sen. Jim DeMint is a Republican from South Carolina. They both serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

EDITORIAL: U.N. gun grab flops – Washington Times

EDITORIAL: U.N. gun grab flops – Washington Times.

International bureaucrats flub their attempt to create arms control treaty

The United Nations‘ drive to gain control of the international arms trade is a mixed bag. The bad news is that it has the potential to infringe on the legitimate rights of American gun owners. The good news is that the treaty drafting process has been so dysfunctional that whatever emerges has little chance of getting through the U.S. Senate.

The proposed United Nations Arms Transfer Treaty seeks to establish “common international standards for the import, export and transfer” of the billions of dollars of conventional arms traded annually. It would regulate tanks, military vehicles, combat aircraft, warships and missiles.

Any mention of the U.N. and gun control in the same sentence is bound to raise red flags. Not surprisingly, American firearms advocates strongly oppose the agreement. They believe the treaty’s language would be so loose that activist judges or overzealous federal enforcers would find ways to use the agreement to override the Second Amendment. Treaty backers scoff that this would be impossible since the measure applies only to international arms transfers.

Gun owners are right to be wary. The Constitution’s interstate Commerce Clause has been stretched to include all manner of trade that it was not originally intended to cover, and the same logic could be used regarding international commerce. It would not be much of a stretch to suppose activist judges could claim a gun manufactured in the United States that used some foreign components would satisfy a nexus requirement under the treaty. Such an expansive interpretation would be well beyond the stated purpose of the agreement, but that sort of technicality has never stopped determined government regulators.

Another concern is the current fad in liberal legal circles to read international laws, norms and standards into American jurisprudence. A treaty that establishes a framework for limiting, monitoring and reporting arms transfers — which the proposed arms treaty does — could well be applied to U.S. case law by judges enamored with the notion that international agreements somehow reflect a higher state of legal evolution than a musty old document like the Constitution.

Fortunately, the treaty likely won’t get that far. Its drafting committee released the latest language on Tuesday, and it has been watered down significantly. The United States won an important concession to exclude ammunition from the draft, and state-to-state transfers given as aid are also not covered. Left-wing activist groups are annoyed that the treaty is vague and full of loopholes, not the strong, binding agreement they initially sought. There are enough references to human rights issues that rogue states like Syria, North Korea, Iran and Cuba may try to block it.

The draft treaty must also be reviewed, debated, amended and voted on by Friday — a difficult task in itself. If the U.N. manages this, President Obama would have to sign it, which the White House seems poised to do. The treaty wouldn’t be binding on the United States until approved by two-thirds of the Senate. Given the amount of domestic opposition, that’s unlikely. Though it remains to be seen how the final text will turn out, it appears for now that the international gun grabbers aren’t going to get what they want.

The Washington Times

INHOFE AND DEMINT: U.N. treaties mean LOST U.S. sovereignty – Washington Times

 

INHOFE AND DEMINT: U.N. treaties mean LOST U.S. sovereignty – Washington Times.

Liberals intent on imposing backdoor globalism

By Sen. James M. Inhofe and Sen. Jim DeMint

For years, liberals and misguided State Department officials have pushed for the U.S. Senate to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). This treaty would convey ownership of the oceans to a United Nations agency and give international bureaucrats veto authority over U.S. naval operations and could force the United States to comply with international carbon emissions caps.

Last week, we defeated LOST by securing commitments to ensure it cannot gain the 67 votes needed for ratification.

However, no sooner had the 34th Republican senator signed a letter opposing LOST than the surrender of American sovereignty was put back on the table by foreign diplomats and their internationalist allies in the federal government.

With LOST dead, the new treaties being promoted to take its place include the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Disabled, which calls for government agents to supersede the authority of parents of disabled children and even covers abortion. Also, the Obama administration has begun negotiations on a new U.N. treaty to create international gun control rules that could slowly erode our Second Amendment.

The globalist ideologues behind these treaties are either ignorant of or hostile to the universal human experience that problems are best solved by the people and institutions closest to them. So assured are these masters of their mandate to direct the lives and wealth of other people that they see their routine failures to do so efficiently at the local, state and national level merely as reason to ascend to new heights of international command and control.

Our nation’s founders understood this hubristic temptation of public officials. Thomas Jefferson stated in his inaugural address the principle of “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” Instead, America sought to constrain our actions within the confines of the consent of the people. It is this measure of accountability that fetters both policymaking and policymakers. This is precisely why internationalists prefer to elevate authority wherever possible above democratic accountability.

This explains the feverish effort to join the United States to so many international treaties and conventions on every subject under the sun. It is a backdoor effort to impose extreme liberal policies on Americans who would never vote for them if given the choice.

That was precisely the motivation behind President Obama and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John F. Kerry’s effort to ratify LOST in a lame-duck session of Congress, when public scrutiny and accountability would be minimal.

They argue that we need this treaty, which the Senate correctly has ignored since its original completion in 1982, to ensure America’s access to the world’s shipping lanes. Of course, we already have such access, no thanks to a piece of paper, but to the world’s most powerful navy.

In exchange for gaining something it already has, then, the United States would, under LOST, surrender billions, possibly trillions, in royalty payments for oil and gas produced from our Outer Continental Shelf. At the same time, the treaty would expose our citizens to frivolous lawsuits in international courts.

LOST would trade in our Constitution for a vague 200-page compact drafted by foreign diplomats. It would trade in our Founding Fathers for the United Nations, and “we the people” for “you the foreign secretaries we’ve never heard of and didn’t elect.”

This desire to substitute the received wisdom of international committees, led by nations like Sudan and Russia, for the electoral judgment of the American people is the motivation behind LOST and every other sovereignty-peddling treaty making the rounds.

It explains the Kyoto Protocols, which would have handed over American energy policymaking to international green-ocrats. It explains the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which would supersede federal, state and local laws, mandating choices and decisions best left to parents.

The same is true for the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which would empower international bureaucrats to set local laws concerning abortion, marriage, day care and even Mother’s Day.

In the end, for all their titles and credentials, the globalists are just liberal politicians with well-worn passports. It is not some new form of international harmony they seek but just larger institutions from which to impose their old, discredited agenda.

They see the U.S. Constitution as an obstacle to progress and so seek to supersede it by any means available to them. The debates about these treaties are not about the legalistic minutiae they contain but the sovereign citizenry they threaten.

The American people’s God-given and constitutionally protected right to self-government must be protected. The fact that our people remain skeptical toward the schemes of international diplomats is a sign of their enduring wisdom.

LOST is dead, for now. But new efforts to hand over American sovereignty to international authority already are under way. Only with the ongoing help and vigilance of the American people can we hope to defeat the next generation of unnecessary, unrepublican and undemocratic treaties.

Sen. James M. Inhofe is a Republican from Oklahoma. Sen. Jim DeMint is a Republican from South Carolina. They both serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,887 other followers