Category: United Nations


Refugees Grateful For Chance To See Europe While Being Bounced From Country To Country
September 8, 2015

BUDAPEST, HUNGARY—Saying they never dreamed they’d have the opportunity to do so much traveling and sightseeing, tens of thousands of refugees across Europe confirmed Tuesday that they were grateful for the chance to take in so many of the continent’s natural and historical treasures while being bounced from country to country. “I thought the Serbian countryside was so beautiful when we were marching through it, but, wow, Budapest is truly breathtaking—it’s a real architectural gem—and hopefully once our papers expire in 48 hours we’ll be off to somewhere new!” said Syrian refugee Majd Ahsan, who added that his European trip got off to a great start on the island of Lesbos in Greece, where he said he was really able to soak in the Mediterranean landscape by spending his every waking and sleeping moment outdoors. “We actually got to spend a couple extra days in Athens while the Macedonian borders were closed, which was a real treat—there’s just so much rich history right there! At this point, who knows which country we’ll see tomorrow or the next day. Germany? France? Ooh, maybe we’ll go to Prague, get turned away at a processing center, and be sent to Poland! I hear it’s really lovely.” Ahsan added that he was just sad that two of his four children and both of his brothers were no longer around to enjoy the tour of Europe with him.

Advertisements

HOW THE REPUBLICANS PLAN TO LOSE TO HILLARY

By Cliff Kincaid
July 17, 2015
NewsWithViews.com

A new survey from Univision, the pro-Mexico television network, demonstrates the utter folly of Republicans appealing to Hispanic voters. It finds that 68 percent have a favorable view of Hillary Clinton despite the scandals swirling around her. By contrast, only 36 percent have a favorable view of former Republican Governor Jeb Bush, who is married to a Mexican and speaks Spanish.

Bush “was the highest-rated of all the Republican candidates,” Univision reports, with Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), a one-time proponent of amnesty for illegals, coming in second with only a 35 percent approval rate.

What the poll demonstrates is that Hispanics are basically owned by the Democratic Party. The Democrats’ power grab for the Latino vote has been successful. However, ultimately the Democratic Party’s success in the presidential election depends on convincing Republicans to fruitlessly continue to appeal to Hispanics, while abandoning the GOP voter base of whites, conservatives and Christians.

Overall, in terms of political party affiliation, 57 percent of Hispanics identified themselves as Democrats and only 18 percent said they are Republicans. A total of 25 percent called themselves independent.

In another finding, 59 percent of Hispanic voters said they were satisfied with Barack Obama’s presidency after his six years in office. Clearly, most Hispanics have drunk the Kool-Aid. For them, it appears that federal benefits and legalization of border crossers are what matters. Most of them don’t bat an eye in regard to Obama’s lawless and traitorous conduct of domestic and foreign policy.

What the Republicans have left is to try to appeal to white, conservative and Christian voters. But that strategy, of course, runs the obvious risk of being depicted by the liberal media as racist. After all, whites are not supposed to have a “white identity,” as Jared Taylor’s book by that name describes.

Whites cannot have a racial identity, but Hispanics and blacks can. This is one aspect of political correctness. As communists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who are themselves white, put it in their book, it is a “race course against white supremacy.”

If Republicans pander to Hispanics, they will alienate their voter base, which has shown in their reaction to the Donald Trump candidacy that they want more—not less—action taken to control the border with Mexico. Republican Senator John McCain (AZ) calls the Trump supporters “crazies,” an indication that the GOP establishment would rather jettison these people than bring them into the Republican camp. Like McCain, former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has also attacked Trump, saying his remarks about criminal aliens are hurting the GOP. It’s amazing how a loser like Romney, who also threw in the towel on gay marriage when he was governor of Massachusetts, continues to generate press. What he is saying is what the liberal media want to hear.

Of course, the political correctness which dominates the national dialogue and debate also means that Republicans like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are likely to continue to demonize Trump, thereby alienating many whites. As a result, the Republicans will get less of the conservative and Christian vote, further diminishing their chances of winning the White House. It will be a replay of the losing campaigns of John McCain and Mitt Romney. Republicans have already alienated many Christian voters by giving up the fight for traditional marriage. They had planned to abandon border control as an issue until Trump and “El Chapo” got in the way.

Meanwhile, in another amazing turnaround, Republicans on Capitol Hill are backing Obama’s call for “sentencing reform,” a strategy that will empty the prisons and increase the crime rate, thereby alienating GOP voters in favor of law and order.

As this scenario plays out, Mrs. Clinton is coming across on the Democratic side looking like a moderate, by virtue of the fact that an open socialist, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), is running “to her left” for the Democratic nomination.

The Clinton-Sanders show has all the earmarks of a carefully staged demonstration of the Marxist dialectic, an exercise designed to create the appearance of conflict in order to force even more radical change on the American people through Democratic Party rule.

Anybody who knows anything about Hillary, a student of Saul Alinsky, understands that her “moderation” is only a façade. Her thesis on Alinsky for Wellesley College was titled “There Is Only the Fight…” That is the Marxist strategy. It is the Alinsky version of the Marxist dialectic. It was also adopted by Obama, who was trained by Alinsky disciples working with the Catholic Church in Chicago.

In my column, “Study Marxism to Understand Hillary,” I noted that Barbara Olson had come to the conclusion while researching her book on Hillary that “she has a political ideology that has its roots in Marxism.” Olson noted, “In her formative years, Marxism was a very important part of her ideology…”

This means that Mrs. Clinton understands that the Sanders candidacy actually supports and does not undermine her own candidacy. It makes Hillary look like a moderate while she moves further to the left, a place she wants to be, in response to the left-wing Democratic base. Only the Marxist insiders seem to understand what is happening.

Some uninformed commentators refer to something called “Clintonism,” a supposed moderate brand of Democratic Party politics. If that ever existed, it applied to Bill Clinton and not Hillary.

The fact is that Sanders and Mrs. Clinton have associated with the same gang of communists and fellow travelers for many years. Sanders was an active collaborator with the Communist Party-sponsored U.S. Peace Council.

As for Hillary, Barbara Olson reported in her book Hell to Pay that Robert Borosage, who served as director of the Marxist Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), was “a colleague and close acquaintance” of Clinton. Olson wrote that Mrs. Clinton operated in the “reaches of the left including Robert Treuhaft and Jessica Mitford,” who had been “committed Communists” and “Stalinists.” Olson said that Hillary worked for Treuhaft and paved the way for Mitford to lobby then-Governor Bill Clinton on the death penalty issue.

Olson described Hillary as a “budding Leninist” who understood the Leninist concept of acquiring, accumulating and maintaining political power at any cost. She wrote that “Hillary has never repudiated her connection with the Communist movement in America or explained her relationship with two of its leading adherents. Of course, no one has pursued these questions with Hillary. She has shown that she will not answer hard questions about her past, and she has learned that she does not need to—remarkable in an age when political figures are allowed such little privacy.”

Researcher Carl Teichrib has provided me with a photo of a Hillary meeting with Cora Weiss from the May 2000 edition of “Peace Matters,” the newsletter of the Hague Appeal for Peace. Weiss, a major figure in the Institute for Policy Studies, gained notoriety for organizing anti-Vietnam War demonstrations and traveling to Hanoi to meet with communist leaders. In the photo, Hillary is shown fawning over a Hague Appeal for Peace gold logo pin that Weiss is wearing.

Teichrib, editor of Forcing Change, recalls being an observer at the 1999 World Federalist Association (WFA) conference, held in association with the Hague Appeal for Peace, during which everyone in attendance was given an honorary membership into the WFA. In addition to collaborating with the pro-Hanoi Hague Appeal for Peace, the WFA staged a “Mission to Moscow” and held several meetings with the Soviet Peace Committee for the purpose of “discussing the goal of general and complete disarmament” and “the strengthening of the United Nations.” Mrs. Clinton spoke to a WFA conference in a tribute to veteran newsman Walter Cronkite, a supporter of world government.

In the WFA booklet, “The Genius of Federation: Why World Federation is the Answer to Global Problems,” the group described how a “world federation,” a euphemism for world government, could be achieved by advancing “step by step toward global governance,” mostly by enhancing the power and authority of U.N. agencies.

Subscribe to NewsWithViews Daily Email Alerts
Obama’s Iran deal continues this strategy by placing enormous power in the hands of the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency.

At this stage in the campaign, even before the first Republican presidential debate, we can already see how the race is playing out. Hillary is counting on the Republicans nominating another loser with a losing strategy while she moves to the left and looks like a moderate.

Alinsky would be proud.

© 2015 Cliff Kincaid – All Rights Reserved

Congressmen Push to Get Us Out of United Nations – Is Your Representative On Board?
5 Comments
Rep. Michael Rogers (R-AL) has put forth legislation to repeal the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and has several supporters in favor of the bill.

Currently Representatives Thomas Massie (R-KY), Jeff Duncan (R-TN) Westmoreland (R-GA), and Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) has co-sponsored the bill.
According to the bill, it would:
Repeal
The United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (Public Law 79–264; 22 U.S.C. 287 et seq.) is repealed.
Termination of membership in United Nations
The President shall terminate all membership by the United States in the United Nations, and in any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations.
Closure of United States Mission to United Nations
The United States Mission to the United Nations is closed. Any remaining functions of such office shall not be carried out.
The bill would also agree to withdraw from the agreement between the United States of America and the United Nations regarding the headquarters of the United Nations.
It would also terminate fund that are “authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for the United States contribution to any United Nations peacekeeping operation or force.”
Additionally, it would not allow for funds to be used to “support participation of any member of the Armed Forces of the United States as part of any United nations military or peacekeeping operation or force” nor would it allow for any “member of the Armed Forces of the United States” to “server under the command of the United Nations.”
On top of that, the US government would basically kick the United Nations out of New York as it would not allow the UN to “occupy or use any property or facility of the United States Government.”

Diplomatic immunity would also go away with this bill and UN officials, employees and anyone associated with the UN would lose such status, making them subject to the laws of the land in which they are in.
It would also repeal the following:
Repeal of United States membership and participation in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
Repeal of United Nations Environment Program Participation Act of 1973
Repeal of United States participation in the World Health Organization
Repeal of involvement in United Nations conventions and agreements
There are many reason for the United States to remove itself from the United Nations. Among those are five things that Jim Fitzgerald had pointed out:
The complete text of the UN Charter’s Article 25 states: “The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.” That clearly stated requirement supersedes adherence to the US Constitution. That any US government official would agree to that is incredible. When the UN’s Security Council decides to act, our nation’s membership requires the United States to “accept and carry out” what the Security Council wants done.
When the UN Security Council decides to send military forces to carry out its decisions, all member nations are required to participate.
In 1990, a UN Security Council resolution was sought and obtained by President George H. W. Bush for the first invasion of Iraq and that was in line with advancing a “New World Order.” This was summarily the same proposition pitched by Bush, Jr. for the second unconstitutional invasion of Iraq.
Articles 52-54 of the UN Charter permit nations to form “Regional Arrangements” to conduct military operations. Under these three articles in the Charter, NATO and SEATO were created, which have gotten us into more unconstitutional wars.
Article 2 of the UN Charter states: “nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state…” But the UN meddles in an array of matters, which are certainly within the jurisdiction of individual states (countries), including our own.
Take time to contact your representative and senator at every office they have and demand that they support HR 1205 for the future of our posterity and for the survival of America!

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/07/congressmen-push-to-get-us-out-of-united-nations-is-your-representative-on-board/#V69Xg61qPdH95RFh.99

DailyCaller

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists have found a solution to the 15-year “pause” in global warming: They “adjusted” the hiatus in warming out of the temperature record.

New climate data by NOAA scientists doubles the warming trend since the late 1990s by adjusting pre-hiatus temperatures downward and inflating temperatures in more recent years.

“Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus,’” wrote NOAA scientists in their study presenting newly adjusted climate data.

To increase the rate in warming, NOAA scientists put more weight on certain ocean buoy arrays, adjusted ship-based temperature readings upward, and slightly raised land-based temperatures as well. Scientists said adjusted ship-based temperature data “had the largest impact on trends for the 2000-2014 time period, accounting for 0.030°C of the 0.064°C trend difference.” They added that the “buoy offset correction contributed 0.014°C… to the difference, and the additional weight given to the buoys because of their greater accuracy contributed 0.012°C.”

NOAA says for the years 1998 to 2012, the “new analysis exhibits more than twice as much warming as the old analysis at the global scale,” at 0.086 degrees Celsius per decade compared to 0.039 degrees per decade.

“This is clearly attributable to the new [Sea Surface Temperature] analysis, which itself has much higher trends,” scientists noted in their study. “In contrast, trends in the new [land surface temperature] analysis are only slightly higher.”

Global surface temperature data shows a lack of statistically significant warming over the last 15 years — a development that has baffled climate scientists. Dozens of explanations have been offered to explain the hiatus in warming, but those theories may be rendered moot by NOOA’s new study.

NOAA’s study, however, notes the overall warming trend since 1880 has not been significantly changed. What’s increased is the warming trend in recent decades.
“Our new analysis now shows the trend over the period 1950-1999, a time widely agreed as having significant anthropogenic global warming, is 0.113 [degrees Celsius per decade], which is virtually indistinguishable with the trend over the period 2000-2014″ of 0.116 degrees per decade, according to the study.

The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s “statement of two years ago — that the global surface temperature has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years’ — is no longer valid,” the study claims.

But that’s not all NOAA did to increase the warming trend in recent decades. Climate expert Bob Tisdale and meteorologist Anthony Watts noted that to “manufacture warming during the hiatus, NOAA adjusted the pre-hiatus data downward.”

“If we subtract the [old] data from the [new] data… we can see that that is exactly what NOAA did,” Tisdale and Watts wrote on the science blog Watts Up With That.

“It’s the same story all over again; the adjustments go towards cooling the past and thus increasing the slope of temperature rise,” Tisdale and Watts added. “Their intent and methods are so obvious they’re laughable.”

NEXT PAGE: ‘Adjusting Good Data Upwards To Match Bad Data Seems Questionable’

Tags: Anthony Watts, Barack Obama, Bob Tisdale, Cato Institute, Chip Knappenberger, Georgia Tech, Judith Curry, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Patrick Michaels, Richard Lindzen
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/noaa-fiddles-with-climate-data-to-erase-the-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/#ixzz3c9QZWftW

Parents to take ‘torture’ of Michael Brown to UN

By St. Louis Post-Dispatch (MO) November 5, 2014 11:55 am

Human rights violationsThe parents of Michael Brown are going to a United Nations meeting in Switzerland to speak against civil rights violations, racial profiling and police violence in the United States, according to a St. Louis University assistant law professor who is helping organize the trip.

Lesley McSpadden and Michael Brown Sr. will speak before the 53rd Session of the United Nations Committee Against Torture in Geneva on Nov. 12 and 13, said the professor, Justin Hansford, who has been active in Ferguson protests. He said Brown’s parents are taking their grievances to a world stage because they feel they have not gotten justice from state, local and federal governments in the death of their son, who was fatally shot by Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson on Aug. 9.

Hansford said Brown’s parents are being sponsored by the U.S. Human Rights Network, a nonprofit network of human rights groups. Hansford and others have set up a website to collect donations to send protesters to the conference, he said. Plans for the trip are spelled out on the website fergusontogeneva.org.

McSpadden and Brown could not immediately be reached for comment. Their lawyer, Anthony D. Gray, said they planned to leave Nov. 10.

Hansford said he helped the Brown family get an audience by submitting a paper earlier this fall. He said he hopes the committee helps encourage authorities to take a less militarized approach in their response to future unrest. “The world community will look at it through a human rights lens this time,” he said.

The Committee against Torture, made up of 10 human rights experts from around the world, monitors an agreement by certain nations not to engage in torture or other inhumane treatment.

 

People’s Climate Demarche
The anticarbon campaign stalls even at the United Nations.
Tens of thousands of environmental protestors paraded through New York City on Sunday, in a “people’s climate march” designed to lobby world leaders arriving for the latest United Nations climate summit. The march did succeed in messing up traffic, but President Obama won’t achieve much more when he speaks Tuesday at this latest pit stop on the global warming grand prix.

Six years after the failure of the Copenhagen summit whose extravagant ambition was to secure a binding global treaty on carbon emissions, Mr. Obama is trying again. The Turtle Bay gathering of world leaders isn’t formally a part of the international U.N. climate negotiations that are supposed to climax late next year in Paris, but the venue is meant to be an ice-breaker for more than 125 presidents, prime ministers and heads of state to start to reach consensus.

One not-so-minor problem: The world’s largest emitters are declining to show up, even for appearances. The Chinese economy has been the No. 1 global producer of carbon dioxide since 2008, but President Xi Jinping won’t be gracing the U.N. with his presence. India’s new Prime Minister Narendra Modi (No. 3) will be in New York but is skipping the climate parley. Russian President Vladimir Putin (No. 4) has other priorities, while Japan (No. 5) is uncooperative after the Fukushima disaster that has damaged support for nuclear power. Saudi Arabia is dispatching its petroleum minister.

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon excused these truancies at a press conference last week: “In any event, we have other means of communications, ways and means of having their leadership demonstrated in the United Nations.” In that case, why not do a conference call?

To understand the coldness of this brush off, global CO2 emissions increased to 35.1 billion metric tons in 2013, a new record and a 29% increase over a decade ago. Of the year-over-year carbon climb, China at 358 million metric tons jumped by more than the rest of the world combined and is responsible for 24.8% of emissions over the last five years. Over the same period, developing nations accounted for 57.5%.

What this means is that regardless of what the West does, poorer countries that are reluctant to sign agreements that impede economic progress hold the dominant carbon hand. No matter U.S. exertions to save the planet from atmospheric carbon that may or may not have consequences that may or may not be costly in a century or more, the international result will be more or less the same, though U.S. economic growth will be slower.

Mr. Modi is unlikely to indulge the rich world’s anticarbon politics when a quarter of the Indian population still lacks electricity. Mr. Obama might also pause to reflect that 30.6% of the 114.8 million American households qualify for low-income energy subsidies. Thus by the Administration’s own reckoning they can’t afford current energy costs, much less the higher costs of a zero-carbon future.

In his first speech as White House budget director, Shaun Donovan nonetheless told the Center for American Progress on Friday that “the scale of our ambition at home is going to be the single most important driver” for climate action by China and other nations. In fact, the costly anticarbon regulations that the Environmental Protection Agency is developing will by the EPA’s estimate address a mere 0.18% of world-wide carbon emissions. Some effort in persuasion.

Opinion Video
Editorial Page Editor Paul Gigot on why this week’s United Nations summit on climate change won’t help the environment. Photo credit: Associated Press.
This reality has now led more than a few climateers to claim that decarbonizing the economy will be magically cost-free. Mr. Donovan lectured that “climate denial will costs us billions of dollars,” as a hotter planet reduces GDP and drives up deficits, while natural disasters like coastal superstorms impose new relief costs on the federal fisc.

So the problem is so dire that we must impose huge new costs on carbon and energy production, but don’t worry—you won’t feel a thing. The government will create all new energy industries and wealth in a seamless transition. Caveat emptor: Supposedly professional economists who promise that scarce resources can be made scarcer at zero cost have stopped practicing economics. They have become politicians, if not as honest.

Rather than debasing economics, perhaps the climate lobby should return to the climate science and explain the hiatus in warming that has now lasted for 16, 19 or 26 years depending on the data set and which the climate models failed to predict even as global carbon dioxide emissions have climbed by 25%. Their alibi is that the new warming is now hidden in the oceans, an assertion they lack the evidence to prove.

The campaign to redo the global energy economy has produced plenty of spectacle (the activists in Manhattan), contempt for democratic norms (the EPA), and the promise of a less prosperous future (Germany’s renewable fuels fiasco). But perhaps Mr. Modi has a better sense of priorities because while in New York he plans to attend a Central Park event on the theme of reducing global poverty as well as the 9/11 memorial that is a reminder of the renewed threat of terrorism.

BEST OF THE WEB TODAY
Formidable Faux?
The pretend climate treaty.
By JAMES TARANTO CONNECT
August 27, 2014
“Pro-Russian rebel forces entered a key town in southeastern Ukraine on Wednesday after three days of heavy shelling, the town’s mayor said, capturing new territory far from most of their battles with government troops,” the Associated Press reports from said town:

Novoazovsk lies in a strategically significant location–on the Azov Sea and on the road linking Russia to the Russian-annexed Crimean Peninsula. It was the first time in the four-month-long conflict that fighting has reached as far south as the seacoast and suggests that the rebels, who Ukraine says are being supported by Russia, are emboldened and reinforced.
The new southeastern front has raised fears the separatists are seeking to create a land link between Russia and Crimea. If so, that could also give the rebels or Russia control over the entire Azov Sea and any oil or mineral riches it contains.
In related news, the New York Times reports that “the Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.”

How? Even the Times knows that “under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.” It would be more accurate to say “the country” rather than “a president,” but hey, close enough for government work.

Anyway, Senate ratification is no more in the cards now than it was in 1997, when the world’s greatest deliberative body voted 95-0 in favor of a nonbinding resolution “expressing the sense of the Senate” that the now-expired Kyoto Protocol was unacceptable. The Clinton administration signed that treaty the following year anyway but never submitted it to the Senate. Incidentally, the 1997 measure was called the Byrd-Hagel Resolution; its top Republican sponsor is now Obama’s defense secretary.

Today, as the Times reports, “lawmakers in both parties on Capitol Hill say there is no chance that the currently gridlocked Senate will ratify a climate change treaty in the near future, especially in a political environment where many Republican lawmakers remain skeptical of the established science of human-caused global warming.”

We’re skeptical of the Times’s claim that “lawmakers in both parties” said that “Republican lawmakers remain skeptical of the established science.” That sounds to us like editorializing on the Democratic side of the argument–although come to think of it, one also doubts there has been a unanimous change in the Democratic position since 1997. But anyway, neither party has had a two-thirds Senate majority since 1967, and neither is likely to achieve one anytime soon. Thus no treaty can be ratified without bipartisan support.

In order to “sidestep” the constitutional requirement that laws be made by lawmakers, the Times continues, “President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a ‘politically binding’ deal that would ‘name and shame’ countries into cutting their emissions.”

The story notes that Obama has already “bypassed Congress and used his executive authority to order a far-reaching regulation forcing American coal-fired power plants to curb their carbon emissions.” That reg has to go through the standard approval process, which won’t be complete until next year, and it is also being challenged in court. Even if it holds up, a future president could modify it. But if Obama gets his pretend treaty, a successor who undid his policies would risk subjecting America not only to naming but to shaming as well.

Would it work? Let’s consider two examples. First Australia, whose government, then controlled by the Labor Party, in 2012 imposed a “carbon tax.” As The Wall Street Journal reported last month, this year Tony Abbott, the aspiring prime minister from the opposition Liberal Party, “made a pre-election ‘pledge in blood’ to voters and business to prioritize growth above climate shift. The Liberals (who would be considered the conservatives in American parlance) were elected, and Abbott kept his promise.

“Today the tax that you voted to get rid of is finally gone, a useless destructive tax which damaged jobs, which hurt families’ cost of living and which didn’t actually help the environment is finally gone,” a jubilant Mr. Abbott told voters in a news conference after the Senate’s decision.

His opponents tried the name-and-shame technique: “Labor and Green opponents of the government said the repeal would make the country an international ‘pariah’ on efforts to combat climate change.” Not very fearsome a threat, is it?

Enlarge Image

Putin’s carbon footprint in Novoazovsk, Ukraine. Associated Press
The second example is Ukraine. In 1994, the U.S., U.K. and Russia signed a document known as the Budapest Memorandum, offering assurances in exchange for which Kiev gave up the nuclear weapons it had inherited owing to the Soviet Union’s dissolution. The memorandum purports to bind the three signatories “to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.”

But it isn’t a treaty, and thus has no legal force. Boris Yeltsin, Russia’s president at the time it was signed, acted in accord with the agreement, but Vladimir Putin obviously does not feel bound by it.

And how have the other signatories responded? There have been some economic sanctions, but mostly it’s been naming and shaming. “It’s really 19th-century behavior in the 21st century,” Secretary of State John Kerry in March. “You just don’t invade another country on phony pretexts in order to assert your interests.”

Almost six months later, Putin is unbowed. But maybe Kerry is just the wrong man for the job. In the era of naming and shaming, we need a top diplomat whose insults carry a punch. But who? Don Rickles is probably too old.

 
We ran across something that greatly disturbed us as we were researching illegal immigration. U.S. District Judge Korman has decided that the border — the area 100 miles inland from the entire U.S. border — falls under a “border exemption” and is being called a “Constitutional Exemption Zone”… all in the name of “national security”. People that are in this area are subject to being stopped and searched at random. So, our Constitutional Rights are being SUSPENDED in the 100-mile Constitutional Exemption Zone? Does this affect EVERYONE? What does this all mean, and to what can it lead? What is being planned for all of us in this ‘exemption zone’?

The Fourth Amendment is supposed to protect us from unreasonable search and seizure, including arbitrary and random stops and searches.

U.S. CONSTITUTION – AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Within 100 miles of the U.S. border, however, these rules DO NOT apply.

Constitutional Exemption Zones are being implemented by the Department of Homeland Security. It appears that this federal agency isn’t really securing the borders but are extinguishing the Fourth Amendment Rights of over 197 million people within 100 miles of the border… and the ocean?

Secure The Republic is very concerned about this new “Constitutional Exemption Zone”. What is REALLY going on? Most of our metropolitan cities fall within this area. 2/3 of Americans (197.4 MILLION people) will be affected by this. These people could find themselves WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. If the 4th Amendment can be removed (the one which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures), so can the other amendments! It appears that our borders are being eliminated and the sovereignty of our country is under attack.

This map from the ACLU is hard to beat because it shows the 100-mile “Constitutional Exemption Zone” visually, including cities which will be affected. Take a look for yourself! Pay special attention to the GREAT LAKES area. We’ll comment more about that in the future…

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-constitution-free-zone-map

Border search exception law and legal definition This is the Border Exception Law that is being implemented. The power to conduct warrantless search is referenced under 8 USCS § 1357. This is covered in the link.

Folks, this is not about border security. Our borders haven’t been secure in MANY years. This is about losing state sovereignty and our constitutional rights. This includes dropping national borders. Remember, it’s a well-orchestrated plan that has been slowly coming together and will strip us of our constitutional rights. You’ll find that proponents of these random searches and seizures make it sound good, but we need to know where their true motivation lies… It appears to us that we are in a type of police state.

Also, study your state constitution. You may find that it no longer describes the boundaries of your state, effectively abolishing your state. At last check, the only states that still lay out their boundaries in their constitutions are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Nevada, New Mexico, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Arkansas’ Constitution has been checked, and their boundary is found in Article I under “Boundaries”. The description of the boundary for your state may be found in a different location than Article I in your particular state’s constitution.

When the State borders are no longer in the State Constitution, it is the signal that the State has lost its sovereignty. WAKE UP AMERICA! Is your state boundary being abolished? Think about it another way: would you buy a piece of property that has no legal definition?
In order to better understand this, you will need to obtain a copy of your present state constitution to see if your state legislature has removed the boundaries of your state. The only way that these changes can be made is to change the state constitution and the U.S. Constitution. The promoters of Regional Governance and a One-World Government know this. It looks like STATE BOUNDARIES WILL HAVE TO BE ABOLISHED BEFORE REGIONAL GOVERNANCE and a ONE-WORLD GOVERNMENT CAN BE FULLY ENFORCED IN THE UNITED STATES. Once this happens, there will be a centralization of power. State boundaries have already been abolished in 33 of 50 states!

We wanted to make you aware of the dangers which we could face if we don’t abide by our U.S. Constitution, but you’ll need to do your own in-depth research on this topic.

Securing the blessings of liberty,

Secure the Republic
SecureTheRepublic.com
Info@SecureTheRepublic.com

Are the U.S. Dollar’s Days Really Numbered?
By Desmond Lachman
Monday, May 19, 2014
Filed under: Economic Policy, Big Ideas, Boardroom, World Watch

The U.S. dollar will remain the world’s reserve currency because no other major currency offers such liquidity, depth of financial markets, and store of value.

Some years ago, I attended a small luncheon on the outlook for the U.S. dollar. Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman, was the guest of honor. In response to a chorus of Cassandras who argued that the U.S. economy’s all too apparent weaknesses would lead to an inevitable dollar collapse, Volcker made a simple observation: For the dollar to depreciate, he said, it would necessarily have to depreciate against another currency. And in Volcker’s view, at that time, the U.S. economy was fundamentally no weaker than that of any competing countries.

Volcker’s logic would seem equally pertinent today in responding to the many critics who believe that the Federal Reserve’s unprecedented quantitative easing policy will lead to the dollar’s imminent demise as a reserve currency. If the dollar is to lose its reserve status, as epitomized by the fact that more than 60 percent of the world’s foreign exchange and more than 85 percent of world trade is still denominated in U.S. dollars, some other currency would need to replace it. A close examination of the world’s other major currencies reveals that a currency is yet to emerge that offers the liquidity, depth of financial markets, and store of value that the U.S. dollar does.

To be sure, when viewed in isolation, there are many reasons not to be complacent about the U.S. dollar’s long-run future. After all, the U.S. economy is only now emerging from its worst economic and financial crisis since the 1930s. At the same time, its dysfunctional political system is yet to come to grips with the country’s long-term budget issues, while the Federal Reserve has more than quadrupled the size of its balance sheet to its present level of around $4 trillion in an effort to get the U.S. economy moving again.

Yet, despite all of its weaknesses, the U.S. economy’s recent performance has been considerably brighter than that of the other major industrialized countries. Not only has the U.S. economy recovered the most strongly from the 2008-2009 Lehman crisis, but its economic outlook for 2014 and 2015 remains the brightest of the industrialized countries, as acknowledged by the IMF’s recently published World Economic Outlook. On the basis of that recovery, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is now forecasting that the U.S. budget deficit will be as low as 2.75 percent of GDP in 2014 and 2015, while by 2024 the U.S. public debt will still be comfortably below 80 percent of GDP.

Perhaps most importantly for the U.S. dollar’s future as a reserve currency, there appears to be no sign of any resurgence in U.S. inflation, despite all the dire warnings about the unprecedented expansion in the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet. Indeed, U.S. inflation is currently running at around 1 percent, or half the Federal Reserve’s desired target, while long-term U.S. inflationary expectations appear to be very firmly anchored.

The prospect for the U.S. dollar maintaining its dominant status as a reserve currency becomes all the brighter when one considers the prospects of those currencies that could conceivably challenge that status. This is most evidently the case when one considers the clouded prospects for the euro, which accounts for almost 25 percent of world international reserves and which until very recently has been touted as the currency that could seriously challenge the U.S. dollar’s dominant position.

Despite the market’s current optimism about Europe, the euro’s long-term prospects are fraught with considerable political and economic risk. At the heart of those risks is Europe’s record-high unemployment rate, which presently remains stuck at around 12 percent for the region as a whole and at as high as 27 percent for countries such as Greece and Spain. The European Central Bank itself is currently forecasting that, despite the gradual European recovery that it expects, European unemployment will not decline below 11.5 percent by 2016.

Since the onset of the European sovereign debt crisis in 2010, there has been a disturbing fragmentation of European politics. In France, Marine le Pen of the National Front is now ahead in the polls for the upcoming European parliamentary elections. Together with Geert Wilders of the Dutch far-right Freedom Party, she is campaigning on an anti-European platform. Meanwhile in Greece, the two centrist parties which commanded 70 percent of the vote in 2010 now command barely 30 percent of public support, while in Italy the populist Five-Star movement still polls 25 percent of the vote.

There is a real danger that high unemployment will continue to contribute to Europe’s political deterioration, as it has in recent years. And if that were to happen, Europe’s politic commitment to the euro could be sorely tested.

The main economic risk for the euro is that Europe’s high unemployment rate is now raising the real specter of Japanese-style deflation in Europe. Over the past year, Europe’s average inflation rate has already decelerated to 0.5 percent while the countries in the European periphery are now already either experiencing outright deflation or else are on the cusp of deflation. The trouble with deflation is that it not only constitutes a major headwind to the economic recovery but it highly complicates the task of restoring public debt sustainability in the highly indebted countries of the European economic periphery. Sadly, much like the Bank of Japan before it, the European Central Bank behaves as if it was oblivious to the deflation risk.

If the euro is unlikely to pose a serious challenge to the dollar, the Japanese yen is certainly not going to do so. After all, the Japanese government is drowning in debt and running an outsized budget deficit, while the country’s very poor demographics have led to a plunge in the domestic savings rate. There is every prospect that the Bank of Japan will have to step up its already massive quantitative easing program to avert a relapse into deflation, which will lead to a prolonged period of Japanese yen weakness. This is hardly the stuff of which a strong reserve currency is made.

In contrast to the Japanese yen, the Chinese renminbi is a currency that could eventually pose a real threat to the U.S. dollar, particularly if China were to continue to grow at anywhere near its recent rate. However, for that to happen, China would need to engage in serious financial reform aimed at making the currency convertible by lifting capital controls, developing its domestic bond market, cleaning up its shadow banking system, and making the financial system more transparent and more based on the rule of law. Judging by the experience of other countries, it would seem fanciful to think that these reforms could be successfully implemented in less than a decade.

Ever since the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1971, there has been no shortage of predictions that the dollar’s days as the world’s dominant reserve currency were numbered. Yet some 40 years on, the dollar’s position is yet to be seriously challenged. This is not so much because of the dollar’s inherent strengths as much as because of its rival currencies’ intrinsic weaknesses. For better or for worse, there is every reason to expect that this state of the world will continue in the decade ahead and that once again the long-run dollar pessimists will be proved wrong.

Desmond Lachman is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

FURTHER READING: Lachman also writes “Yellen’s Wishful Thinking” and “Europe’s Outlook in 2014.” Alan D. Viard cautions “When Setting Tax Policy, Don’t Forget About Long-Run Growth.” Bret Swanson analyzes “Technology and the Growth Imperative.”
Image by Meg Bosse / Bergman Group

 

Common Core Alert! Holocaust as a ‘Propaganda Tool’? That’s What One CA School District is Teaching

May 6, 2014 By Jennifer Burke

Holocaust
Those in opposition to Common Core are frequently told that there is nothing controversial about the program. It is simply way to better prepare students for college by increasing their critical thinking skills. Many arguments have been made about Common Core’s nonsensical Math lessons, its abandonment of American literary classics for progressive reading materials, and the Common Core based anti-American lessons that have been reported across the country. The latest Common Core controversy out of California is beyond imagination. It is a dangerous, anti-Semitic rewriting of history.

The San Bernardino Sun reported on the lesson at the center of the controversy. Students in the eighth grade in the Rialto Unified School District were asked to hone their critical thinking skills by debating, in essay form, whether the Holocaust was ‘merely a political scheme created to influence public emotion and gain wealth.’”

The district says the assignment is merely to teach students to evaluate the quality of evidence made by advocates or opponents of an issue.
“When tragic events occur in history, there is often debate about their actual existence,” the assignment reads. “For example, some people claim the Holocaust is not an actual historical event, but instead is a propaganda tool that was used for political and monetary gain. Based upon your research on this issue, write an argumentative essay, utilizing cited textual evidence, in which you explain whether or not you believe the Holocaust was an actual event in history, or merely a political scheme created to influence public emotion and gain. Remember to address counterclaims (rebuttals) to your stated claim. You are also required to use parenthetical (internal) citations and to provide a Works Cited page.”

Asking junior high students to prove that the Holocaust was real or was simply a made-up event for propaganda purposes is not critical thinking; it is anti-Semitic. The Anti-Defamation League spoke out about this inappropriate and hate based assignment. The associate regional director, Matthew Friedman, sent the following in an email to Rialto Unified’s interim school superintendent, Mohammad Z. Islam.

“An exercise asking students to question whether the Holocaust happened has no academic value; it only gives legitimacy to the hateful and anti-Semitic promoters of Holocaust denial. It is also very dangerous to ask junior high school students to question the reality of the Holocaust on their own, given the sheer volume of denial websites out there.

If these questions do come up, it’s better to show the huge preponderance of evidence that’s out there (testimony, documentation, death camp sites, archaeology, etc.) and to also question why people would question the reality of the Holocaust (many motivated not by historical curiosity, but by anti-Semitism). Also, who are the people questioning the Holocaust and what do real historians say? This is more of an issue of teaching good information literacy.”

Even worse, this anti-Semitic project was assigned during the unit focused on the “Diary of Anne Frank,” the story of a young girl who, along with her family, was a Jewish victim of the Holocaust.

Local news affiliate KTLA, channel 5, offered an even further look into the offensive nature of this assignment.

The 18-page assignment instructions included three sources that students were told to use, including one that stated gassings in concentration camps were a “hoax” and that no evidence has shown Jews died in gas chambers.

“With all this money at stake for Israel, it is easy to comprehend why this Holocaust hoax is so secretly guarded,” states the source, which is a attributed to a webpage on biblebelievers.org.au. “In whatever way you can, please help shatter this profitable myth. It is time we stop sacrificing America’s welfare for the sake of Israel and spend our hard-earned dollars on Americans.”

The district claims that it received no complaints from parents , teachers, or students about the assignment, which encouraged students to question whether the Holocaust, the killing of 6 million Jews by the Hitler Nazi regime, between 1933 and 1945, really happened. They initially defended the assignment as simply one focused on critical thinking and research. District spokesman Syeda Jafri made a statement via email on behalf of the district.

“One of the most important responsibilities for educators is to develop critical thinking skills in students. “This will allow a person to come to their own conclusion. Current events are part of the basis for measuring IQ. The Middle East, Israel, Palestine and the Holocaust are on newscasts discussing current events. Teaching how to come to your own conclusion based on the facts, test your position, be able to articulate that position, then defend your belief with a lucid argument is essential to good citizenship. This thought process creates the foundation for a good education. The progression is within district board policy and also supports the district’s student inspired motto: ‘Today’s Scholars, Tomorrow’s Leaders.’”

After her adamant statement that actually admits that the assignment encouraged students to decide for themselves if the Holocaust truly happened, Jafri then offered a contradiction to the district’s stance.

“There is no doubt the Holocaust was one of the most horrific, traumatic time-pieces in our history,” she wrote in an emailed response Friday afternoon. “We want our students to engage in developing critical thinking skills and have an in-depth perspective on the importance of the Holocaust. Although I received one email last week in reference to this subject, the district has not received any concerns about this writing prompt from any teachers, administrators or parents. However, due to its sensitive nature, we are always open to go back and examine the prompt.”

As news about this assignment was spread around the country, people were not buying the district’s double speak about this controversial, anti-Semitic assignment. After defending the project for days, the district finally, under pressure, changed its tune and altered the assignment. On Monday, Jafri revised the district’s stance on the assignment stating, “This was a mistake. It should be corrected. It will be corrected. We all know it was real. The Holocaust is not a hoax. … I believe our classroom teachers are teaching it with sensitivity and compassion.”

Ms. Jafri, there is no sensitivity and compassion in encouraging young, impressionable minds to question whether the Holocaust was real and provide them with materials filled with vile, anti-Semitic, hate-based lies and ask if they believe it. The assignment was wrong and dangerous. Anti-Semites have been trying to rewrite history by stating that the Holocaust never happened and a school funded with taxpayer money just supported that twisted stance.