More Stuff To Make You Say WTF!!!

The UNITED NATIONS??? Insinuating itself into a sovereign nations' elections?
If this is not a reason to kick the bunch of them right into the East River, I don't know what is. Hey, asshats. You've screwed up everything you've done since 1948, stay the hell out of our business. Go watch the Egyptian elections if you want to.

Here's A Plan We Can Get Behind

U.N. funding an early target for House Republicans
By Bridget Johnson -

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told The Hill that oversight would be a key function of the panel, particularly funding to the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) that is “a waste of taxpayer dollars.”

“I’d like to make sure that we once and for all kill all U.S. funding for that beast,” she said last month. “Because I don’t think that it advances U.S. interests, I don’t think that that’s a pro-democracy group, it’s a rogue’s gallery, pariah states, they belong there because they don’t want to be sanctioned.”

Supporters of continued U.S. support of and participation on the HRC say that it’s essential that Washington have leverage on the panel, renowned for including countries that have their own records of human-rights violations.On Tuesday, Ros-Lehtinen will host a panel of U.N. critics and advocates that was originally scheduled for the week that the House suspended most activity in the wake of the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.).

The 10 a.m. briefing before the full committee is titled, “The United Nations: Urgent Problems that Need Congressional Action.”

Top 10 Most UN-believable Moments of 2010 | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

Top 10 Most UN-believable Moments of 2010

The United Nations: What is it--what are they--good for? Making lists, of course! The Daily Caller's Mary Katharine Ham does exactly that this morning with a list of the U.N.'s biggest, um, biggest, uh--blunders isn't the right word, because all the stupid crap our global council of elders/insane people did this year, they did on purpose. So without further ado: Number 10 is the resolution to “combat defamation of religions.” The U.N. hasn't voted on the resolution this year, but will soon, and as in years past, will vote favorably. The secretary-general of the Organization of the Islamic Conference described the resolution's aim thusly: “We insist that freedom of expression should not be abused to insult others or condescend on other cultures.” Ha. Yes. Well. The list only gets better from there.

The Hammer lays out the worst of the UN.

(I'm so glad she's a friend of mine)

UN Control of Internet; Rendition of American History

Exclusive: You Can’t Make This Stuff Up!
(2/4/10)

“Obama Surrendering Internet to Foreign Powers” (Bradley A. Blakeman, 1/31/10)

Without the ingenuity of America’s brightest minds and the investment of U.S. taxpayer dollars, there would be no Internet, as we now know it today.
Now, the Obama administration has moved quietly to cede control of the Web from the United States to foreign powers.
/snip
The argument advanced for those seeking international control of the Internet is that the Internet has become such a powerful, pervasive, and a dependent form of international communications, that it would be dangerous and inequitable for any one nation to control and manage it. (read the entire article here)

“Professor of Contempt – The Legacy of Howard Zinn”
(Roger Kimball, 2/3/10)

The extremity and consistency of [the] message – that America is and always has been an evil, exploitative country – guaranteed its success among the tenured radicals to whom we have entrusted the education of our children. More to the point, this history “from the perspective of the slaughtered and mutilated” nudged out all other contenders for the prize of becoming the preferred catechism in American – that is to say, anti-American – history. A People’s History is the textbook of choice in high schools and colleges across the country. (read entire article here)

If our children are learning about the so-called evils of America rather than the positive contributions this nation has made to Western civilization – indeed, the world over – then we are lost before we even begin to fight to take American culture back from the radicals who would change it forever.
Brought to you by the editors and research staff of FamilySecurityMatters.org.

Collateral Tragedies My Big Ole Butt

My friend CJ has a post up at A Soldiers Perspective, with pictures and everything.

It infuriates me when I read stories like the one in this week's Time Magazine called Collateral Tragedies. The article rails against our air campaign against the Taliban as responsible for killing more and more "innocent" civilians.
The tent stake holding the line on this story is the August 22nd airstrike in which the military claims only 7 civilians and 35 insurgents were killed. However, the Afghani government and a United Nations "inquiry" claim that up to 90 "civilians" were killed. These types of stories work wonders for enemy propaganda and they use it to their utmost ability in Afghanistan (and in Iraq).
The problem here, again, is that the Taliban does not abide by the rules of war or the Geneva Conventions. They use civilian buildings and locations to conduct and launch military operations. They use children as cover for their activities knowing that if a targeting gunship sees them, the airstrike will be called off.

Did you just hear what I said? We will NOT kill the enemy if there are visible civilians, especially children, at the target location!!

Says UN: Circumcision Fights AIDS

Here’s an item that can be filed under “What’s the world coming to?” The first is out of Montreux, Switzerland:

U.N. health agencies recommended Wednesday that heterosexual men undergo circumcision because of "compelling" evidence that it can reduce their chances of contracting HIV by up to 60 percent. But World Health Organization and UNAIDS experts said men need to be aware that circumcision is only partial protection against the virus and must be used with other measures. "We must be clear," said Catherine Hankins of UNAIDS. "Male circumcision does not provide complete protection against HIV." Studies suggest 5.7 million new cases of HIV infection and 3 million deaths over 20 years could be prevented by male circumcision in sub-Saharan Africa, the agencies said.

I don’t know who did the “studies” they are quoting from, but my “bulls**t detector” is going off. The thought that making softer inner areas of the skin overtop the stronger outer dermal area of the skin as a way to reduce the likelihood of HIV infection is lunacy. If anything is serves to make more areas where skin abrasions can occur, thus providing more entry points for the virus into the body.

What’s more disturbing is that this notion is being proposed in “sub-Saharan Africa” a place that due to poor available healthcare and high HIV infected citizens, can really not afford to have “sexual experiments” and liberal sexual reasoning inflicted on it. Time lost to bad ideas costs lives. The “strong evidence” for circumcision was based on “three trials — in Kenya, Uganda and South Africa.” Well, for Uganda’s part, AIDS cases were already on a downward spiral in Uganda due to strong social reforms in that country that stress abstinence and monogamy – two words often scoffed at in liberal “real world” strategies:

“Uganda is one of the "success stories" in the fight against AIDS in Africa. Through use of a strategy called ABC (Abstinence, Being Faithful, and Condoms), the country has managed to dramatically reduce the incidence of HIV.

However in recent years, and largely because of the influence of Bush and the money he's donated, that strategy has shifted to focus on the "A" and "B" components, leaving out the "C" (condoms). Public health experts fear that this shift (due largely to political reasons) could once again lead to increasing rates of HIV.

For example, Bush is increasingly only giving money to HIV/AIDS programs that do not promote condom use as a means of HIV protection, but that emphasize being faithful and abstinence instead. There have been a lot of "virginity pledges" lately by young people, but the truth is that many of these young hopeful virgins are unable to keep their pledge (due to a variety of reasons including poverty and disempowerment of women) and then do not know about condom use.”

(As an aside, need I even point out the intelligence in using money donated to stop the spread of a disease in order to back a strategy that has a much better success rate than condoms: “That stupid Bush put more program money into the part of the program that works every time, than into the portion that only works 50-70% of the time – what an idiot!”)

Liberals (especially European ones) loath to give abstinence any credit for working even though its success rate is 100%. It requires a change in lifestyle that seems to put an intolerable damper on their lives – even if it’s saving that same life. This latest U.N. “recommendation”need not be done, especially when the lives lost will be some of the economically poorest people on the planet (according to liberals), and ones of a race – the black race – that liberals say they care so much about.

2 Comments:

Beanie's Appa said...

Last time I checked, circumcision was a pretty conservative thing to do, following family tradition and being good ole' american.

Only Jews and Muslims are circumcised in Europe. In USA New England and California have circumcision rates down in the 30% range, but in the midwest, it's still over 70%.
March 30, 2007 4:00 PM

f22strike said...

I'm not sure how "conservative" circumcision is from a political perspective. I do know that it doesn't seem to be a good technique to use to fight the spread of aids. Monogamy and abstinance seem to be much better weapons in the fight.
April 04, 2007 9:41 PM