I mean really; its a horrendous, anti-human organization. Why? Well, because as Mark Steyn points out, when you mix tyrants with democrats, you get a tyrant-dominated body…and then we have to have this:

By declining to distinguish between the foreign minister of Slovenia and the foreign minister of, say, Sudan, you normalize not merely the goofier ad libs of a Qaddafi but far darker pathologies. The day after the president of the United States addressed the U.N. General Assembly, the prime minister of Israel took to the podium, and held up a copy of the minutes of the Wansee Conference at which German officials planned the “Final Solution” to their Jewish problem. This is the pathetic state to which the U.N. has been reduced after six decades: The Jew-hatred of Ahmadinejad and others is so routine that a sane man has to stand up in the global parliament and attempt to demonstrate to lunatics that the Holocaust actually happened.

As long as we are tied to an organization which claims that the tyrants of China are the moral equals of the leaders of the United States, we will not have an international body capable of improving world conditions. All the UN does now is to serve as a fig-leaf for evil – we go through the motions and pretend we’re doing good while we’re actually enabling wicked men to continue in their evil unchecked.

Get U.S. out of the UN!

Some sage advice for President Obama:

..I thought it was a chance to study the reign of King Ethelred the Unready. The House will remember that that was a period of great misfortune, in which, from the strong position which we had gained under the descendants of King Alfred, we fell very swiftly into chaos. It was the period of Danegeld and of foreign pressure. I must say that the rugged words of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, written a thousand years ago, seem to me apposite… Here is what the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle said…

“All these calamities fell upon us because of evil counsel, because tribute was not offered to them at the right time nor yet were they resisted; but when they had done the most evil, then was peace made with them.”

That is the wisdom of the past, for all wisdom is not new wisdom. – Winston Churchill

Fight or quit – but don’t dawdle around and hope for the best. Do not place our future in the hands of unstable tyrants. State our position, and then act upon it immediately.

And that is bad news, because his whole foreign policy concept was wrapped around diplomacy:

…when President Obama addressed the General Assembly and Security Council he already knew that Iran was ignoring international standards, and its latest violations endangered international peace and security more than ever before. And yet he deliberately refused to put Iran on the agenda of the Council summit — the same Council that he claimed bore responsibility for responding to such threats.

President Obama knew that if the magnitude of the Iranian threat were revealed yesterday, the emptiness of his resolution would have been embarrassingly obvious and his cover blown. In public, at the highest levels of the U.N, he heralded generalities as significant. In private, he was petitioning lower levels of the U.N. to act on startling specifics of the Iranian threat.

Why did the president not present this same evidence to the Security Council, the body with “the authority and the responsibility to respond”? Why did he not challenge world leaders to deal with the same Iranian threat that he privately was pressing upon U.N. bureaucrats?

There is only one possible answer: President Obama does not have the political will to do what it takes to prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb.

Indeed – buy why doesn’t he have the political will?

1. Because liberals refuse to understand that tyrants are wicked people.

2. Because liberals think that diplomacy is a substitute for armed force, rather than each (diplomacy and military power) being indispensable to each other.

3. Because leaders, by and large, would rather not make a decision – make a decision and you might make the wrong one. It takes immense courage for any leader to make a choice…and this courage is rare in leaders (ie, note that in 1940 among all the various British and French leaders, only one had the courage to consistently demand that aggressive action be taken against Germany…Winston Churchill; everyone else was just hoping to get through the crisis with as little trouble as possible).

Naive world view, ignorance and cowardice..that is why Iran is set to build a bomb. More and more, its looking like the world will have to rely on Israel to do our duty, for us.

Over at Big Government:

Apparently NBC “Dateline” producer Jane Stone or someone else who has access to her Blackberry has a problem with groups that oppose ACORN and with an ethnocultural minority.

When Stone received an email urging Congress to defund ACORN from Alex Rosenwald, director of media outreach for Americans for Limited Government, the following sentence came back to Rosenwald from Stone’s account: “Bite me, Jew Boy!”

NBC denies emphatically:

Americans for Limited Government has chosen to launch an outrageous, reckless attack and smear campaign against an NBC News employee. Faced with irrefutable evidence that our employee did nothing more than ask to be removed from an email mailing list, the organization has maliciously published a fabricated email.

Our employee never sent any such email.. She is completely innocent of the outrageous charges and is being used by an organization to make a self-serving point. This is a shameless, hateful and defaming act which should be roundly denounced.

Someone is lying – either Americans for Limited Government, or NBC. It’ll be very interesting to see how this turns out.

All sides appear to agree that Ms. Stone did receive an e mail from ALG and that she did respond to it. No big deal – I think all of us who are politically connected in any way get a score or more such e mails per day, from friends and opponents. I, myself, have never asked to be taken off a list – opponents sending me e mails can be illuminating about what they are up to. I can imagine that someone would want to be taken off – but why would a news person want to be disconnected from an easy source for what is going on?

ALG appears to be a respectable libertarian/conservative organization dedicated to speaking truth to power – why phony up an anti-Semitic e mail from an MSMer? It is possible someone at ALG did it, but it doesn’t seem too likely. Given the rapidly rising anti-Semitism on the left, I think the ball is in NBC’s court to demonstrate to us that the e mail did not go out with that message.

Because in this, as in everything else related to the War on Terrorism, Bush was right, liberals are wrong:

(White House Counsel) Craig said Thursday that some of his early assumptions were based on miscalculations, in part because Bush administration officials and senior Republicans in Congress had spoken publicly about closing the facility. “I thought there was, in fact, and I may have been wrong, a broad consensus about the importance to our national security objectives to close Guantanamo and how keeping Guantanamo open actually did damage to our national security objectives,” he said…

To translate from the liberalese: “heck, we were told over and over again by the liberal leadership and the MSM that closing Gitmo would be easy and was necessary…who knew that President Bush was right about this?”

A lot of assumptions were built up on the left after 9/11 – foremost among then being that President Bush was wrong about everything. This was not an accurate assessment of the situation – and now Obama and Co are caught…a leftist base which is still demanding that all of Bush be undone (because they really believe that Bush was wrong about everything – its what their masters have told them, and “gullible” doesn’t begin to describe rank-and-file leftists) standing against the sheer common sense of having a prison in which to hold people who would murder millions, if they got a chance. Obama is spinning between both of them – and I firmly believe that no real decision will be made on Gitmo until after election day, 2012.

I think so:

As the Obama administration wrestles with how to deal with the worsening military and political situation in Afghanistan and the worsening level of public support for the war at home, new details are emerging about how the president is thinking about his decision on whether to send more U.S. troops to the region.

According to Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-CA, the new top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, Obama told Central Command head Gen. David Petraeus and Afghanistan commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal to “scrub” their assessments because he “wasn’t inclined to send troops over there.”

If McKeon’s claim is true, Obama’s instructions, relayed to McKeon through Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, show how resistant the president is to doubling down on the war in Afghanistan and how Republicans are prepared to take their push for an increased commitment of resources to the public.

Indeed, we should – along with the economy, if Obama punts on Afghanistan, we should make that a central issue of the 2010 campaign. The troops deserve a clear-cut plan for Afghanistan – a militarily sound plan which has a chance at success…what they may get from Obama is a cowardly compromise like Johnson’s in Vietnam: enough to prevent an outright loss, not enough to secure outright victory. The troops will fight, and some of them will die; a lot of the enemy will die, too; of course, a lot of people will be caught in the cross fire – many of them deliberately placed there by the enemy. The death toll will mount, and no goal will be in sight. It will end up the worst of both worlds – but Obama might merely be hoping that by punting, he can put off any real decision until after election day, 2012.

We must insist the President fight for victory – we will sustain him, if his own party does not. Defeat in Afghanistan will be unbearable; battle which is neither victory nor defeat would be a dereliction of duty…victory is the only rational outcome.

You expected something different?

President Obama and the leaders of France and Britain blasted Iran’s construction of a previously unacknowledged uranium enrichment facility and demanded Friday that Tehran immediately fulfill its obligations under international law or risk the imposition of harsh new sanctions.

“Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow,” Obama said, detailing how the facility near Qom had been under construction for years without being disclosed, as required, to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). “International law is not an empty promise.”

Yes, it is, Mr. President – international law is not just an empty promise, its a figment of liberal imagination unless it is backed up by a clear threat to use US military force. America – and America alone – has the combination of moral justification and military power necessary to be the enforcer of international law. If we won’t do it, then no one will. Period. End of story. Take Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, India and Brazil and roll them all together and you don’t have an equal amount of morality and force – none of these nations will actually enforce international law because they either can’t, or don’t even see the need. They will, if we lead, come along with us some times – but they won’t come along at all if we’re not willing to do so.

We are dealing in Iran with leaders who murder their own people in cold blood – people who are willing to do such criminal acts are not going to be deterred by lectures from an American President, nor tut-tutting from international do-gooders. People like the leaders in Iran do whatever they think they can get away with – right now, they think they can get away with building nuclear weapons and, truth be told, going back to the last two years of the Bush Administration there has been no indication that anyone would stop them.

Now it is crunch time – now we must decide: will we permit Iran to have nuclear weapons? If the answer is “yes”, then we might as well leave off the false rhetoric of condemnation as issuing such, and then doing nothing, not only makes us look cowardly, it also makes us look dishonest. If the answer is “no”, then we must steel ourselves to act – first against Iran’s gasoline supplies, finally against Iran’s military forces, if that proves necessary. Regardless of our choice, there will be wide repercussions around the world – there’s no way to ignore this and hope it will go away. An Iran armed with nukes will have an effect, an Iran prostrate under US force will have an effect – which effects do we want?

As for me, I prefer to take a calculated risk of war and deal with Iran, right now, before they can build nukes and put them on IRBM and ICBMs. My fear is that we’ll get nothing but waffling from Obama – statements of condemnations out of one side of his mouth, appeasement of Iran’s leaders out of the other…

Over at Instapundit – they’ve had several versions of this over the past week, and Palin keeps coming out on top in all of them.

Victor Davis Hanson notes what they see:

I don’t think the so-called outreach to Russia — which state has been much of the problem rather than any part of a solution with Iran — will help curb Iran’s nuclear ambition in the slightest. Iran will still try to cause trouble in Iraq and Afghanistan, and will acquire an atomic bomb soon unless it is stopped. And I don’t think Islamists inside the U.S. care a whit that Barack Obama is now president, except when noting their perception of a relaxation in our anti-terror efforts. And I especially don’t think China or Japan cares who is the American president, but will increasingly begin to call in geopolitical chits in exchange for financing our gargantuan and growing debt. In other words, some pretty tough actors are unimpressed by utopian hope and change, and are presently in the process of sizing us up to learn what are the new rules, if any.

The problem with the liberal theory that Bush was hated and Obama will make us loved is that its not based in any sort of reality. The United States is hated for what it is, not for what it does. Now, Obama’s plan to make us more like Europe – even as Europe slowly moves towards being more like the pre-Obama USA – might, in the long run, get people to stop hating us…they’ll switch over to just holding us in utter contempt. But just so long as we are the United States of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan, so the world will hate us. Though, to be strictly accurate, its not the world that hates us. The fact that so many want to live here is a stronger indicator of global feeling about the United States. The hatred comes from the leaders of the world – those who want to use us to advance themselves, and those who see us as an obstacle to their ambitions. A free, strong America is just in the way (though gratefully accepted, short term, whenever the chips are down).

In order to weave our way through the global scene, the thing we must do is adhere to first principles. This can best be expressed by the formula, “Democracy good, Tyranny bad”. When given a choice between the tyrant and the democracy, our support should always be given to the democracy (so, unshaken support for Israel against, say, Syria). When given a choice between two tyrants, our support should be given to the tyrant who least threatens us at the moment (so, support for Pakistani tyrants against Taliban tyrants). When given a choice between two democracies, our support should always be given to the democracy which has been most loyal to us over time (so, support for Poland over France, if they get in to an argument). Obama’s plan seems to be that we should be downright rude to friends, not at all concerned about Democracy and the worse the tyrant, the more we should give. This is a recipe for disaster – including the possible disaster of a world slipping in to World War, in the by and by.

The world looks and sees a man who doesn’t know what is best for America, doesn’t know who America’s friends are, and doesn’t understand what sort of people tyrants are. Our friends are dismayed, our enemies are emboldened – and the world grows more dangerous by the day.

Does anyone in the Administration care even a little for the sensibilities of the majority?

He is known to the United States as the “Safe Schools Czar:” a special advisor in the White House responsible for helping formulate policies designed to keep US public schools “safe and drug free.” But US pro-family leaders know Kevin Jennings as something more: a highly influential homosexual activist, who admitted in a book on his childhood that a deep-seated hatred of God and religious believers began when he fully embraced a homosexual lifestyle and bid God farewell with the words, “Screw you, buddy.”…

…Jennings still retains contempt for observant believers on what he calls “the religious right.” In fact, Jennings told a gathering of fellow activists in 2000 that conservative-minded Christians were “hard-core bigots” who should “drop dead.” But the GLSEN founder had the group laughing by telling them he really wanted to just say to them: “f*** you!”

Jennings was also on the board of advisers for a 2001 PBS documentary-style film that slammed the Boy Scouts of America for their policy of excluding homosexuals from their membership and was promoted at “gay pride” festivals to mobilize homosexuals against the Scouts.

Further concern has arisen about Jennings concerning his history as a former drug abuser, and as a school counselor back in 1988, who failed to report a sexually active homosexual relationship between an adult and a boy, then a sophomore high school student. Instead Jennings counseled the boy named “Brewster” on maintaining the relationship with the adult, which began in a bus stop bathroom.

The guy has a right to believe whatever he wants and pretty much abuse himself in any way he chooses – but to put such a screeching, hate-filled bigot in charge of keeping our schools safe? What’s next? Pornographers in charge of career counseling for young girls?

People have a right to enslave themselves to their lusts; to be depraved in all sorts of ways…but they have no right to bring their sewer in to our society and force us to call it good. This nation is mostly made up of Christians and was built mostly by the labor of Christians – we have a right to expect that our moral sensibilities be respected, especially in the public school system largely paid for by our tax dollars.

Someone in Obama-land really needs to wake up to the fact that we didn’t elect Obama Emperor last November – he’s a transient leader who’s primary responsibility is to defend us as we are, not impose radical social disintegration on us in service of the comforting lies morally bankrupt people tell each other.