Big Dogs House

Is a World Government Next?

Jul 27, 2009 Political

I used to be sure it would never happen- after all, there are some great cultural divides between cultures and countries, not to mention the religion aspect- that one’s a biggie. But what is emerging with the ouster of Manuel Zelaya, former President of Honduras, is beginning to change my mind about the possibility of something beginning to stir.

First, some background on the Honduran situation. The ouster of Zelaya was not a coup in the strict sense of the word, as the Honduran military does not control the government, but just assisted in removing the former president, who was trying to pull a Chavez- like “President- for- Life” scheme out of his hat by changing the Honduran Constitution. This was (and is) illegal, so he was removed. The new President is a member of Zelaya’s own party.

Ask yourself, what would we do, if Hussein tried to do illegal, unconstitutional things- wait, that IS happening, isn’t it? But I digress—-

Hussein and Chavez seem to be partnering on a resolution where the UN will re-instate Zelaya- a wrong move on so many levels it is hard to know where to start.

The United Nations on Thursday begins a debate over a new U.N. military doctrine called the “Responsibility to Protect,” which would authorize the world organization to be used as cover to intervene in the sovereign affairs of a nation state, supposedly to protect the people of a country against their own government. The first target could be anti-communist Honduras.

The “Responsibility to Protect,” also known as RtoP or R2P, is mostly the work of the World Federalist Movement, a group dedicated to world government by strengthening the United Nations system. It is the major force behind the “International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect.”

R2P was sold as something to be exercised against regimes practicing genocide against their own people. But the new doctrine is so vague and subject to political manipulation that one can speculate it could be used to justify some form of U.N. intervention in Honduras on the pretext that the people there are somehow being victimized by a popular military-backed regime. In fact, some Hondurans are telling this columnist that they are fearful that U.N. “blue helmets” are right now being prepared to invade their country.
newswithviews.com

Yep, it is looking as if our hemisphere is going “bananas”, as in Banana Republics (not the clothing store)- as power will be consolidated by “partnerships”, managed by the UN in a world where international law is ascendent, and every other country’s liberties and laws are secondary. 

It is difficult to dismiss these concerns as baseless rumors, considering what will be happening at the U.N. The key U.N. official orchestrating the debate, General Assembly President and Lenin Peace Prize recipient Miguel D’Escoto, is the same figure who recently managed passage of a U.N. resolution supporting the return to Honduras of Manuel Zelaya, who was removed by the military on the orders of the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress. Zelaya is a lackey of Venezuelan communist ruler Hugo Chavez, who is using his oil money to buy and influence governments throughout Latin America.

In an ominous development, blogger Jason Poblete, an astute observer of Latin American affairs with excellent sources,reports that “The Obama Administration is considering a United Nations Security Council Resolution against the constitutional government of Honduras.” If true, anticipated U.N. sanctions against Honduras could be followed by the world organization being used as cover for outside forces to invade Honduras and reinstate Zelaya.

The new government in Honduras replaced Zalaya because he was trying to set himself up as president-for-life, Chavez-style. All of this was found to be in violation of Honduran law and the Constitution. Despite what officials of the Obama Administration said in trying to orchestrate media coverage of this crisis, it was not a military coup in any sense. The military doesn’t run Honduras today. In fact, the new president, appointed by Congress, is from Zelaya’s own political party. Zelaya was dismissed because of the simple fact that he tried to violate the law and the Constitution.
newswithviews.com

This “Responsibility to Protect” is just a cheap way to legalize the “change in management” by the UN, and a way for the UN to get a foot in the door for consolidation of power by the few, to the detriment of the many. And it’s not just State powers that seem to have a stake in this quiet struggle, but the Catholic Church seems to have anted up, all while denying that they are in the game at all.

D’Escoto, or as he is called, “Father D’Escoto,” will preside over the U.N. debate, which is expected to run into Friday. Pope Benedict XVI endorsed the “Responsibility to Protect” in an April 2008 speech before the U.N. but has been unclear about how it should be implemented. He has called for dialogue in Honduras.
On the ground in Honduras, an overwhelmingly Catholic Central American country, the Catholic Church has backed the ouster of Zelaya because of the realistic fear that he was a front man for Chavez. In a statement, the Catholic bishops of Honduras declared that Zelaya had been removed from office on the basis of a valid court order.

But not all of the Catholic elements in the country are opposing Zalaya’s return. The Jesuit-run Radio Progreso has been acting as a mouthpiece for Zalaya and his supporters and is the source of the recent report that Zelaya intends to invade the country in cahoots with something called the Peaceful Resistance Front. The Catholic Church in Honduras fears that Zelaya could spark a bloodbath. Such a spectacle could provide the cover for U.N. intervention.
newswithviews.com

It appears that everyone wants a slice of the pie, but the real losers will be the smaller countries in this hemisphere, and indeed, beyond, as you could reasonably expect that Russia might seek to re- instate their control over the satellite countries that surround them, evoking a “Cold War” era look to the revised map.
Likewise, China might decide that Korea, Viet Nam, and even Japan might look good as trophies- who would stop them?

R2P is usually offered as a possible remedy in the case of Darfur, a region of Sudan where people are being massacred by the Islamic regime. But this was never realistic. President Obama promised but has failed to do anything about this. The real source of the problem in Darfur is the communist regime in China, which directly finances the Sudanese regime through oil purchases. Obama won’t confront China because he needs Chinese help to finance his tax, spend and debt policies. 
newswithviews.com

Actually, he won’t confront China, because he can see himself doing much the same with the countries here in our hemisphere, all with this quasi- legal UN “law”, and he looks like he is going to begin with Zelaya and Honduras.

He should let democracy run its course, but he just can’t do that.

Because at his core, Hussein does not believe in democracy.

And that is bad for all of us.

Tags: democracy, R2P, revolution, un

Al-Reuters Fails To Mention Iran’s Threats

Apr 15, 2009 Political

I will say one thing for Iran, the country has a lot of nerve. Iran complained to the UN about the threats from Israel and stated that these threats violated the UN Charter. The country wants action taken against the violent Zionist regime. Israel earlier indicated that it would attack Iran’s nuclear facilities if something was not done about them. Al-Reuters reported on the offended nation and its complaint.

In the entire al-Reuters article not one mention was made of all the threats that Iran has made against Israel. The whiny leaders of Iran are running around crying about threats from Israel when Iran threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Al-Reuters did not see fit to mention this threat or any of the others made by the terrorist nation of Iran.

This should not surprise anyone because al-Reuters is an anti Semitic organization and their “news” always slants to favor anyone but Israel. So let me clear it up.

Shut up Iran. You have been threatening Israel for a very long time and your surrogates have been waging war against that country practically non stop. You are already attacking them by proxy. Just because al-Reuters does not see fit to mention your constant threats does not mean they never happened.

If I were Israel I would wipe you off the map and be done with it.

Tags: cry babies, Iran, Israel, threats, un

A Crime To Insult Islam

Mar 30, 2009 Political

Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs is reporting that the UN has passed a resolution calling for the criminalization of any criticism of Islam. Islam is the cult that pretends to be a religion while causing violence and destruction around the world. The resolution only names the cult of Islam as the potential aggrieved party to which the crime will apply. Under this UN resolution would it be illegal to profile, like this?

Islam is nothing more than a sick cult that was founded by a child molesting pervert who fooled everyone into believing he was a prophet. He was a blood thirsty tyrant who spread his cult by killing those who refused to join it, a practice that is still in existence today.

The UN wants to protect the members of this cult so that people who criticize it will be criminals instead of the cult members who murder at will.

Screw Islam and its cult members and screw the UN.

Now, come and get me Ban Ki-moon. I just broke the Islam Insult Law…

Tags: criticism, cult, islam, law, un

Israel Tells UN To Take A Hike

Jan 11, 2009 Political

Israel rejected a UN resolution to end the hostilities in Gaza saying that the resolution was “unworkable.” It is not surprising that the UN has come up with a resolution to stop Israel but what is surprising is that Israel did not accept it. Usually, Israel is involved in kicking the snot out of radical Muslim terrorists and they stop action because of a UN or world outcry and then the terrorists claim victory and continue attacking Israel.

Where are the UN resolutions calling for Hamas to stop firing rockets and mortars into Israel? If they exist, where are the diplomats and their demands that they actually be adhered to? You see, when an Islamic country is the target of a UN resolution the country generally ignores it. Then the UN ignores the country and allows it to continue or they issue another resolution. Iraq had 14 years of resolutions and it violated them. Now the US is the bad guy for enforcing them.

The same is true with regard to Israel. The UN ignores the terrorists firing rockets into Israel and allows that to take place. Hell, blue helmets seem to have helped the terrorists in the past. In any event, there is never a huge outcry from the UN or international community when Israel is being attacked. Let Israel retaliate and the UN has spasms and issues resolutions about disproportionate response.

Screw the UN. The United States should have pulled out of that rat infested organization decades ago (we should have never joined). We should stop paying them, kick them out of the building they use and send them packing.

Israel should continue to ignore the UN and continue to pound the snot out of Hamas. Israel needs to keep up the use of “disproportionate” force until Hamas is destroyed and can no longer effectively organize. Anything less will be seen as an Israeli loss in the Islamic world and will lead to continued attacks against the small country. Israel needs to send a message and they can do that by destroying Hamas. They already sent the message to the UN that needed to be sent:

Screw You.

Hamas needs to be completely and utterly destroyed. If there are civilian casualties then it is the fault of Hamas and those who acted as its enablers by ignoring what it was doing and by giving approval by inaction. Iran should be watching closely because it is the silent backer of Hamas and could be in Israel’s cross hairs.

In any event, kudos to Israel for telling the UN to take a hike.

Source:
al-Reuters

Tags: cowards, hamas, Israel, resolution, un

Political Pressure To Disinvite Palin Succeeds

Sep 20, 2008 Political

Hillary Clinton was invited to speak at a stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons rally but backed out when she learned that Sarah Palin was also an invited speaker. Was Hillary upset that she would have to share the spotlight, was she worried about how it would affect Obama, was she concerned Palin would be better received or give a better speech or was she afraid?

No matter what the reason, Hillary played partisan politics on an issue that should unite and not divide. The organizers tried to get Joe Biden but he was unable to attend so, under pressure from external sources, the organizers “disinvited” (this is not a word) Palin.

We collected over 20,000 signatures in 24 hours asking Iran Unity rally organizer Malcolm Hoenlein to take Sarah Palin off the schedule for Monday’s rally, and he caved to our pressure on Thursday afternoon citing the fact that the rally had become too partisan.

This is the right decision. A unity rally to express communal solidarity is no place for partisan politics. And to give such prominence to Sarah Palin alone would have spoken neither to, nor for, the American Jewish community. J Street

There was no petition or concern about the rally becoming partisan when it was believed that Clinton was the only invited political speaker. Once she withdrew the issue suddenly became partisan and Palin had to go. I wonder if this group would have felt it was the right decision had Hillary been the lone speaker and subsequently petitioned and “disinvited.”

No matter. Palin will speak at a rally sponsored by Women United. The Israeli Project has withdrawn from the original event over the removal of Palin. The following is a statement from Morton A. Klein, national president of the Zionist Organization of America:

“The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) strongly opposes the disinvitation of Vice-Presidential candidate Governor Sarah Palin to be one of many speakers at a “stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons rally.” This rally will also protest the presence of Iran’s president Ahmadinejad at the United Nations on Monday, September 22. This is an anti-Iran rally, not a partisan political rally, as Democratic Senator Hilary Clinton was invited as was vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden and later Democratic Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida. Clinton withdrew and Biden apparently couldn’t attend.

“Under tremendous pressure from Jewish Democrats and liberal Jewish groups, Palin’s invitation was withdrawn with a decision made not to include any politicians. Why are we excluding political leaders who have the real power to act on this critical issue? The ZOA believes this was a serious mistake.

“This was not a political rally for any party or individual. All Democrats and Republicans are united against Ahmadinejad developing nuclear weapons which he indicated he would use “to wipe Israel and America off the map.” We thought that one of the themes of Democrats this year was “promoting unity” and “bringing people together.” Well, here was an opportunity to do just that on an issue we can all support and certain groups and interests have caused us to fail. The ZOA is so disappointed by this unnecessary and harmful outcome.

“At this rally, there would be no implied or explicit endorsement of any candidate or party, only a unified condemnation of Ahmadinejad. No one was going to speak about politics, only about loving America and Israel, and fighting Iran, and standing up to evil.

“The ZOA deeply regrets that certain Jewish groups and individuals believed the inadvertent benefit that would accrue to Sarah Palin outweighed the enormous benefit that Israel and the United States would receive when a Vice-Presidential candidate and others give visibility and power to this life and death issue.

“It seems for these people politics and their personal political agenda were more important than Israel and America’s security. This wrong-headed action of cancelling the appearance of major political leaders hurt Israel and the United States. Ahmadinejad must be delighted that those who oppose his policies are so divided they can’t even stand on the same stage to condemn him. I assure you, if we were holding a rally to condemn an internationally-known racist, anti-Black leader, no one would dare disinvite a speaker and no speaker would dare back out.

“The ZOA strongly urges that Sarah Palin be reinvited along with any other key Democratic or Republican leaders.

“Otherwise, this will become a day of shame and humiliation for the Jewish people instead of a day of Jewish pride, strength, courage, and will. On this day, we should have put aside all other political interests and together fight against this existential threat against Israel and major threat to the United States and the entire western world.” Atlas Shrugs

There is no doubt that the president of Iran desires the elimination of Israel and there is no doubt his country is working on obtaining the means to do just that. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be in New York and will be hosted by Obama’s campaign finance committee’s chairwoman.

Tags: Ahmadinejad, Iran, New York, Obama, palin, partisan politics, un