• North Korea

    North Korea Watch: China and Russia Oppose United Nations Sanctions on Korea

    ****UPDATE**** 

    U.S. Offers N. Korea Resolution at U.N. 

    A new U.S. draft Security Council resolution circulated Thursday night would authorize only non-military sanctions against North Korea and require a new U.N. resolution for any further action, a key demand of China.

    The draft, obtained by The Associated Press would only allow non-military sanctions such as economic penalties, breaking diplomatic relations or banning air travel.

    It also eliminates a previously proposed blanket arms embargo. And it urges North Korea to speedily implement a September 2005 agreement in which it pledged to give up its nuclear program in exchange for aid and security guarantees.

    A fairly weak sauce resolution.  But, will China and Russia EVEN support this one?

    Perhaps

    Certainly, this is not a provocative action but is it TOO WEAK?

    Absolutely, but for the United Nations this may be all that can be accomplished.  If it is, then, the United Nations sinks into the abyss of the League of Nations.

    ********

    northkoreaoctober12dweb

    A South Korean activist holds a placard during an anti-North Korea rally in Seoul. China and the United States looked set for a stand-off over North Korea’s atomic test after Beijing softened its line on sanctions, while a top defector warned the North already had several nuclear weapons.

    AP: Russia, China oppose N. Korea sanctions

    Russia and China on Thursday opposed tough sanctions the U.S. wants to impose against North Korea this week for its claimed nuclear test, saying they want more time to work out a more moderate response to Pyongyang’s nuclear brinkmanship.

    The United States and Japan, which has already imposed tough unilateral sanctions on the North to protest the reported test Monday, had initially hoped for a U.N. Security Council vote on Thursday. But if Washington wants to get China and Russia — the two council nations closest to Pyongyang — on board, a vote could be delayed until early next week.

    China, the North’s closest ally, opposes any mention of the U.N. Charter’s Chapter 7, which authorizes punishments including economic sanctions, naval blockades and military actions. China and Russia want to see sanctions focus primarily on reining in North Korea’s nuclear and weapons programs.

    The United Nations is IRRELEVANT.

    The United States and Allies, including Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Australia should prepare their own sanctions and enforcement – NAVAL BLOCKADE.

    ramireztoon101006web

    Previous:

    North Korea Watch: New Poll – South Koreans Want Nuclear Weapons

    North Korea Watch: China Reluctant to Support United Nations Sanctions

    North Korea Nuclear Watch: North Korea Threatens War Against the United States

    Michael Ramirez on Nuclear North Korea

    North Korea Nuclear Watch: McCain vs. Clinton

    North Korea Nuclear Watch: Kick North Korea Out of the United Nations?

    North Korea Nuclear Watch: United States Proposes United Nations Sanctions Against North Korea


    Technorati Tags: ,

  • Cox & Forkum,  Iraq War

    Cox & Forkum: Survey Says

    cox&forkum06.10.12web

    Cox & Forkum: Survey Says

    Investor’s Business Daily: Body Count Or October Surprise?

    In this FoxNews video report the author of the Lancet report freely admits that its release was timed to affect the elections, “out of concern for the humanitarian issues.”

    And what might that mean? In this video, Lancet editor Richard Horton appears at an “antiwar” rally railing against the “lying” “axis of Anglo-American imperialists” who have created a “mountain of violence and torture” preferring “global death” and the “killing of children instead of building hospitals,” all of which has “shattered the human family.” Yeah, no political agenda there. (via Little Green Footballs).

    More in this BBC analysis by Paul Reynolds: Huge gaps in Iraq death estimates. And at Pajamas Media: J’accuse: Iraq the Model responds to the Lancet Lies.

    Iraq War Watch: Lancet Study – 655,000 Dead Iraqis?

    Iraq the Model has Responding to the Lancet lies…


    Technorati Tags: ,

  • Iraq War,  Liberal Morons,  Politics

    Cindy Sheehan Watch: Sheehan Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize?

    Anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan, center, and her sister Dede Miller, left, are caught in the middle as police arrest Tiffany Burns during a protest outside the doors of the ballroom where President Bush ’s top advisor Karl Rove was speaking at an Associated Republicans of Texas dinner Saturday, Aug. 19, 2006, in Austin, Texas. Sheehan and more than 50 other war protesters ambushed the reception chanting ‘Try Rove for treason.’

    KVUE: Sheehan holds Austin book signing

    The president’s most vocal critic against the war in Iraq was in the Capitol City Wednesday night.

    Cindy Sheehan was at BookPeople on Lamar & 6th Street signing autographs for her new book entitled “Peace Mom”.

    Sheehan’s son, Casey Sheehan died while on patrol in Iraq on April 4th, 2005.

    “Whether you agree with it or not I think we should all be reading books by the families of people who’ve loss their sons and daughters in this war,” said Turk Pipkin who was buying one of Sheehan’s books.

    His mother bought a house in Crawford where she and her supporters often protests near President George Bush’s ranch.

    “What I really hope to do with it is to inspire people to do what they can to make the world a better place and to let them know that one person really can make a difference,” Cindy Sheehan.

    Sheehan also announced at the signing that she’s a finalist for a Nobel Peace Prize.

    A finalist or nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize?

    Even CONVICTED AND DULY EXECUTED murderer Stanley Tookie Williams was nominated (numerous times) for the Nobel Peace Prize.

    WORTHLESS

    NobelFlyerWEB

    Graphic Courtesy of Patterico

    Allah thinks Peace Mom is a FINALIST.

    She’s probably telling the truth. How could she not be a finalist? Look at who the nominators are. It’s not exactly a short list, either — there are 191 this year according to the Nobel homepage. Their identities are secret but Bloomberg has some informed guesses.

    Well, if Jimmy Carter can win…….


    Technorati Tags: ,

  • North Korea

    North Korea Watch: New Poll – South Koreans Want Nuclear Weapons

    northkoreaoctober12cweb

    A satellite image from the U.S. Department of Defense of the Korean Peninsula at night, showing the lights of South Korea and the relative darkness of North Korea (TOP), is shown at a news briefing by U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon in Washington, October 11, 2006.

    Reuters: Most S.Koreans now want nuclear weapons: survey

    Apparently the South Koreans wish to be prepared to LIGHT UP North Korea.

    Austin Bay believes it.

    northkoreaoctober12dweb

    A South Korean activist holds a placard during an anti- North Korea rally in Seoul. China and the United States looked set for a stand-off over North Korea after Beijing signalled it would take a softer line on sanctions against the North for testing an atom bomb.

    Previous:

    North Korea Watch: China Reluctant to Support United Nations Sanctions

    North Korea Nuclear Watch: North Korea Threatens War Against the United States

    Michael Ramirez on Nuclear North Korea

    North Korea Nuclear Watch: McCain vs. Clinton

    North Korea Nuclear Watch: Kick North Korea Out of the United Nations?

    North Korea Nuclear Watch: United States Proposes United Nations Sanctions Against North Korea


    Technorati Tags: ,

  • Iraq War,  Politics

    Iraq War Watch: Lancet Study – 655,000 Dead Iraqis?

    lancetoctober12aweb

    AP: Bush dismisses Iraq death toll study

    President Bush says he doesn’t believe it. Some experts have a problem with it. But several others say it seems sound. Such was the varied reception for a controversial new study that estimated the Iraq war has led to the deaths of nearly 655,000 Iraqis as of July.

    Researchers from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad derived that estimate from a door-to-door survey, conducted by doctors, of 1,849 households in Iraq. Taking the number of deaths reported by household residents, they extrapolated to a nationwide figure.

    The researchers, reflecting the inherent uncertainties in such extrapolations, said they were 95 percent certain that the real number lay somewhere between 392,979 and 942,636 deaths.

    Even the smaller figure is almost eight times the estimate some others have derived.

    Research methods gone MAD.

    Allah has more.

    Tony Blair and John Howard say it’s nonsense. Jan Egeland, the UN’s Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, is “surprised” by the findings. But the nightly news shows can’t get enough.

    Have at it, number-crunchers. Note that Baghdad appears to be relatively safe compared to other parts of the country.

    Flap’s take: Lancet Study is FOS.

    Iraq the Model has Responding to the Lancet lies…


    Technorati Tags: , , , ,

  • North Korea,  United Nations

    North Korea Watch: China Reluctant to Support United Nations Sanctions

    northkoreaoctober12aweb

    A North Korean soldier reacts to a photographer on a passing boat, on the waterfront at the North Korean town of Sinuiju, opposite the Chinese border city of Dandong Thursday Oct. 12, 2006. The United States on Thursday began pushing for a new U.N. resolution that adds a travel ban on North Korea, while South Korea said it detected no abnormal levels of radioactivity after the North’s claimed nuclear test.

    AP: China reluctant to back Korea sanctions

    China appeared to shy away Thursday from backing U.S. efforts to impose a travel ban and financial sanctions on North Korea for its claimed nuclear test, saying any U.N. action should focus on bringing its communist neighbor back to talks.

    Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said North Korea should understand it had made a mistake but “punishment should not be the purpose” of any U.N. response.

    U.N. action “should be conducive to the de-nuclearization of the Korean peninsula … and the resumption of the talks,” he told reporters. “It’s necessary to express clearly to North Korea that … the international community is opposed to this nuclear test.”

    In other words, China WILL NOT sanction their neighbor and major trading partner, North Korea.

    So, how IRRELEVANT is the United Nations?

    Why bother?

    Even the LEFT is asking the question…….

    Stay tuned.

    ramireztoon101006web

    Previous:

    North Korea Nuclear Watch: North Korea Threatens War Against the United States

    Michael Ramirez on Nuclear North Korea

    North Korea Nuclear Watch: McCain vs. Clinton

    North Korea Nuclear Watch: Kick North Korea Out of the United Nations?

    North Korea Nuclear Watch: United States Proposes United Nations Sanctions Against North Korea


    Technorati Tags: ,

  • ACLU

    Stop the ACLU Blogburst Watch: ACLU Should Lose Its Tax Exempt Status


    Huge thanks to Greg Tinti of the Political Pitbull for the video!

    Imagine if a Church used the power of its tax exemption as a lever towards political campaigns. Can you imagine the outrage from groups like the ACLU if a Church used its tax exempt donations to create political ads opposing candidates that did not adhere to certain “American values” as interpreted by that Church? What if a Christian Religious organization were to use its official title to oppose certain political issues such as abortion?

    We don’t have to imagine, the ACLU’s history shows us. They would challenge that Church’s tax exempt status.

    “In 1970, the year after the ACLU issued its first policy opposing the tax exempt status for churches; it accepted the advice of church and state extremist Leo Pfeffer and drafted a brief opposing tax exemptions in Waltz v. Tax Commission. In 1987, the ACLU Foundation and the New York Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus brief in support of Abortion Rights Mobilization to secure standing in a suit challenging the tax exempt status of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was charged with violating its tax-exempt status by taking a stand against abortion.”Source

    However the ACLU’s official policy goes even further. In the ACLU’s eyes a Church doesn’t even have to be politically involved to deserve having its tax exempt status stripped.

    During the 1988 presidential campaign the ACLU was brought under the spotlight. Michael Dukakis, the democrat nominee, proudly stated, “I’m a card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union.” These words would soon come back to haunt him. I will not focus too much on this campaign other than using it as evidence of the ACLU’s position on the tax exemption of churches. However, Dukakis’s association with this group proved to be a major factor in his defeat.

    During the first debate, Peter Jennings of ABC asked George Bush why he continued to make an issue out of Dukakis’s membership in the ACLU. Bush replied that he didn’t like most of the ACLU’s positions and offered four of them. We will just focus on the one we are talking about right now. Bush said, “I don’t think they’re right to try to take away the tax exemption of the Catholic Church.”

    The ACLU doesn’t deny their position! Norman Dorsen, president of the American Civil Liberties Union from 1976 to 1991, refuted Bush’s statements, and said that the ACLU opposes tax exemption for all churches, not just the Catholic Church.Source

    Here is a little more history on the issue from Twilight of Liberty.

    “ACLU founder Roger Baldwin once told me that the ACLU’s desire to strip the churches of their tax exempt status was “very foolish.” But in 1969, some nineteen years after Baldwin stepped down as executive director, the Union adopted its first policy opposing “tax exemption for church property which is used exclusively for religious purposes.’ In the latest policy on this subject, it makes no difference to the Union whether church property is not used exclusively for religious purposes, all are denied: “The ACLU opposes tax benefits for religious bodies”, seven examples are listed for clarification, including the benefit of tax exemption.”Source

    The ACLU proudly claims that they are “wholly non-partisan.” It portrays itself as an objective organization that is “neither liberal nor conservative, Republican nor Democrat.” They say instead that they are “a public interest organization devoted exclusively to protecting the basic civil liberties of all Americans.” However, while the ACLU was taking aim at the Catholic Church’s tax exempt status, the Union affiliate in Providence, Rhode Island, came out in favor of a tax exemption for Wiccans. They went and got a tax administrator to rule that a coven of witches were entitled the same tax-exemption as churches had.

    Does this sound like the position of a “nonpartisan” group? Does it sound like the position of a group that should be tax exempt? What happened to opposing tax exemptions on all religious bodies? Pick your policy. Either oppose it for all, or fight to expand it to all. You can’t claim non-partisanship while opposing it for one religious body and fighting to expand it to others.

    Now imagine if an organization claiming to be non-partisan used the power of its tax exemption as a lever towards political campaigns. What if this organization used its funds to create political ads opposing candidates that did not adhere to certain “American values” as interpreted by that organization?

    We don’t have to imagine, the ACLU’s hypocrisy shows us. It also has once again brought it into internal division as one local branch thinks it crossed the line. The Political Pit Bull has video of this being talked about on O’Reilly.

    Leaders of the ACLU’s Connecticut affiliate have objected to an advertisement placed by the national ACLU that ran in the Hartford Courant late last month. The advertisement focused on Senator Lieberman, a Democrat who is running as an independent after losing a primary bid to an anti-war candidate, Ned Lamont.

    “Will Senator Joe Lieberman pass this test on American values?” the ad asks. It features Mr. Lieberman’s photograph and office telephone number, along with warnings about pending legislation about detainees, torture, and wiretapping. “Tell Joe Lieberman his votes on this assault on American values will help determine your vote in November,” the ad says.

    The chairman of the board of the Connecticut ACLU, Don Noel Jr., said he and several other board members felt it breached the organization’s pledge to stay out of electoral politics.

    “It seemed to us to cross the line on partisanship, or to cross the line on not being nonpartisan,” Mr. Noel told The New York Sun yesterday. “I have complained and the national office has agreed with me. They have said they are sorry this might have been seen as partisan.” NY Sun

    The ACLU has consistently abused its tax exempt status by claiming to be non-partisan. However, a simple glimpse at the ACLU’s record shows many examples of how this is untrue. While the ACLU has proudly made abortion its number one priority it has not only ignored the free speech of abortion protesters but actively fought to silence them.

    William Donohue accurately argues:

    “Social reform, in a liberal direction, is the sine qua non of the ACLU. Its record, far from showing a momentary wavering from impartiality, is replete with attempts to reform American society according to the wisdom of liberalism. The truth of the matter is that the ACLU has always been a highly politicized organization.”Source

    Throughout its history the ACLU has revealed its partisanship. It opposed the Viet Nam War. It demanded unilateral nuclear disarmament. It called for disinvestment in South Africa. It violated its own policy in order to stymie the nomination of William Rehnquist to the Supreme Court. During the eight years of the Reagan Administration, it blasted the President with one invective after another much as it does today with President Bush. It led the fight to defeat the confirmation of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court and more recently the confirmation of Samuel Alito. It frequently writes speeches for candidates that it likes. It lobbies its cause to Congress. Did you know that it has divided itself into two groups? The ACLU and the ACLU Foundation. This allows them to work the courts with one hand while being paid by taxpayer funding when the win, and lobby to Congress with the other. It even issues scorecards on Senators and Representatives evaluating their performance according to the ACLU’s own ideological measuring stick. Source

    The American Civil Liberties Union is destroying America’s culture and Constitution, while the federal government allows it to operate as a nonprofit, tax-exempt charitable organization. Non-profit organizations are not supposed to spend their tax-exempt assets on political campaigning, because that is not the purpose for which they were given the exemption. Furthermore, if an organization is to benefit by claiming non-partisanship it should practice that concept consistently and be held to those standards, unlike the ACLU’s double standard practices.

    As a result of the above examples and much more, I believe that the ACLU has forfeited its right to operate as a tax-exempt organization. It is a political organization and should not be subsidized by my tax dollars. The IRS should do away with tax exemptions of political organizations hiding behind the mask of being non-profit and non-partisan. If only we could find some politicians willing to push for it.

    This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.


    Technorati Tags: