I can’t even begin to talk about this. This is so disgusting it is beyond words. Obama is pushing for a resolution that would be against our Constitution. This would remove your rights to disagree with any religious group. If Islamists blow up a building, you can’t discuss that they justified it with religion. Religion, race, etc would all be illegal to discuss. And considering that the Dems call all disagreement “racism”…
The new resolution, championed by the Obama administration, has a number of disturbing elements. It emphasizes that "the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . ." which include taking action against anything meeting the description of "negative racial and religious stereotyping." It also purports to "recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media" and supports "the media’s elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct" in relation to "combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance."
Pakistan’s Ambassador Zamir Akram, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, made it clear that they understand the resolution and its protection against religious stereotyping as allowing free speech to be trumped by anything that defames or negatively stereotypes religion. The idea of protecting the human rights "of religions" instead of individuals is a favorite of those countries that do not protect free speech and which use religion–as defined by government–to curtail it.
Even the normally feeble European Union tried to salvage the American capitulation by expressing the hope that the resolution might be read a different way
Free speech death watch. The U.N. Human Rights Council approved the resolution, cosponsored by the U.S. and Egypt, yesterday.
It calls on states to condemn and criminalize "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence." It also condemns "negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups," which is of course an oblique reference to accurate reporting about the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism — which is always the focus of whining by the Organization of the Islamic Conference and other groups about negative "stereotyping" of Islam. They never say anything when people like Osama bin Laden and Khaled Sheikh Mohammed issue detailed Koranic expositions justifying violence and hatred; but when people like Geert Wilders and others report about such expositions, that’s "negative stereotyping."
And the worst aspect of this and all such measures is that the "Incitement" and the "hatred" are in the eye of the beholder. The powerful can decide to silence the powerless by classifying their views as hate speech. The Founding Fathers tried to protect Americans from tyranny by protecting free speech. Now our free speech is threatened, and tyranny will take advantage of that. But we still have the First Amendment, right? Eugene Volokh, in an excellent analysis of the resolution, explains why it isn’t that easy to dismiss this:
6. But why the fuss, some might ask, if we’re protected by the First Amendment? First, if the U.S. backs a resolution that urges the suppression of some speech, presumably we are taking the view that all countries — including the U.S. — should adhere to this resolution. If we are constitutionally barred from adhering to it by our domestic constitution, then we’re implicitly criticizing that constitution, and committing ourselves to do what we can to change it.
So to be consistent with our position here, the Administration would presumably have to take what steps it can to ensure that supposed "hate speech" that incites hostility will indeed be punished. It would presumably be committed to filing amicus briefs supporting changes in First Amendment law to allow such punishment, and in principle perhaps the appointment of Justices who would endorse such changes (or even the proposal of express constitutional amendments that would work such changes).
General McChrystal given a stern talking to for daring to point out the truth and not Obama’s version.
How dare he tell the truth!!!! How dare he point out that Obama is sitting on his ass as soldiers die!!!! How dare he show how Obama is not a leader of men, but a political hack with no love of this country, our image abroad, or our military!!!!
I find it interesting that he spent about as much time bitching out General McChrystal as he did talking to him about the situation in Afghanistan. Honestly though, I am sure that bitching him out was much more important to Obama. Saving face is much more important than actually winning in Afghanistan. As he said, he’s not interested in victory.
One word comes to mind when reading the account of how President Obama is “furious” with US General Stanley McChrystal over his speech on Afghanistan.
The word is “feckless.”
Via the Telegraph:
According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week. The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen, where the president had arrived to tout Chicago’s unsuccessful Olympic bid.
Gen James Jones, the national security adviser, yesterday did little to allay the impression the meeting had been awkward.
Asked if the president had told the general to tone down his remarks, he told CBS: “I wasn’t there so I can’t answer that question. But it was an opportunity for them to get to know each other a little bit better. I am sure they exchanged direct views.”
An adviser to the administration said: “People aren’t sure whether McChrystal is being naïve or an upstart. To my mind he doesn’t seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly.”
In London, Gen McChrystal, who heads the 68,000 US troops in Afghanistan as well as the 100,000 Nato forces, flatly rejected proposals to switch to a strategy more reliant on drone missile strikes and special forces operations against al-Qaeda.
He told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that the formula, which is favoured by Vice-President Joe Biden, would lead to “Chaos-istan”.
When asked whether he would support it, he said: “The short answer is: No.”
He went on to say: “Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support.”
Conservatives warned of this again and again, but simply got called mean spirited and we got to listen to idiots telling poor people we wanted them all to be paid next to nothing.
Conservatives realize that pay has to match what the market will bear and ever time you force someone to pay them more, they will hire less. But for Dems, its a win-win. If you are working and get a raise because of them, you are happy with the Dems. If you lose your job, well, then the Dems will be happy to have a government program to help you become a slave to handouts.
Based on the data, the current job situation for teenagers in America is the worst on record.
According to Uncle Sam’s Bureau of Labor Statistics:
- Seasonally adjusted teenage unemployment hit 25.9%. That is the highest rate in the nearly 62 years BLS has been reporting this number. The previous record was last month’s 25.5%. The record before that was 24.1% in November and December of 1982. A graphic of the complete history of the teenage unemployment rate that will open in a new window is here.
- Unemployment among black teens not enrolled in school is over 50%.
- The rate among 20-24 year-olds is also alarmingly high at 15.1%.
Almost alone among establishment media publications — and even then in an editorial, not a regular news report — the Wall Street Journal commented on this distressing set of circumstances, identified the most likely cause of the problem, and worried about its longer-term consequences:
Washington will deny the reality, and the media won’t make the connection, but one reason for these job losses is the rising minimum wage.
Earlier this year, economist David Neumark of the University of California, Irvine, wrote on these pages that the 70-cent-an-hour increase in the minimum wage would cost some 300,000 jobs. Sure enough, the mandated increase to $7.25 took effect in July, and right on cue the August and September jobless numbers confirm the rapid disappearance of jobs for teenagers.
Interesting. Notice that some of these groups dropped ACORN long before the videos came out. The Ford Foundation cut them off due to “concerns about inadequate financial controls and procedures”.
This is a criminal organization that has kept going because of friends in very high places. Now that those friends are trying to pretend they don’t even know who ACORN is, their protection is gone.
Anyone want to bet on how long until ACORN falls apart? Anyone want to bet on how many of the higher ups at ACORN end up at SEIU?
The liberal political organizing group ACORN, battered by the release of embarrassing videos and allegations of financial mismanagement and fraud, has also been losing support from several major foundations.
The Ford Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Marguerite Casey Foundation and Bank of America have stopped funding the group and its affiliates over the past year and a half.
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a network that helps low-income families with housing, voter registration and other issues, receives about 10 percent of its $25 million annual budget from federal grants, according to Brian Kettenring, deputy director of national operations. The rest comes from foundations, membership dues and private donations.
The Annie E. Casey Foundation stopped making grants to ACORN in early 2009, according to spokeswoman Sue Lin Chong. The Casey foundation gave an average of $270,000 a year to ACORN. The foundation saw good results from the grants and believes the funding was used appropriately, according to Cho.
The Ford Foundation, which has given nearly $2 million, suspended funding for ACORN and its affiliate organizations about a year ago because of concerns about inadequate financial controls and procedures, according to spokeswoman Fiona R. Guthrie.
Didn’t Congress just triple the amount of money we send these people?
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The United States has long suspected that much of the billions of dollars it has sent Pakistan to battle militants has been diverted to the domestic economy and other causes, such as fighting India.
Now the scope and longevity of the misuse is becoming clear: Between 2002 and 2008, while Al Qaeda regrouped, only $500 million of the $6.6 billion in American aid actually made it to the Pakistani military, two army generals tell The Associated Press.
The account of the generals, who asked to remain anonymous because military rules forbid them from speaking publicly, was backed up by other retired and active generals, former bureaucrats and government ministers.