THE UNITED NATIONS INVESTIGATING RACISM IN THE USA?

As Americans contemplate electing a mixed-race man for president, race is becoming an explosive issue. And taking this opportunity to stir the simmering pot of racial division is none other than The United Nations.
Jamil Dakwar, director of the ACLU Human Rights Program, said: “The visit of the special rapporteur is a critical opportunity to shed light on the pervasive and systemic problem of racism and discrimination in the United States.
In this election year, the eyes of the world will be turned toward America and its long-standing promise to end racial and ethnic inequalities.”
When both the Democratic candidate, and his wife, are graduates of Harvard law school. It would seem racial bias has been effectively neutralized by affirmative action in the USA!


A UN representative( Dr. Diene, a Muslim lawyer from Senegal) arrived Monday for a three-week visit to eight American cities—from New York to L.A., Chicago to New Orleans—at Washington’s unenthusiastic invitation. His mission “to gather first-hand information on issues related to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.” Islamaphobia will be one of the main priorities of his investigation.
That’s right. As Arabs enslave and slaughter blacks in Sudan, as violent anti-Semitism chokes the Middle East—this is how the United Nations Human Rights Council (unhrc) chooses to allocate its resources: by criticizing the freest and most universally prosperous integrated society on Earth.
Interesting timing. The racial climate in the U.S. at this moment can be described as charged, and presidential power is in play. Could it be that the UN is planning to intervene in United States politics? It is not the first time that the UN has investigated the USA while ignoring racial hot spots like Dafur!


As Arabs enslave and slaughter blacks in Sudan, as violent anti-Semitism chokes the Middle East—this is how the United Nations Human Rights Council (unhrc) chooses to allocate its resources: by criticizing the most free and most universally prosperous integrated society on Earth!

discrimination in the United States.” Yes, that’s exactly what it will do, whether true or not—and whether it will help a problem or intensify it.

Though the unhrc report on U.S. racism won’t be released until spring of 2009, we can already predict its outcome. Just consider the source.
The unhrc is the United Nations at its hypocritical best. Similar to the Commission on Human Rights that it replaced in 2006, the unhrc is filled with human rights abusers in high-profile positions who use it as a cloak for their own abuses. Among its current 47 members are human-rights hypocrites like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Cuba, China and Russia; the ngo Freedom House rates nearly a third of them “not free.”


The UN investigator has been charged to to search out “contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance,” specifically “any form of discrimination against blacks, Arabs and Muslims, xenophobia, negrophobia, anti-Semitism and related intolerance ….” Yes, supposedly he’s looking for anti-Semitism, but those searches invariably come up empty. Source: James Reine, UN correspondent.


Is it not strange that this investigation takes place in the middle of a Presidential campaign when the Democrat front runner has been accused of spending twenty years attending a church led by a pastor who is a racist Black activist?

THE REAL VILLANS IN TODAYS PRICE OF OIL

IN 1988 A $150 million lawsuit was brought to court against the Hunt brothers of Dallas in Manhattan, with a lawyer representing the leading Peruvian mineral company accusing the Hunts of engaging in an elaborate scheme in 1979 and 1980 to manipulate silver prices.

In addition to the Hunts, the suit named as co-conspirators two Saudi Arabian sheiks - Ali bin-Mussallam and Mohammad Aboud al-Amoudi -as well as Mahmoud Fustok, a Saudi businessman; Naji Nahas, a Lebanese citizen who lives in Brazil, and the International Metals Investment Company, a Bermuda partnership.

From 1973 to 1979 the Hunt brothers managed to capture enough silver futures( about half of the worlds silver) to drive the price from $1.95 per ounce to $54.00 an ounce!

After the Hunts crashed and burned and were sent to jail for conspiring to manipulate the silver market. Some ultra-wealthy investors such as Warren Buffett, George Soros (through Apex Silver) and Bill Gates (through Pan American Silver) took on significant silver positions. I hardly think that any of these well-known investors were like the Hunt brothers, but more likely these masters of wealth saw a profitable trade in having major positions in silver where others didn't.

That was a major scandal that the Federal government discovered involving manipulation of a commodity that was in a finite supply.

Now we have the potential for another commodities scandal. This time the culprits are Arbitragers and big commodity players, I believe.

We now have a similar situation, to 1988, that our government should look at, but probably will not. Prices for crude peaked above $135 a barrel Thursday in electronic trading on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Globex platform. See Futures Movers. Record prices over the past several months have raised questions over manipulation of the market.
A U.S. Senate panel listened to testimony on May 20 that said financial speculation by institutional investors and hedge funds in the commodity markets are contributing to energy and food inflation. See full story.
"The regulatory environment is becoming so undesirable to foreign and domestic funds that they have no choice but to go offshore," said Kevin Kerr, president of Kerr Trading International and editor of MarketWatch's Global Resources Trader.
Speculative activity in commodity markets has grown "enormously" over the past several years, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee said in a news release. source: Market Watch

They pointed out that in five years, from 2003 to 2008, investment in the index funds tied to commodities has grown by 20-fold -- to $260 billion from $13 billion.
The growth offers "justifiable concerns that speculative demand, divorced from the market realities, is driving food and energy price inflation and causing human suffering," HSGAC said.

My belief is that the high price of oil is just what the Socialist Democrats want. They need an issue to hammer home in the months preceding the November Presidential election. What better than the high cost of food and fuel! They can blame the Republicans for their connection to "big-oil" even though many Senators and Congressional Democrats also have oil stocks and accept campaign funds from the oil companies and their producers. These people play both sides of the street! And are the same players, Soros and Buffett, that support the candidacy of Obama, back at their old game of manipulation?

Before we blame "Big Oil", I think we need to look at who is manipulating the crude oil futures! And we need to look at ourselves for letting a special interest group of Ecologist keep us from extracting crude oil from known sources here at home which could make us independent of OPEC!

With a controversial candidate like Obama, and all the Baggage he carries with him. The Democrats would like nothing better than for the voting public to ignore the fact that he may be a apostate Muslim, or a closet Muslim and a total Socialist and racist candidate.

IN DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE

In the beginning, God created man and women. Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. This simple phrase is in the beginning of the Old Testament of the Bible used by all Christians the World over. Now the Left, or neo-pagans as I like to call them, are using as their center piece of the attack on the Family, the repeal of DOMA.

The way to destroy a basically religious Country is to destroy the family unit, as all religious believing countries are made up of a family unit. A unit made in the mold of the Trinity of the Catholic Church. My definition also includes single parent families, but not same sex couple "families". The family is the basic building block , the under pining, of societies acround the World. But what exactly is meant by the word "family"? One might think the answer was obvious – a husband and wife, and their kids – but these definitions would not cover all the different types of families that exist. There are "nuclear" families, extended families, one-parent families and families with adopted children in all civilized countries.

Although Obama opposes same-sex marriage, the "pride" section of his campaign Web site calls for repeal of DOMA.The legislation, passed in 1996, defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws, and it says states do not have to recognize a marriage from another state if it is between persons of the same sex. Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) SAID that she would support Obama in such a plan. "Yes, I would," she said.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who is from one of the two states where the courts have upheld same-sex marriage, told Cybercast News Service that she was not aware of Obama's call to repeal DOMA. "I have not talked to Sen. Obama about that. I have not heard anything about that," she said. "I did not vote for DOMA in the first place. I voted against it, and I don't know anything about this."

"Obama also believes we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions," his Web site says.

For those of you who think I am making this all up, I submit the following: The following letter was released by Democratic presidential candidate Barrack Obama to GLBT Americans. This letter follows the announcement that the Obama campaign will be taking out full page ads in GLBT newspapers in Ohio and Texas beginning Friday. Read Obama's previous Bilerico guest post A Call for Full Equality.

"As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage. Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans. But neither will I close my ears to the voices of those who still need to be convinced. That is the work we must do to move forward together. It is difficult. It is challenging. And it is necessary".

And you probably are thinking, this is just another blogger who is Homophobic! I now state that I am not afraid or prejudiced of Gays and Lesbians. I believe what they do is wrong, because of my religious beliefs, but I believe they are all children of God, and as such I honor them. I hate the sin, not the sinner! Never the less, a repeal of the DOMA law would be a direct attack on the basic principles that this country was founded. I ask all like minded people to write, call, email or fax you representatives in Congress to defeat this promise of Obama's. And for those who think they will vote for him. This is one more reason for Pause in your commitment to Senator Obama!

OBAMA YOU ARE NO KENNEDY OR REAGAN!

During a speech Obama gave today in Billings, Montana he took a swipe at John McCain, who had said yesterday that Obama showed recklessness and inexperience, because he said he would talk to Iran's president with no preconditions.

Obama said the threat from Iran had grown as a result of the US war in Iraq. "Iran is the biggest single beneficiary of a war in Iraq that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged,"(I guess he forgot that the war got rid of the tyrant Saddam Hussein) he said. "And John McCain wants to double down that failed policy."
If McCain is elected, Obama said, "We'll keep talking tough in Washington, while countries like Iran ignore our tough talk." ( and they won't ignore a man born of a Muslim father?)

The alternative, Obama said, is to follow the example of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, who negotiated with the Soviet Union. Obama called for "tough, disciplined and direct diplomacy."
"That's what Kennedy did; that's what Reagan did," he said.

Obama either knows nothing about history, or he chooses like all other liberals, to write his own version. History shows that it was not talk, but the Naval blockade that stopped the Cuban missile crisis during the Kennedy administration. And during the Cold War the build up of the Strategic Air Command, and building a ring of missiles under the sea in submarines around Russia, that defeated the Russian Bear, not talk!

"President Ronald Reagan proposed a new missile defense system, the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), dubbed "Star Wars". In an interview with the Soviet press, Reagan proposed eliminating nuclear weapons before deploying the missile shield; in other reports he suggested sharing the Star Wars technology with the Soviets. Although both of these suggestions were later repudiated, they demonstrate Reagan’s hope that a missile shield would render nuclear weapons obsolete".His talk was accompanied by "conditions". Only a political hack who is uninformed would propose a talk with no "Quid pro Quo"..

source: Wikapedia

OBAMA SPEAKS AS IF HE IS RUNNING FOR THE PRESIDENT OF UN

Perhaps he was temporarily rendered senseless by the crowd, estimated at 65,000 people, that showed up for Obama's rally in Roseburg ,Oregon.

Whatever the reason, Obama once again showed his proclivity for international bias, that probably overshadows his concern for the "beer drinking, gun toting and church going" Americans.

This is not as bad a knock on us Americans as his wife Michelle's pejorative comment about never being proud of America until her husband decided to run for President. Never the less, the statement about other countries feelings about us, shows me he is more concerned about International opinion than he is about our maintaining our present life style!

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," He said this as part of an attack on the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain.

Since,as President, he would be riding in a taxpayer payed limousine ,and living in a White House with the best air conditioning system tax payers can buy. I guess he doesn't have to worry if we have to put up with discomforts and alterations in our life to satisfy his Ecological aspirations.

While President Bush is a "Johnny come lately"on a call for drilling for fossil fuels here at home, Obama is throwing in the towel for Americans, because he doesn't want to offend the rest of he world. Never mind the fact that China and India are marching toward financial greatness with little or no regard for the Kyoto agreement from which they are exempt!

OBAMA'S FIX FOR SOCIAL SECURITY IS A HOAX!

ONCE AGAIN THE "EMPTY SUIT" FROM ILLINOIS HAS MADE A PROMISE THAT HE EITHER KNOWS OR SHOULD KNOW AS A U.S.SENATOR, THAT HE CAN NOT DO!

In a speech given in Oregon, Obama promised that if elected he will protect The Social Security Trust Fund. A fund that does not exist, but rather is a "fund" filled with promissory notes from the government to the government. The "fund" is a misnomer for the deficit that the government has created by lumping all taxes including social security taxes into the general fund that is used to pay for the Socialist WELFARE society that our government has operated since the years of LBJ.

The Social Security system is primarily a "PAY AS YOU GO" system, meaning that payments to current retirees come from current payments into the system. In the early 1980s, the financial projections of the Social Security Administration indicated near-term revenue from payroll taxes would not be sufficient to fully fund near-term benefits, thus the Congress raised the possibility of benefit cuts. Instaed they increased the taxes taken from your paycheck for social security.

The following is an excerpt from Wikapedia: "Though widely used, the term "Social Security Trust Fund" is something of a misnomer, as the Social Security Administration of the United States actually oversees two separate funds that hold federal government debt obligations related to what are traditionally thought of as Social Security benefits. The larger of these funds is the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund, which holds in trust those funds that the federal government intends to use to pay future benefits to retirees and their survivors.[2] The second, smaller fund is the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund, which holds in trust those funds that the federal government intends to use to pay benefits to those who are judged by the federal government to be disabled and incapable of productive work, as well as to their spouses and dependents.[3]

" The securities issued under this scheme constitute the assets of the Social Security Trust Fund. Because under current federal law these securities represent future obligations that must be repaid, the federal government includes these securities within the overall national debt.[1] The portion of the national debt that is not considered "publicly held" represents the obligations incurred by the government to itself, the bulk of which consists of the government's obligations to the Social Security Trust Fund".
In 2001, Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill upset some people by simply telling the truth. He had the temerity to say that the Social Security Trust Fund has no tangible assets. It was empty!

Knowing that the Trust Fund is a figment of our collective imagination. There’s no money, only IOUs there. It doesn’t exist, Obama has the gaul to say he will protect the "fund"!
Every cent that the American people pay in FICA payroll taxes is immediately spent. Anything left over after the current retirees are paid off goes into the general treasury where it is used, first, to make up any operating shortfall, and then to pay the government’s creditors. The Social Security Trust Fund is credited for that money in the form of nonnegotiable notes.

While speaking to a group of senior citizens in Gresham, Oregon,( a group he needs to win in November) the man who appears to be the Democratic presidential nominee raised the thorny Social Security issue. He criticized the George Bush/John McCain plan and offered one of his own.Obama wants higher earners to pay more into the system -- to "protect" senior citizens "who have earned the right to retire with dignity." "A secure retirement is no longer a guarantee for the middle class," he said -- "because Washington is not working to preserve this fundamental part of the American dream."

Invoking "the promise that FDR made," Obama said that when he's president, he will "fight every single day" to protect Social Security, which is coming under increasing strain as more Baby Boomers retire.First, Obama said he would "preserve the Social Security Trust Fund" -- by not spending money raised through payroll taxes on other things. Another example of a politicain who promises anything even if it is a lie, to get votes!

He said he would make sure that "money that's coming in for Social Security stays for Social Security." (Al Gore proposed a similar "lock-box" policy when he was running for president.)Unlike Sen. John McCain, Obama said he believes that privatizing Social Security is a "bad idea," and "I won't stand for it as president."

Some one should tell him the President doesn't control the budget, Congress does that. But since this is just another of his promises, we must assume that if (God forbid) he is elelected, will be just another campaign promise he fails to produce.