We created the image above on the occasion of the UN’s 60th Birthday. Now that the Obamessiah has graced the despotic league with his presence, the UN remains just as ineffective and corrupt as ever, maybe more.

Charles Krauthammer dissected Obama’s bragging and condescending words as well as anyone could:

This speech hovered somewhere between embarrassing and dangerous. You had a president of the United States actually saying: “No [one] nation can or should try to dominate another.”

I will buy the “should try to” as kind of adolescent wishful thinking. But “no [one] nation can dominate another”? What planet is he living on? It is the story of man. What does he think Russia is doing to Georgia?

But the alarming part is what he said in the same paragraph where he said that it makes no sense anymore “the alignments of nations that are rooted in the cleavages of the Cold War.”

Well, NATO is rooted in the cleavage of the Cold War. The European Union is rooted in the cleavage of the Cold War. Our alliances with Japan and Korea and the Philippines, our guarantees to Taiwan and Eastern Europe are all rooted in the cleavage of the Cold War. (Interesting noun, incidentally.)

So he is saying that is all now irrelevant. What does he think our allies are going to think who hear this?

Obama’s speech is alarming because it says the United States has no more moral right to act or to influence world history than Bangladesh or Sierra Leone.

It diminishes the United States deliberately and wants to say that we should be one nation among others, and not defend the alliance of democracies that we have in NATO, for example, or to say — as [did] every president who goes before Obama — that we stand for something good and unique in the world.

And it [NATO] is not the equivalent, for example, of the alignment of Chavez with Ecuador and Bolivia and Nicaragua and Russia and Cuba and Iran…..

This one was worse: When he [Obama] boasted about how he had reversed the course of America, and those who doubt our character should look at our actions, among the actions he cited was our joining the U.N. Human Rights Council, which is led by the worst human rights violators on the planet. It is an Orwellian, farcical organization. The idea that we should be on it is regrettable, but the idea that we should be boasting about it as an American achievement is a scandal.

None of them are champions of peace, yet they have all been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

• Yassir Arafat fomented terrorism in the Middle East for decades before his death. The terror he incited continues to this day.
• Jimmy Carter, the worst U.S. President of the 20th century, made concessions to Iran that allowed radicals in that country to capture U.S. Embassy personnel and hold them hostage for 444 days. Carter did nothing to save the hostages except for a lame attempt at a raid that resulted in the deaths of eight military personnel and the destruction of their helicopter.
• Muhammad ElBaradei ignored the efforts of North Korea and Iran in their respective run-up to nuclear weapons. In his role as chief of the IAEA he consistently gave both rogue nations leeway to continue their efforts.
• Finally, Al Gore has peddled falsehoods in the name of saving the planet from a highly-exaggerated climatological disaster. In his recent testimony before congress, he misrepresented the truth by declaring that “droughts are becoming longer and more intense” which has clearly been disproven by actual science.

The Nobel Peace Prize has been a joke for years. Consider the following with regard to the discretion of the prize award selection committee:

• Why did they award Mikhail Gorbachev the Peace Prize for ending the cold war when Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher had more to do with it?
• In keeping with their penchant for rewarding cowardice and deceit, why did they not award Bill Clinton for his retreat from Somalia after the Blackhawk Down incident? And for refusing to capture or kill Usama Bin Laden?

They should rename the prize to something like the Nobel Anti-American Prize and be done with it.

Over the weekend in Saint Louis at the NRA Convention, former UN Ambassador John Bolton told 3500 banquet attendees that foreign anti-gun interests are intent on depriving Americans of their second-amendment right to own and bear arms. Bolton cited a 2001 UN conference on small arms and light weapons wherein the majority of participants decided that private ownership of weapons should be banned worldwide.

Bolton also said that US proponents of gun control are turning to international interests in their efforts to deny gun ownership. Bolton said the United States’ bottom line is that this country will not agree to anything that infringes on the constitutional right to bear arms.

“Had the NRA not come forward … one could only guess what our State Department bureaucracy would have done,” he said.

The United Nations instead should focus on nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea, he said. Negotiations with these countries are more dangerous than productive, Bolton said.

The United States should not make general contributions to the United Nations, Bolton said. Instead, he said, “We should pay for what we want and expect to get what we pay for.”

Hear, Hear!

Hat tip NRA-ILA.

Let me start out by quoting a famous American:

“If you beat your sword into a plowshare, you will probably end up plowing for someone who kept their sword.” — Samuel F.B. Morse

The UNODC, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, is urging Colombians to turn their guns into guitars. No, really, that’s what they’re saying! Not only that, but they say if all nations (including the US) gets rid of guns then the world will be safer.

Right - safer for the people who keep their guns, that is.

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre takes this notion to task in his article GUNS, GUITARS & GOOFBALLS:

Continue reading » Yet Another Reason to GET OUT of the UN

I read an interesting report written by John L. Daly about the emergence of the “hockey stick” paradigm. The “hockey stick” (since the shape of the graph resembles one) graph emerged in 1995 and purports to depict average global temperatures over the last 1000 years or so. The basis of this paradigm, however, can be shown to be flawed.

At the behest of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Dr. Michael Mann of the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts wrote a report containing the questionable climate graph.

To get the graph, the good doctor grafted data obtained from tree rings worldwide onto the more recent average global temperature data. This is inherently not a good practice to mix data from two completely different sources. Moreover, tree rings are influenced by many factors other than temperature, and the conclusions probably contain errors. Nonetheless, the IPCC immediately embraced the report as evidence that there was “a discernible human influence on global climate.”

John L. Daly in his article The “Hockey Stick” - A New Low in Climate Science presents 14 exhibits of climate science that completely discredit the “hockey stick.” Daly also shows how the biased media can make “stars” out of their favorite scientists as they did with Dr. Mann. This “star” status reduces science to the level of Hollywood, according to Daly.

The graph below shows worldwide temperatures since the last ice age which occurred over ten thousand years ago. The data used to plot this graph have been assembled from reliable scientific research. Notice that over the last 1000 years (see inset), the temperature dropped from the medieval warm period down to the “little ice age” and rebounded since that time. Why, then, does the “hockey stick” not show this? The answer is simple — the “hockey stick” contains flawed data prior to 1900 AD. Notice also that there’s nothing remarkable about the current warming bubble. If solar activity continues to increase, there’s not much anybody can do about it, but will it be that bad or will we simply adapt?

Supporters of the “hockey stick” defend their model by suggesting that the little ice age and medieval warm periods were confined to the northern hemisphere or to Europe. That’s simply not the case according to Daly’s report and to NASA - I prepared a three-phase review on why solar activity is the primary cause of climate fluctuation. In that review, I utilized NASA’s graphics and sunspot data. Together, these demonstrate the world-wide nature of climate fluctuation. Conclusions that I made in that review apply equally to this subject:

1. The media will print or broadcast sensationalized headlines to sell copy regardless of scientific value
2. The media will print or broadcast manipulated science with half-truths and invalid conclusions to damage politicians with whom they do not agree
3. Politicians seize on these unverified claims in order to blame their opponents
4. Uneducated/uninformed people are as gullible as ever

And one more conclusion:

• The United Nations is NOT our friend - get us out NOW

References:

John L. Daly:

• The “Hockey Stick” - A New Low in Climate Science

World Climate Report:

• Another Swipe at the Hockey Stick
• Diatom Diatribe
• Tropical Seas Sink Hockey Stick

CO2 Science:

• The Specter of Species Extinction

From Cox & Forkum:

MVRWC reveals the truth about the NOKO explosion. Click it - very funny.

Seriously, here we go again with the useless UN: China Reluctant to Impose Sanctions.

Go vote at Studio B.

The true character of the persons speaking at opening of the General Assembly of the United Nations became evident as they delivered their remarks. President Bush was eloquent and visionary, speaking the truth about the nature of the enemy and what must be done. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke like the deluded power-hungry despot he is, and Hugo Chavez went beyond the pale with his insane and hateful rhetoric accusing the United States of seeking to dominate the world. Indeed, Chavez’ remarks seemed humorous to the president of the General Assembly.

If you care to indulge the insanity, Ahmadinejad’s complete rant is translated at Vital Perspective.

Allahpundit has a video of Chavez’ melt-down, in which he calls President Bush “the devil.” Un.be.lieve.able!

I still stand beside my assertion that the most dangerous people in the world congregate in sanctuary at the United Nations — these recent developments should convince all of us that the UN is completely worthless to the United States and we need to withdraw NOW.

Jon at GOP Bloggers seems to be as fed up with the United Nations as much as we are. I take it a step further and include regimes like Venezuela and North Korea in the mix along with Iran and Syria. All insane, all terrorists, all the time.

GOP Bloggers :: The UN Is Nothing More Than an Enabler of Violent Islamists, So America Must Withdraw

If the UN ever served a useful purpose, that role is now gone. Its peacekeepers are manifestly not effective at peacekeeping, whether as spectators for mass slaughter in Rwanda and Bosnia or observing a terrorist group’s massive arms build-up, but they are clearly adept at mass rape of children. So the “peacekeeping” function of the UN is no reason to keep it around and there is little else of value the organization does that cannot be handled through other multilateral arrangements.

Read the whole article — it’s a treasure trove of references to just why we should kick the whole lot of them out of Turtle Bay and do something good with our support.

Faux Brass: a class of former military officers who have shed the honor and pride of their commissions in favor of retreatist and defeatist policies.

In recent times, a few former military officers have rendered negative opinions on the War on Terror which includes ongoing skirmishes in Iraq and the current trouble in Gaza and Southern Lebanon. Now, let’s be clear that most current and former military “brass” support efforts worldwide in the certain-to-be-lengthy War on Terror. The major media, however, fail to show the overwhelming support for the effort among military brass.

Jack Murtha comes to mind as a former military-turned-politician who gets it wrong — redeploy, he says, to Okinawa(?!). Murtha also shamefully convicts our military prior to any charges being made.

It’s the same with John Kerry who offers that he could have done better if he were president — the trouble is, he offers no ideas, but only the same retreat and concede policy that has been his lifelong pursuit. Thank God that America caused him to concede the last election.

Another ex-military general-turned-presidential-candidate-turned-pundit, Wesley Clark, always portrays the administration in the anti-internationalization light. This from a former NATO Commander — not actually a U.S. Military function. Clark will always defer to the “international community” for policy answers.

Murtha, Kerry and Clark fail to put America first. American interests must first be served before worrying how the “international community” views things. After all, has the UN ever succeeded with anything they attempt, other than stealing from children’s programs and Iraqi oil profits? Nope.

These three examples of Faux Brass, Murtha, Kerry and Clark, each remind me of a certain loudmouth cartoon chicken trying to look like an eagle.