Advertisements
Home

UN Wants Parents Who Spank or Smack Children Jailed

1 Comment

It is time to give the United Nations an eviction notice.

Along with a Giant FU.

The United Nations wants parents who physically discipline their children with smacks or spankings to be thrown behind bars and have their families torn to shreds by government. By Alex Newman

Source: UN Wants Parents Who Spank or Smack Children Jailed

Advertisements

Two Holocaust survivors brutally beaten in Amsterdam

1 Comment

This is from The Times Of Israel.

The United Nations says America needs to accept more of these filthy animals from Syria.

Attackers called Shmuel and Diana Blog ‘dirty Jews’; beating left them wheelchair-bound and cost Shmuel his sight.

F130525YS05-635x357

A Holocaust survivor shows his prisoner number tattooed on his arm. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

 

Dutch police are investigating the brutal beating of an elderly Amsterdam Jewish couple.

 

Diana Blog, 86, and her husband of 56 years Shmuel, 87, are both Holocaust survivors. Diana has scars from being attacked by Auschwitz guard dogs.

The August 4 attack left Shmuel blind and with a broken thigh bone, and Diana suffering from “extreme pains,” according to the news site Ynet.

Both have been in a rehabilitation center in the month since the attack, and are now confined to wheelchairs.

According to the Blogs, the two male attackers dressed in black knocked loudly on their door and claimed to be police officers. When Shmuel opened the door, the men charged in, pointing guns and hitting and kicking the elderly couple as they demanded their jewelry and other valuables. At one point, they tied them up and began ripping jewelry off Diana’s body.

“They called us ‘dirty Jews’ and said: ‘You don’t need your jewelry anymore. You’ve been wearing it for too long. Now it’s all ours,’” Diana recalled, according to Ynet.

“They wanted to chop off my finger because the rings didn’t come off fast enough,” Diana said.

Police have publicized descriptions of the attackers, but no suspects have yet been apprehended.

The Blogs’ son Emmanuel publicized photos of his wounded parents and offered a 10,000 euro reward for information leading to the attackers’ capture. The figure has since grown by a few thousand euros as Dutch citizens shocked by the attack added their own money to the reward pool.

In a statement, the Dutch Embassy in Israel told Ynet, “This is a shocking incident, a brutal robbery that extremely affected the victims. Dutch police is handling this case with the utmost seriousness, and is investigating it. No suspects have been apprehended yet, so it’s difficult to make unequivocal statements about the motives.

“In general, it’s important to emphasize that everyone should feel safe in the Netherlands. We will not tolerate any incident of discrimination and anti-Semitism. The Dutch foreign minister recently issued a statement before his meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in which he expressed concern about the rising wave of anti-Semitism in Europe.

“It affects Jewish communities first of all, but affects all of our lives, too. Fighting anti-Semitism is part of protecting the fundamental values of liberty and security for all. The Dutch government’s position has remained clear: We will not tolerate anti-Semitism in our society.”

 

 

 

United Nations to Sit in Judgment of U.S. Human Rights Record

2 Comments

This is from CNSNews.

The United Nations can go to Hell.

They United Nations has zero credibility.

(CNSNews.com) – From police shootings of African-Americans to the failure to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, the United States’ human rights record will be in the spotlight at the U.N. Human Rights Council on Monday.

A 26-strong multi-agency U.S. delegation will field questions from other members of the Geneva-based council, including communist Cuba, which has submitted queries covering torture, labor rights and poverty.

“How is the U.S. commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights compatible with the fact no prosecutions have been announced of those responsible for carrying out torture in the context of the so-called war against terrorism?” reads one of the questions Cuba prepared in advance.

A number of other countries will be asking the U.S. team to explain policy on issues including the death penalty, Guantanamo Bay, ratification of the International Criminal Court’s founding statute, and the Feinstein report on the CIA’s post-9/11 interrogation and detention programs.

Spain’s prepared questions relate to the controversies over police shootings in U.S. cities.

“Is the government preparing any education program for the police to prevent discrimination and violence against the Afro-American citizens by the public order forces?” it asks. “Are the president and the Congress going to appoint a special commission to investigate police actions against minorities, including Afro-American citizens?”

The exercise in Geneva is known as the universal periodic review (UPR), an examination supervised by the HRC which every U.N. member-state is expected to undergo every four years.

It involves a three-hour “interactive dialogue” among delegates, based on three reports – one prepared by the government under review, one by U.N. agencies, and one that summarizes submissions from non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

After the discussion a “troika” of randomly-selected countries compiles a document containing recommendations arising from the proceedings. The full HRC then “adopts” that document, and the country under review is expected either to accept or “note” each recommendation.

The troika selected for the UPR of the U.S. comprises Saudi Arabia – a country which the democracy watchdog Freedom House designates as “not free” – the Netherlands and Botswana.

The UPR was touted as one of the most important mechanisms designed for the HRC when the council was established in 2006 to replace its discredited predecessor, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.

In practice, it has often disappointed human rights advocates. Regimes with poor rights records typically express support and solidarity for each other, while fending off criticism from democracies.

And when democracies are under review, rights-abusing regimes have used the opportunity as payback for criticism they frequently receive from the West.

 

When the U.S. had its first UPR, in 2010-11, critics of U.S. policies stacked the top of the speakers’ list, with Cuba, Venezuela and Iran in the top three positions. Russia, Nicaragua, North Korea, China and Libya were also high up the list.

Among recommendations arising out of that first UPR, Libya’s Gaddafi regime advised the U.S. to act against those responsible for gross violations of human rights in American prisons; Iran said Washington should send U.S. “war criminals” to the ICC for trial; and North Korea urged the U.S. to ban torture and punish law enforcement officials who use excessive force.

Venezuela said the U.S. must tackle climate change; Algeria said the U.S. must examine itself in the annual State Department report on human rights around the world; and Ecuador said the U.S. should repeal “discriminatory and racial laws” such as Arizona’s controversial immigration law, S.B. 1070.

In the end the U.S. accepted 171 recommendations out of a total of 242 from other member-states.

The delegation traveling to Geneva for Monday’s session comprises 25 officials from the Departments of State, Defense, Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, along with Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan.

 

 

Inhofe Pro-Gun Amendment Could “Potentially Shut Down Parts of the United Nations”

Leave a comment

This is from Freedom OutPost.

This sounds like something all gun owners should support.

They only thing that would make me happier is shutting down the United Nations completely and kicking them out of America.

Several gun owner rights victories have occurred recently in the united States Senate, including a vote that shut down the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. Among those victories is Senator Jim Inhofe’s amendment, which Gun Owners of America claims has the potential to shut down parts of the United Nations if they stay on course with the ATT.

First, Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) added a committee amendment to deal with Obama’s DOJ and their anti-gun Operation Choke Point. As a result, the bill wasn’t even taken out on the floor of the senate. Well done, Senator Crapo.

As you recall, Operation Choke Point was a huge overreach of federal powers by the usual criminal, Attorney General Eric Holder, which sought to strong arm gun businesses and other businesses the Justice Department deemed “risky” business, in order to put pressure on banks to sever ties with gun dealers.

Also, Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) was able to put in an amendment to shut down the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The vote was 59-41.

Gun Owners of America said that the amendment that Inhofe put forward was “so far-reaching that it has been accused, probably correctly, of potentially shutting down parts of the United Nations if that organization continues to push the ATT.”

Inhofe’s Amendment 649 reads as follows:

SEC. ___. SPENDING-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO PROHIBITING FUNDING OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS DURING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS ARMS TRADE TREATY PRIOR TO SENATE RATIFICATION AND ADOPTION OF IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to funding, which may include prohibiting funding for the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty Secretariat or any international organizations created to support the implementation of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty prior to Senate ratification and adoption of implementing legislation by the amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided that such legislation would not raise new revenue and would not increase the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2016 through 2020 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

“Senator Moran and I have shown time and again that the Senate will not ratify the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. Today, the Senate also spoke against taxpayer dollars being used to help fund the treaty’s implementation,” Inhofe said. “The President should remove the United States’ as a signatory nation on an ambiguous treaty, which does nothing to guarantee the protection of personal gun ownership and could potentially interfere with the United States’ ability to aid allies.”

GOA legislative counsel Michael Hammond spoke to Freedom Outpost and explained that the Inhofe amendment would defund particular portions of the UN related to the ATT.

“This amendment would clearly defund the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty Secretariat or any international within the UN or outside the UN, which has been deemed to have been created to support the implementation of the ATT,” said Hammond. “I take that to mean in whole or in part.”

Hammond said that this is at the very least a “placemark” as to defunding anything in the UN that would advance the ATT. This is a good thing as the United Nations is the vehicle by which American tax dollars are being used, under the guise of helping the world, to bring in communism on a global scale.

Of course, over 130 congressmen said that they opposed the ATT in 2013, but more importantly, the senate has already passed a resolution informing Barack Obama that they would not ratify it. As such, the treaty remains null and void, according to the US Constitution.

The treaty also poses many dangers to undermining America’s sovereignty and the Second Amendment, including a national gun registration.

The senate failed to fight off eight anti-gun amendments put forward by Democrat Senators Chuck Schumer (NY), Dick Durbin (IL), Chris Murphy (CT) and Richard Blumenthal (CT), which, according to Gun Owners of America, “dealt with fraudulent non-issues like guns and domestic violence, guns and sex trafficking, and so forth.”

Additionally, Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) introduced legislation that would repeal Washington, DC’s gun ban.

According to GOA, “The Rubio/Jordan bill (S. 874/H.R. 1701) would repeal Washington’s gun license requirement.  It would repeal the semi-auto ban and the microstamping requirement, and would turn D.C. into a “shall-issue” jurisdiction — an achievement which, while it wouldn’t be a big deal in pro-gun parts of the country, is a huge deal in this cesspool of anti-gun liberalism.”

“In order to achieve the American Dream, people need to be able to live in safe communities and be able to protect themselves, their families and their properties from danger,” Rubio said. “For years, the District of Columbia has infringed on its residents’ Second Amendment rights and rendered them vulnerable to criminals who could care less what the gun laws are.”

Jordan echoed Rubio’s comments adding that the bill would “restore the original intent of the Second Amendment to our nation’s capital.”

Well, the bill will have to go a lot further to restore the “original intent of the Second Amendment.” It’s going to have to go way beyond guns to include any and all arms as I’ve written about before.

However, at least there are some victories that move us in the right direction. For that, I am thankful.
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/04/inhofe-pro-gun-amendment-could-potentially-shut-down-parts-of-the-united-nations/#I6G4TjOkxfVmULX0.99

MESSAGE TO BENJAMIN NETANYAHU…..

Leave a comment

Hat Tip Firebird@SHE’S RIGHT.

Firebird is spot on.

 

Congratulations on your huge electoral victory.

You have approximately two years ahead during which time you should not count on the United States for military support.  Hopefully after the 2016 elections here, there will be a president in the White House that will again treat Israel as an ally and not a burr under his saddle.  (As an aside, congratulations on making Obama piss his pannies.)  You also cannot count on Obama’s administration to have your back in the United Nations.

NETANYAHU AND OBAMA

 

Until such time as we have an adult in the White House, I would suggest you look around your area and form a coalition with:

  • Saudia Arabia…. they have no large military presence but they can buy and sell most nations of the world.  They fear and hate ISIS and IRAN
  • Egypt….has a true leader with balls who sees ISIS and IRAN as enemies of his country
  • Jordan…. Jordan has a true leader with balls who sees ISIS and IRAN as enemies of his country
Form a mutual defense coalition with these countries who share the same issues and keep Israel safe.
stand-by-israel

Michael Brown’s Case Not Vindicated by UN…He’s an Entitled Thug!

2 Comments

This is from Patriot UpDate.

The Browns like all of the ghetto hood rats think they are owed something because of their skin color.

Thanks to people like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton.

We are through the looking-glass with the United Nations, giving a ruling that makes sense. 

 

A UN official lambasted the “entitlement” of the parents of slain Ferguson, Mo. teen Mike Brown after they addressed the United Nations Committee Against Torture. On November 12, 2014, the National Report published an article titled “UN Dismisses Michael Brown case.”

Parents Lesley McSpadden and Michael Brown Sr. of the late Michael Brown have taken their plight with the Ferguson PD all the way to the UN: a gesture which appears to have been in vain. Brown was killed after allegedly reaching for Officer Darren Wilson’s pistol during a suspected strong-armed robbery arrest in Ferguson, Missouri. On Tuesday, the couple met with the United Nations Committee Against Torture and asked that they look into what they considered to be a grievous cause of police brutality.

The Browns are requesting Officer Wilson’s immediate arrest and calling for an end to the perceived racial profiling in America. The Brown’s said in their document, “We need answers and we need action. We had to bring it to the UN so they can expose it to the rest of the world; what’s going on in small town Ferguson.”

The UN however, blasted back at the couple after mere hours of deliberation. In a statement released by Senior Chairman of the UN’s Committee Against Torture, he dismissed the couple’s plea (entirely).

“The sense of entitlement these people have displayed is reprehensible” said chair member, Dr. Amancio Dominguez in an interview with National Report. “We deal with legitimate and widespread instances of human rights violations, and frankly the issues presented to us here are not even a blip on our radar. It is in our opinion after reviewing all the evidence that the officer in question committed absolutely (No Wrong Doing).”

He continued, “While I feel for loss endured by these two individuals, I believe they are blinded by grief and this is simply not the forum which to project those feeling. My colleagues and I went over the surveillance footage, as well as other evidence documented in the case, and we believe that Michael Brown is indeed guilty of the acts of which he is being charged.”

Another member of the UN committee told CNN, “We have much more important things to do than involve ourselves in county level legal proceedings. This was an absolute waste of our time. Compared to human rights violations that are prevalent in such 3rd world countries as North Korea and Brazil, America’s plight simply does not compare. While instances of police brutality certainly do exist, we have found that this was no such case and we will not be intervening in the matter.”

I also feel badly that these parents lost a child but they are extremely misguided in their indoctrination of victim thinking. So profusely wrong yet determined for their version of Black Victim Justice they went around our Court system to the United Nations to achieve some kind of vindication in their mind.

What they seem to forget is that their child committed a robbery while high on Pot (not legal in Missouri) and then attacked a Police Officer. We have rules in America no matter what your skin color. He disobeyed the law and he of course didn’t want to pay for the consequences of his poor choices. I can only surmise what he would be on trial for today if he had gotten Officer Wilson’s gun away from him in the struggle inside the police car and shot Officer Wilson with it.

How could his parents take the moral high ground fighting for justice for lawless acts of immoral abuse, assault and robbery not only to the police officer but the shop owner with impunity?

They have taken this thinking to the streets chanting, “All black lives matter!” However, I see the total hypocrisy and insincerity in their silence over the Black on Black violence and murder nation-wide. If indeed ALL Black lives matter to you then this would be a good place to start to save Black lives. Recognize the prejudice in your own hearts that you so recklessly adamantly portray as White Bigotry trying to convince the world you really are the victim in your unbiased White on Black racist cause.

The UN saw through the Brown’s masquerade fiasco of injustice from the PD of Ferguson. I just hope they’re prepared to pick up the exorbitant tab from the destruction they perpetrated for months on: the Police Dept., the innocent people’s lives and property of Ferguson and surrounding cities and the loss-of-income from shop owners trying to do business there.
Read more at http://patriotupdate.com/articles/michael-browns-case-vindicated-unhes-entitled-thug/

U.N. seeking to intervene in U.S. border crisis

Leave a comment

This is from World Net Daily.

I fear this will be the worst mistake we could do allowing  the United Nations and its Blue Helmeted goon squad in America.

Nothing good could ever come from the United States for any reason.

 

Global body would protect illegals as ‘refugees.

 

‘UNITED NATIONS – Representatives of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the UNHRC, are “intensely discussing in meetings” the possibility of extending U.N. protection to the thousands of Central Americans crossing the U.S. border with Mexico illegally by defining them as “refugees” who are seeking asylum from political and domestic violence in their home nations, WND has confirmed.

Officials privy to the U.N. discussions have explained to WND it’s “a tricky situation,” because the Central American immigrants are not part of any group the U.N. has designated as victims of political or religious persecution.

A UNHCR official confirmed Monday to WND via email that a 10-nation meeting in Nicaragua of ministers of the interior from the U.S., Mexico and various Central American countries was held Thursday and Friday.

The ministers, according to preliminary reports obtained by WND, concluded the Central American illegal aliens are “refugees” deserving international protection under the auspices of the U.N. as they seek asylum in the U.S. The ministers cited the U.N.’s 30-year-old declaration on the rights of refugees.

Attending the meeting were UNHRC representatives, as well as representatives of SICA, the El Salvador-headquartered non-government organization known in English as Central American Integration System. The group was endorsed by the U.N. General Assembly in a resolution Dec. 10, 1993, to create regional bodies and institutions authorized to interact with the U.N. officially in an effort to unify Central American states politically and economically.

On Monday, the UNHRC in Colombia notified WND the U.N. would issued a press release later in the day on last week’s 10-nation meeting in Nicaragua, after receiving comments from SICA and the host country.

In 1991, SICA was created by Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama, with Belize becoming a full member in 2013. SICA includes the U.S., Mexico, Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Peru, Ecuador, Uruguay and Colombia as regional observers.

More to come

Delia M. Arias De Léon, a Wellesley College political science student currently serving as a WND intern at the U.N. in New York City, contributed to this article.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/u-n-seeking-to-intervene-in-u-s-border-crisis/#l1akWFBFkeu0Vzks.99

UN to Set Up a U.S.-based Disarmament Specialist

Leave a comment

This is from The New American.

A Tyrant once said, “To conquer a nation, one must first disarm its citizens.” Adolph Hitler.

A more recent tyrants said,“We Must Brainwash People Against Guns” Eric Holder.

I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.”Then Senator Barack  Hussein Obama.

Now we are looking at this crap coming down the pike.

It’s no secret that President Obama and the would-be global governors at the United Nations are anxious to disarm the American people. Now they’re looking to hire some help in getting it done.

From the UN’s Programme of Action and Arms Trade Treaty, to his own executive orders, Obama is pursuing every available avenue toward de facto repeal of the Second Amendment and the God-given right to keep and bear arms that it protects.

Over the next few weeks, though, the UN is looking to add personnel to its gun grabbing gestapo. In a job advertisement open until July 26, the UN is looking for a “Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration Officer.”

What will this bureaucrat’s bailiwick be? Here’s a summary of the job description as posted by the UN:

Act as a Focal Point for DDR [Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration] components for 2-3 missions, responsible for planning, support to implementation and evaluation;

Advise, develop and review (as appropriate) initial DDR functional strategy and concept of operations for further development into a full programme by the DDR component and the National DDR Commission;

Provide Headquarters support in planning the civilian and military logistics support for DDR;

Continually review DDR programme strategy and implementation through relevant documents, reports and code cables;

Conduct field missions to assess implementation of established DDR programmes;

Identify potential problems and issues to be addressed and suggest remedies to DDR units in the field; and

Liaise with others (UN, regional organizations [sic] and Member States) providing DDR training.

As if the list of tasks assigned to the disarmament specialist isn’t enough to fire up patriots who own firearms and refuse to have them seized by the UN or the Obama administration, the UN wants to base this office in New York City!

It is more than a little incompatible that a country that places such a high value on gun ownership that it enshrined it in its Bill of Rights participates in an organization that has such disdain and disregard for those rights that it is opening a disarmament office in that country.

Lest anyone think that there’s nothing to fear from this agent of disarmament, consider the definitions of disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration provided by the UN on an information page linked to the job opening announcement:

Disarmament is the collection, documentation, control and disposal of small arms, ammunition, explosives and light and heavy weapons from combatants and often from the civilian population.

Demobilization is the formal and controlled discharge of active combatants from armed forces and groups, including a phase of “reinsertion” which provides short-term assistance to ex-combatants.

Reintegration is the process by which ex-combatants acquire civilian status and gain sustainable employment and income. It is a political, social and economic process with an open time-frame, primarily taking place in communities at the local level.

The objective of the DDR process is to contribute to security and stability in post-conflict environments so that recovery and development can begin. DDR helps create an enabling environment for political and peace processes by dealing with security problem that arises when ex-combatants are trying to adjust to normal life, during the vital transition period from conflict to peace and development.

Notably, the UN will require the DDR specialist to help disarm ex-combatants. Is this mission not an eery echo of recent efforts in the United States to keep veterans from owning firearms? Perhaps, unbeknownst to the American people, President Obama has already been using his infamous “pen” and “phone” to carry out the disarmament of veterans in furtherance of some higher-level UN strategy.

Could it be also that the rapid militarization of local law enforcement in the United States could be another tactic in the piecemeal, surreptitious deployment of “troops” capable of carrying out a forcible forfeiture of firearms?

As reported by the National Rifle Association’s Ginny Simone, there are those on the inside who have raised the warning voice.

Simone reports that in 2012, Ambassador Faith Whittlesey, a U.S. delegate to the UN Small Arms Conference, revealed that the UN’s ultimate goal is to disarm all Americans in the name of global peace and an end to armed violence.

“In New York, right here on our own shores, we’ve got a Trojan horse. They won’t accept U.S. firearms policy,” Whittlesey said. “They want to take the decision away from the U.S. electorate and undermine our Constitution.”

Regardless of the reason, Americans must adamantly refuse to allow the UN to establish an office of disarmament on our own shores. We must demonstrate our ancestors’ zeal for liberty, particularly regarding the fundamental right to oppose tyranny by force of arms.

If we do not, we may soon be subject to the full expression of the authority of the U.S.-based DDR specialist and be left defenseless in the fight against absolutism.

 

Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels nationwide speaking on nullification, the Second Amendment, the surveillance state, and other constitutional issues.  Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton and he can be reached at jwolverton@thenewamerican.com.

 

 

Black Families in Detroit Appeal for U.N. Help After City Cuts Off Water

Leave a comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

First off it is none of the United Nations business what goes on in America.

Detroit is the result of over forty years of Liberal DemocRat and Union Thug ruling.

You reap what you sow.

 

This is the worst violation of the human right to water I have ever seen outside of the worst slums in the poorest countries in failed states of the global South,” said Maude Barlow, founder of the Blue Planet Project.

Thousands of families in Detroit, mostly black, have had their water cut off because they can’t afford to pay water rates that are nearly double the average in the rest of the country.

In March, the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department announced that it would shut off water service for 1,500 to 3,000 customers every week if their water bills were not paid. Clearly not understanding the root of the problem, the City Council just last week approved an 8.7-percent water rate increase.

According to the Detroit Free Press, the average water bill is $75, nearly double the average of $40 nationwide.

The DWSD says that more than 80,000 residences, in a city with a population of 680,000, are in arrears on their water bills. According to CBS, that means nearly half of Detroit families can’t pay for their water.

The DWSD hasn’t said how many  have been cut off, but it numbers in the thousands, according to activist groups like the Blue Planet Project, which have appealed to the United Nations to step in to ease the “humanitarian crisis.”

Blue Planet and several other groups have sent a letter to Catarina de Albuquerque, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Human Right to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation, urging the United Nations to become involved and stop the city of Detroit from continuing to shut off water.

The Detroit People’s Water Board, the Blue Planet Project, the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization and Food and Water Watch have also made appeals to the state of Michigan and the federal government.

There are thousands of families, including those with sick and elderly members, who cannot bathe, cook or even flush their toilets, Barlow said. “This is unprecedented,” she added.

Fox25 in Oklahoma City reported that sources in the city claimed the reason for the 119 percent increase in rates at the root of the situation include a decline of 75 percent of federal assistance for water infrastructure since the 1970s, leading to aging infrastructure that has not been replaced, and stricter water standards that require expensive new systems and technology to meet.

So in a word, 40-plus years of liberalism.

Liberal politics have led Detroit to a poverty rate of 40 percent, a water system that is failing faster than the circulatory system in a 400-pound mayonnaise factory taste tester, and ultimately a decision to squeeze the last drop of blood out of the poor and drop the carcasses like flies in a spider’s web.

And what is the solution proposed?

 

Have the United Nations take over an American City. …

Let that sink in a moment.

I have great sympathy for the citizens of Detroit who have had their water turned off. I think they have been used as pawns in a game they’re probably not even aware of, and they desperately need help from their fellow Americans. Whatever responsibility individuals may have for their situation, I don’t believe in kicking people when they are in great need.

However it may appear that this situation is the result of a long chain of stupid behaviors on the part of Detroit officials and the voters who put them in office, something just doesn’t sit right.

I can’t prove it, but I believe that somebody somewhere planned for this outcome, leading finally to an excellent excuse for the U.N. to put its foot in America’s door (or other aperture, if you prefer).

With the Central American invasion at our southern border, could this be the thing that leads to a different kind of invasion, starting at our northern flank?

The Obama Administration seems completely inadequate to the task of stopping the southern border crisis, if indeed it isn’t the cause of it, as many suspect.

How likely is King Putt to intervene in Detroit?

Suppose for a moment that the U.N. steps in and essentially takes legal control of Detroit. What happens when it decides that the southern border looks like a humanitarian crisis it should intervene in, too?

Then imagine a protest against the U.N. inside our country being put down by some of those heavily armed police departments and federal agencies Obama has been beefing up. Any violence could be another excuse for the U.N. to take control of police assets in select cities. …

If the U.N. sets foot in Detroit, then it’s time to take all bets off the table.

 
Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/16014/black-families-detroit-appeal-u-n-help-city-cuts-water/#6rb84y8pkHQ7TqXQ.99

Small Arms Survey: Biased Reporting, Anti-Freedom Goals

2 Comments

This is from Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership.

This study comes from Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, Switzerland.

Seriously the Swiss?

Except chocolate a Army knife and a few hot babes what else does Switzerland have going for it?

Oh now I know they have a large United Nations office.

You know the Blue Helmeted American hating rapists.

 

What is the Small Arms Survey? It claims it is an independent, impartial source of information on small arms and armed violence. According to its website one of its objectives is to “act as a resource for governments, policy-makers, researchers, and activists in terms of information and research on small arms and armed violence issues.”

The research project is located at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, Switzerland and is supposed to be an objective source of information for governments, but a closer look at its mission reveals a distinct anti-gun agenda that threatens to endanger our rights.

The proliferation of small arms and light weapons represents a grave threat to human security. The unchecked spread of these weapons has exacerbated inter- and intra-state conflicts, contributed to human rights violations, undermined political and economic development, destabilized communities, and devastated the lives of millions of people. The future success of efforts to deal with small arms and light weapons depends in large part on the development of accurate information concerning the global flow of these weapons and on reliable analyses of the causes and consequences of their proliferation.

How could anyone possibly mistake the political goal behind this plainly-stated background on the project’s site?

1) Gun availability is a “grave threat” to human security

2) Lack of gun control has caused human misery, destabilized economies, resulted in human rights violations and violence.

3) Future efforts to control guns cannot be successful without “accurate information” and “reliable analysis.”

There’s your translation of the Survey’s seemingly “benevolent” mission, which turns out to be malignant, freedom-sapping tripe.

The Small Arms Survey aims to provide said information and analysis… in order to promote gun control. AGAIN… in order to promote gun control. The code is not complicated. A brief look at the project’s mission reveals its true goal. “Efforts to deal with small arms and light weapons” cannot possibly mean anything other than “gun control.”

Worse yet, the project shows its decided lack of impartiality by immediately naming the availability of firearms as a “grave threat,” instead of acknowledging that the purchase and ownership of the tool in and of itself cannot represent a threat, let alone a “grave” one.

So just how “impartial” is the Small Arms Survey research?

John Lott has recently published an article that reveals stark flaws in the Survey’s methodology – methodology that governments use to disarm their people and make them vulnerable to armed predators.

Much of the debate is focused on gun ownership rate data for 109 countries from the Small Arms Survey. There are real problems with this survey. For example, the rates of gun ownership for Switzerland (supposedly 47 guns per 100 people) and Israel (7 per 100 people) are ridiculously low. This survey excludes all the military weapons kept in Swiss homes in 2007 because they were technically owned by the government. At that time, all able bodied males between the age of 18 and 42 would keep their military weapons in their homes. After age 42, they could apply for permission to continue to keep their military weapons. Israeli guns are also excluded for the same reason. The vast majority of guns in Israel are technically owned by the government, but if people have possession of guns in their homes for decades, the issue should be that public possession, not who technically owned the guns.

The Small Arms Survey claims that the United States has by far the highest level of gun ownership, with 88.8 guns per 100 people. Both Israel and Switzerland probably have much higher gun ownership rates, but including them the way the Small Arms Survey does biases the results to The US gun ownership is so high compared to other countries that it drives any regression results.

There are also other problems with the survey. For example, a much better measure of gun ownership would be the percentage of the population owning guns, and not the number of guns per 100 people as used by the Small Arms Survey. Presumably the issue is whether people have access to guns, not the number of guns greater than one that an individual has access to.

Dr. Lott explains in detail how the Small Arms Survey’s data deceives the reader by eliminating nations with gun ownership that is obviously higher than the United States.

Why?

If we had to wager an educated guess, it would be because including nations such as Switzerland and Israel, as well as Mexico, with its tragically high homicide rates, would show results contrary to those the Small Arms Survey wants to demonstrate.

 

 

Of course, this data alone will not prove the point that more guns actually lead to fewer homicides. It is simply a statistical cross section, and does not take into consideration other factors that may lead to a higher homicide rate, how the presence of firearms changes over time, who owns firearms, how controls were implemented and the resulting effects of said controls.

The Small Arms Survey does not examine these factors. It merely shows gun ownership – in the most disingenuous way it can – and makes the claim that proliferation of firearms is the cause of human misery worldwide.

If you are not convinced of the Small Arms Survey’s bias against guns, maybe the fact that it is funded in part by various United Nations agencies, programmes and institutes will convince you. You are only as objective as the political goals of those who fund you, and the U.N. has time and time again proven itself to be anything but pro-gun or pro-freedom.(http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/03/15/paid-to-play-anti-gun-group-teams-with-un-to-prep-african-countries-for-arms/)

A wise man once said, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” The Small Arms Survey is using the latter to further tyrannical disarmament goals worldwide, while falsely claiming impartiality, even as it plainly admits its mission is to give governments the tools they need to control the availability of firearms.

And U.S. politicians will use the Survey’s data as justification for citizen disarmament. For the “common good,” of course.

 

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: