(When you have read what Pat Boone wrote about Obama(below), you may want to click on the link to “Snopes”, which brings up a page telling you that this is an actual letter written by Pat Boone – and very well written, I might add.)

The President Without A Country



By Pat Boone


“We’re no longer a Christian nation.” – President Barack Obama, June 2009

” America has been arrogant.” – President Barack Obama

“After 9/11, America didn’t always live up to her ideals.”- President Barack Obama

“You might say that America is a Muslim nation.”- President Barack Obama, Egypt 2009

Thinking about these and other statements made by the man who wears the title of president. I keep wondering what country he believes he’s president of.

In one of my very favorite stories, Edward Everett Hale’s “The Man Without a Country,” a young Army lieutenant named Philip Nolan stands condemned for treason during the Revolutionary War, having come under the influence of Aaron Burr. When the judge asks him if he wishes to say anything before sentence is passed, young Nolan defiantly exclaims, “Damn the United States ! I wish I might never hear of the United States again!”

The stunned silence in the courtroom is palpable, pulsing. After a long pause, the judge soberly says to the angry lieutenant: “You have just pronounced your own sentence. You will never hear of the United States again. I sentence you to spend the rest of your life at sea, on one or another of this country’s naval vessels – under strict orders that no one will ever speak to you again about the country you have just cursed.”

And so it was. Philip Nolan was taken away and spent the next 40 years at sea, never hearing anything but an occasional slip of the tongue about America. The last few pages of the story, recounting Nolan’s dying hours in his small stateroom – now turned into a shrine to the country he foreswore – never fail to bring me to tears. And I find my own love for this dream, this miracle called America, refreshed and renewed. I know how blessed and unique we are.

But reading and hearing the audacious, shocking statements of the man who was recently elected our president – a young black man living the impossible dream of millions of young Americans, past and present, black and white – I want to ask him, “Just what country do you think you’re president of?”

You surely can’t be referring to the United States of America, can you? America is emphatically a Christian nation, and has been from its inception! Seventy percent of her citizens identify themselves as Christian. The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution were framed, written and ratified by Christians. It’s because this was, and is, a nation built on and guided by Judeo-Christian biblical principles that you, sir, have had the inestimable privilege of being elected her president.

You studied law at Harvard, didn’t you, sir? You taught constitutional law in Chicago? Did you not ever read the statement of John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and an author of the landmark “Federalist Papers”: “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers – and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation – to select and prefer Christians for their rulers”?

In your studies, you surely must have read the decision of the Supreme Court in 1892: “Our lives and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent, our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.”

Did your professors have you skip over all the high-court decisions right up till the mid 1900’s that echoed and reinforced these views and intentions? Did you pick up the history of American jurisprudence only in 1947, when for the first time a phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson about a “wall of separation between church and state” was used to deny some specific religious expression – contrary to Jefferson’s intent with that statement?

Or, wait a minute: were your ideas about America’s Christianity formed during the 20 years you were a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ under your pastor, Jeremiah Wright? Is that where you got the idea that “America is no longer a Christian nation”? Is this where you, even as you came to call yourself a Christian, formed the belief that “America has been arrogant”?

Even if that’s the understandable explanation of your damning of your country and accusing the whole nation (not just a few military officials trying their best to keep more Americans from being murdered by jihadists) of “not always living up to her ideals,” how did you come up with the ridiculous, alarming notion that we might be “considered a Muslim nation”?

Is it because there are some 2 million or more Muslims living here, trying to be good Americans? Out of a current population of over 300 million, 70 percent of whom are Christians? Does that make us, by any rational definition, a “Muslim nation”?

Why are we not, then, a “Chinese nation”? A “Korean nation”? Even a “Vietnamese nation”? There are even more of these distinct groups in America than Muslims. And if the distinction you’re trying to make is a religious one, why is America not “a Jewish nation”? There’s actually a case to be made for the latter, because our Constitution – and the success of our Revolution and founding – owe a deep debt to our Jewish brothers.

Have you stopped to think what an actual Muslim America would be like? Have you ever really spent much time in Iran? Even in Egypt? You, having been instructed in Islam as a kid at a Muslim school in Indonesia and saying you still love the call to evening prayers, can surely picture our nation founded on the Quran, not the Judeo-Christian Bible, and living under Sharia law, can’t you? You do recall Muhammad’s directives [Surah 9:5,73] to “break the cross” and “kill the infidel”?

It seems increasingly and painfully obvious that you are more influenced by your upbringing and questionable education than most suspected. If you consider yourself the president of a people who are “no longer Christian,” who have “failed to live up to our ideals,” who “have been arrogant,” and might even be “considered Muslim” – you are president of a country most Americans don’t recognize.

Could it be you are a president without a country?


To all of you who love your Christian beliefs and your country, forward this message to all in your address book. We simply cannot be subjected to another term by this president!

Is France About to Become a U.S. Ally?

Is France About to Become a U.S. Ally?

Comment by Jerry Gordon

Ms. Stephanie Levy of GLORIA in Israel is a French ex-pat and former Defense Ministry aide. Her comments vis a vis Sarkozy-his significant following among fellow French ex-pats in Israel, alienation of French Muslim voters and re-awakening of alliances with the U.S. are intriguing in light of this weekend second and final round of the French Presidential elections.

By Stepahnie Levy. GLORIA Center, May 3, 2007

On May 6, center-right politician Nicolas Sarkozy and Socialist candidate Segolene Royal will face off in the final round of French presidential elections to determine who will succeed President Jacques Chirac.

Since the first-round results, April 22, the two have said little about foreign policy issues. In France, contrasting with other Western democracies, international affairs are considered the president’s personal domain. Others, including opposition politicians and even the media, usually don’t comment critically about France’s foreign policy. In addition, in France as in other countries, elections are not won on foreign policy issues alone, though candidates can certainly lose on them.

Nevertheless, each candidate is bashing his opponent on some things. The Middle East and the United States are the most controversial foreign policy topics for French public opinion.

So Sarkozy is being strongly criticized during his trip to the United States last September, as if seeking good relations with Washington is some kind of sin, which indeed it has been in French politics up to now. Segolene Royal is being ridiculed for her incompetent mistakes during her visit to the Middle East in December 2006, playing on the notion that she lacks experience and knowledge.

The twelve-year-long Chirac era has been characterized by a close friendship with Arab regimes, including radical ones, and enmity toward the United States. Now, however, both of his would-be successors are anxious to dissociate themselves from Chirac’s line on foreign policy. This is despite the fact that Sarkozy is the candidate of Chirac’s own party, while Royal is a disciple of former President Francois Mitterand who followed a strategy similar to that of Chirac, though less extreme.
From the beginning of the campaign, Sarkozy, who poll’s put in the least, has made no secret of his Atlanticism and has promised the Americans “France’s friendship.”
Contrary to Chirac, Sarkozy has shown outstanding ease in his relations with the United States. He prefers close cooperation with the United States over an alliance with the increasingly anti-American Arab world. Whereas Chirac used to speak of the United States as a rival, Sarkozy prefers to evoke the American ally, which together with France and the entire Western world is facing the same terrorist threat.

It is possible that Sarkozy if elected would change France’s course for the first time since it was set by President Charles de Gaulle, the founder of the country’s current political structure, in 1967.

Thus, it is easy for Royal to denounce her rival’s Atlanticism. Still, Royal has throughout the campaign adopted a tough stance regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons program, similar to the U.S. position. She declared that Iran should be denied control of nuclear power, as it could be a cover for weapons-making. According to her, “The prospect of Iran equipped with nuclear power is not acceptable,” since it would give “a government whose president threatens the existence of the State of Israel*access to such power.”

On the Israeli-Palestinian issue, Royal has dissociated herself from the French pro-Palestinian stance. She has expressed concerns about Israel’s security and has stated her support for the construction of the security fence so disparaged by French officials.
Regarding Israel, Sarkozy has promised a more balanced French policy. Last March, he asserted that French decision-makers should be able “to say a certain number of truths to our Arab friends, for example*the right for Israel to exist and to live safely is not negotiable, and that terrorism is their true enemy.” He also declared himself ready to defend “the integrity of Lebanon,” including the disarmament of Hizballah.

The majority of French citizens living in Israel have indeed been convinced by Sarkozy’s stance on the Middle East. Over 80 percent voted for him in the first election round, representing the greatest number of votes for Sarkozy among French expatriates. By pointing out the responsibility of Islamist groups in the violent riots that occurred in France during the fall of 2005, and by focusing his political program on a stricter French immigration policy, Sarkozy has alienated a significant number of French Muslims. Moreover, because he is seen as pro-American, he is viewed with mistrust by most of them. If elected president, he will undoubtedly have to redefine the terms of the old Gaullist alliance between Europe and the Maghreb/Middle East vis-a-vis the American power.

Stephanie Levy is a research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs Center at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya. She previously worked for the French Ministry of Defense.

Posted by Jerry Gordon @ 1:41 pm |

Hope Rides Alone

Hope Rides Alone
 By Eddie Jeffers
 I stare out into the darkness from my post, and I watch the
 city burn to the ground.
 I smell the familiar smells, I walk through the familiar rubble,
 and I look at the frightened faces that watch me pass down the
 streets of their neighborhood.
 My nerves hardly rest; my hands are steady on a device that has
 been given to me from my government for the purpose of taking the lives
 of others.
 I sweat, and I am tired. My back aches from the loads I carry.
 Young American boys look to me to direct them in a manner that will
 someday allow them to see their families again… and yet, I too,
 am just a boy…. my age not but a few years more than that of the
 ones I lead. I am stressed, I am scared, and I am paranoid…
 because death is everywhere. It waits for me, it calls to me from
 around street corners and windows, and it is always there.

 There are the demons that follow me, and tempt me into thoughts and
 actions that are not my own… but that are necessary for survival.
 I’ve made compromises with my humanity.
 And I am not alone in this.

 Miles from me are my brethren in this world, who walk in the same
 who feel the same things, whether they admit to it or not.
 And to think, I volunteered for this…
 And I am ignorant to the rest of the world… or so I thought.
 But even thousands of miles away, in Ramadi, Iraq, the cries and
 screams and complaints of the ungrateful reach me. In a year,
 I will be thrust back into society from a life and mentality that
 doesn’t fit your average man. And then, I will be alone. And then,
 I will walk down the streets of America, and see the yellow ribbon
 stickers on the cars of the same people who compare our President to

 I will watch the television and watch the Cindy Sheehans, and the
 Al Frankens, and the rest of the ignorant sheep of America spout
 off their mouths about a subject they know nothing about.
 It is their right, however, and it is a right that is defended by
 hundreds of thousands of boys and girls scattered across the world, far
 from home.
 I use the word boys and girls, because that’s what they are.

 In the Army, the average age of the infantryman is nineteen years old.
 The average rank of soldiers killed in action is Private First Class.
 People like Cindy Sheehan are ignorant. Not just to this war, but to
 the results of their idiotic ramblings, or at least I hope they are.
 They don’t realize its effects on this war. In this war, there are
 no Geneva Conventions, no cease fires.

 Medics and Chaplains are not spared from the enemy’s brutality because
 it’s against the rules. I can only imagine the horrors a military
 Chaplain would experience at the hands of the enemy. The enemy slinks
 in the shadows and fights a coward’s war against us. It is effective
 as many men and women have died since the start of this war.
 And the memory of their service to America is tainted by the
 inconsiderate remarks on our nation’s news outlets.

 And every day, the enemy changes… only now, the enemy is becoming
 something new. The enemy is transitioning from the Muslim
 extremists to Americans. The enemy is becoming the very people whom
 we defend with our lives. And they do not realize it. But in
 denouncing our actions, denouncing our leaders, denouncing the war
 we live and fight, they are isolating the military from society…
 and they are becoming our enemy.

 Democrats and peace activists like to toss the word “quagmire”
 around and compare this war to Vietnam. In a way they are right,
 this war is becoming like Vietnam.
 Not the actual war, but in the isolation of country and military.
 America is not a nation at war; they are a nation with its military at
 Like it or not, we are here, some of us for our second, or third times;
 some even for their fourth and so on.
 Americans are so concerned now with politics, that it is interfering
 with our war.

 Terrorists cut the heads off of American citizens on the internet…
 and there is no outrage, but an American soldier kills an Iraqi in
 the midst of battle, and there are investigations, and sometimes
 soldiers are even jailed… for doing their job.

 It is absolutely sickening to me to think our country has come to this.
 Why are we so obsessed with the bad news? Why will people stop at
 nothing to be against this war, no matter how much evidence of the
 good we’ve done is thrown in their face? When is the last time
 CNN or MSNBC or CBS reported the opening of schools and hospitals in
 Or the leaders of terror cells being detained or killed?
 It’s all happening, but people will not let up their hatred of Bush.
 They will ignore the good news, because it just might show people
 that Bush was right. America has lost its will to fight. It has lost
 its will to defend what is right and just in the world. The crazy
 thing of it all is that the American people have not even been asked
 to sacrifice a single thing. It’s not like World War Two, where
 people rationed food, and turned in cars to be made into metal for

 The American people have not been asked to sacrifice anything.
 Unless you are in the military or the family member of a servicemember,
 its life as usual… the war doesn’t affect you.
 But it affects us. And when it is over, and the troops come home,
 and they try to piece together what’s left of them after their
 service… where will the detractors be then?

 Where will the Cindy Sheehans be to comfort and talk to soldiers
 and help them sort out the last couple years of their lives, most
 of which have been spent dodging death and wading through the deaths
 of their friends? They will be where they always are, somewhere far
 where the horrors of the world can’t touch them.

 Somewhere where they can complain about things they will never
 experience in their lifetime; things that the young men and women
 of America have willingly taken upon their shoulders.
 We are the hope of the Iraqi people. They want what everyone else
 wants in life: safety, security, somewhere to call home. They want
 a country that is safe to raise their children in. Not a place where
 their children will be abducted, raped, and murdered if they do not
 comply with the terrorists demands. They want to live on, rebuild and

 And America has given them the opportunity, but only if we stay true
 to the cause, and see it to its end. But the country must unite in
 this endeavor… we cannot place the burden on our military alone.
 We must all stand up and fight, whether in uniform or not.
 And supporting us is more than sticking yellow ribbon stickers on your
 . It’s supporting our President, our troops and our cause.
 Right now, the burden is all on the American soldiers.
 Right now, hope rides alone.

 But it can change, it must change. Because there is only failure and
 darkness ahead for us as a country, as a people, if it doesn’t.
 Let’s stop all the political nonsense, let’s stop all the bickering,
 let’s stop all the bad news, and let’s stand and fight!

 Isn’t that what America is about anyway?

U.S. Investigates Voting Machines’ Venezuela Ties — The federal government is investigating the takeover last year of a leading American manufacturer of electronic voting systems by a small software company that has been linked to the leftist Venezuelan government of President Hugo Chávez.

Best GOP Hope: Scare ‘Em Silly

Best GOP Hope: Scare ‘Em Silly
By Dick Morris | October 24, 2006

With only two weeks left ’til Election Day, Republicans won’t save themselves with phony optimism – pathetic claims that, somehow, they’re mounting a comeback. They need to sound a note of alarm and fill the airwaves with specifics of exactly what will happen if the Democrats triumph. But inside-baseball talk about a Nancy Pelosi speakership won’t do the job. The GOP needs to focus on the concrete ways in which a Democratic victory would threaten our safety. Here’s one possible ad: We see and hear a wiretapped conversation, with a terrorist revealing his worst plans to his associate – and, inadvertently, to government eavesdroppers, too. Then, when he’s about to spill the beans on when and where the next attack is going to come, the line should go dead, with a dial tone, with a machine voice saying “This wiretap terminated in the name of privacy rights by the Democratic U.S. Congress.”

The announcer can then say, “If the Democrats win, the National Security Agency will never be able to listen in as the terrorists are plotting to attack us.”

Republicans are doomed unless they can get their base back. But the GOP base is the best informed group of voters in the nation, with educational levels consistently higher than their Democratic counterparts’. They follow politics closely and are the easiest voters to reach via the news media, cable TV and talk radio.

A message like this could have a snowballing effect on the Republican base. The word could percolate through the clutter, reminding voters of their true priorities.

Otherwise, we know what is going to happen. All the borderline GOP incumbents will lose, while Democrats like Sen. Bob Menendez, a scandal waiting to happen, survive.

But if the Republicans frankly address their deserting base and speak plainly of the need to hold steady in the face of the terrorist threat, the base can come back.

Click Here to support

Multicuturalism or National Suicide?? 2050: AmericaA Nation of Turtles — I don’t agree with Buchanan often but I do on this

By Patrick J. Buchanan
Friday, October 20, 2006

Does it matter who was the 300 millionth “American”? Indeed, it does.

Police keep watch as demonstrators on both sides of the U.S. immigration debate chant slogans against each other’s beliefs in front of the Mexican consulate in New York October 7, 2006. REUTERS/Chip East (UNITED STATES)

If it was a baby born to an American, that is wonderful news. If it was a baby born to an illegal alien, it means we have lost control of our borders. And as Ronald Reagan said, a country that can’t control its borders isn’t really a country anymore. And if it was a Mexican who slipped over the Rio Grande in the early morning darkness of Oct. 17, it may be a harbinger of the end of America, as we knew her. If the people are not celebrating the 300 million along with the editorial writers, it is because there is a strong likelihood the individual added to our number is not an American at all, and because the extraordinary growth of the American family was not the free choice of the American people. We have 300 million here today only because the government of the United States refuses to enforce our immigration laws and the people were misled or lied to when the Immigration Act of 1965 was passed. Who was the chairman of the subcommittee that conducted the hearings? Edward M. Kennedy. And what did Sen. Kennedy promise? Here are his own words of four decades ago: “Our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same. … The ethnic mix of this country will not be upset. … Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S. 500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any other country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia.” Only haters would make such assertions, Kennedy thundered. “The charges I have mentioned are highly emotional, irrational and with little foundation in fact. They are out of line with the obligations of responsible citizenship. They breed hate of our heritage.” How good were the senator’s assurances? Today, we have 36 million immigrants and their children here, some 90 percent from Third World nations whose peoples have never before been assimilated into a First World nation. A third, 12 million, are here in violation of our laws. Most of those coming now are poor and uneducated, and are unable to speak our language. Some do not wish to become Americans. But they are sending our crime, poverty and disease rates skyward, and pulling U.S. academic scores down toward Third World levels. But what is most significant about these deep and irreversible alterations in the character of the nation is that the American people never voted for it and do not want it. It is being imposed from above, anti-democratically, by a regime that refuses to enforce our laws and is now at virtual war with the American people. Though immigration is the hottest domestic issue in 2006, and every candidate in a close race is taking a hard line on border security — even Hillary Clinton voted for 700 miles of security fence — the will of the people is ignored. According to a poll released Monday by The Center for Immigration Studies, 68 percent of Americans say immigration is too high. Only 2 percent believe it is too low. Yet the McCain-Kennedy-Bush bill would have granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens and doubled the number of legal immigrants. The failure to restrict immigration so the Melting Pot can work, the refusal to seal the border despite what America wants, suggests ours has ceased to be a democratic republic. “Here, sir, the people rule!” used to be a proud boast. Today, the line is laughable. In my book “State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America,” I projected that by 2050, every city in America would look like Los Angeles, and Los Angeles and the cities of the Southwest would look like Mexico City. And what is happening to Los Angeles? According to Robert Putnam, Harvard political scientist and author of “Bowling Alone,” the trust among people in “this most diverse human habitation in human history” is now at rock bottom, the lowest anywhere he could find. “In the presence of diversity,” said Putnam, “we hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities we don’t trust people who look like us.” The more people of different races that live in a community, the greater the loss of trust, said Putnam. “They don’t trust the local mayor, they don’t trust the local paper, they don’t trust other people, and they don’t trust institutions. … The only thing there is more of is protest marches and TV watching.” Welcome to the Brave New World our elites are creating for our children, as they consign the America we grew up in to the compost heap of history.  

Back door to terror– In June 2006, seven Iraqis were caught in Brownsville, Texas;– In August, an Afghani man was caught crossing the Rio Grande into Texas

Back door to terror
By Oliver North
Friday, October 20, 2006
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Since Sept. 11, 2001, Americans living along the U.S.-Mexican border have been warning that our porous frontier is a back door for terrorist entry into this country. Local, state and federal law enforcement officers, overwhelmed by the flow of human traffic across the border, have acknowledged the threat — and been widely ignored by the mainstream media and “official” Washington. Last year, in little-noticed congressional testimony, FBI Director Robert Mueller revealed that “individuals from countries with known al Qaeda connections have attempted to enter the United States illegally using alien smuggling rings and assuming Hispanic appearances.”

Now, thanks to the investigative reporting of my colleague at FOX News, correspondent William Lajeunesse, the monarchs of the media and the potentates on the Potomac can no longer ignore reality. Lajeunesse took the time to carefully digest a new staff report prepared by the House Committee on Homeland Security. It ought to be required reading for every reporter and official in Washington, D.C.

Titled “A Line in the Sand: Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border,” the just-released report confirms what many have long suspected: Our border is a sieve, not a barrier, for radical Islamic terrorists transiting into the United States. The Investigations Subcommittee charges that from Sept. 11, 2001, to the present, hundreds of illegal aliens from countries “such as Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan and Afghanistan” were apprehended crossing into the United States.

But that’s not all the bad news. Investigators also found:

— In June 2006, seven Iraqis were caught in Brownsville, Texas;

— In August, an Afghani man was caught crossing the Rio Grande into Texas;

— Mueller has testified that a Hezbollah cell had been “dismantled” after officials discovered that the terror organization was smuggling operatives across the U.S.-Mexico border to carry out terror attacks inside the United States.

— Individuals from countries with known al Qaeda connections have changed their Islamic surnames and adopted false Hispanic identities in order to escape detection and blend into American society.

— Radical Islamic groups that support Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamiya Al Gamat are all active in Latin America.

All that is bad enough, but the bombshell — as reported by Lajeunesse and confirmed in the congressional report — is the role being played by Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez. It’s well known that the oil-rich Marxist in Caracas has been busy spreading his anti-American “Bolivarian Revolution” throughout our southern hemisphere. But this investigation now concludes that Chavez’s nefarious deeds go well beyond a weapons-buying spree and efforts to manipulate elections in Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua.

According to the congressional report, “Venezuela is providing support –including identity documents — that could prove useful to radical Islamic groups The Venezuelan government has issued thousands of cedulas, the equivalent of Social Security cards, to people from places such as Cuba, Colombia and Middle Eastern nations that host foreign terrorist organizations.” These documents can be used to obtain Venezuelan passports and American visas, which in turn allow the holder to elude immigration checks and enter the United States.

Nothing in the report comes as a surprise to Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.). His new book, “In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America’s Border and Security,” is full of anecdotal information that substantiates the charges made by the House Homeland Security Committee staff. Tancredo notes that a group of Pakistanis were recently apprehended at the U.S.-Mexican border with fraudulent Venezuelan documents.

Somehow, most of this has eluded the crack journalists who purport to write and report “news” for our so-called mainstream media. Even Agence France-Presse took notice that al Qaeda had established a “clandestine travel service” south of the border to help move operatives into the United States. Though American pundits have been quick to accuse citizen organizations like the Minutemen of being “vigilantes” or worse, the people with the poison pens have paid scant attention to the realities contained in this report — most of which was already in the public domain.

Doubters who cannot accept how essential it is to plug the holes in our southern frontier should read this report and wake up to a clear and present danger. For those who still have trouble understanding, the concluding lines of Section III on Page 32 should suffice: “Given the ever-present threat posed by al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations — a threat that has been underscored by the recent events in London and the vulnerability of our borders — the need for immediate action to enforce our borders could not be more apparent.”

U.N. Useless Nations

August 21, 2006

U.N. Useless Nations

Phil Gallagher

The conflict in Lebanon was ended by United Nations resolution 1701 that brokered a temporary peace dependent upon a United Nations force of 15,000 peace keepers deployed in Southern Lebanon to act as a buffer between Israel and Hezbollah.

Although the ceasefire appears to be holding at this point it would seem to be only a matter of time before hostilities break out once again. The primary reason being the fecklessness of member nations as well as U.N Secretary Kofi Annan. Annan has insufficient weight to assemble a force with a clear cut mandate to implement the terms of the resolution.

The leader of the pack of course are the French who were thought to be major players in the region and willing to contribute a major portion of the U.N force. Thye French this week said that they were willing to dedicate a whopping 200 peace keepers (mostly engineers). The other major European power Germany, is willing to contribute nothing in terms of boots on the ground.

As to the terms of the resolution, the goals seem to be quite clear. Disarming Hezbollah stopping, the flow of Iranian weaponry in Lebanon and restoring some semblance of sovereignty to the lebanese government.

The exact wording, “Emphasizes the importance of the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory in accordance with the provisions of resolution 1559 (2004) and resolution 1680 (2006), and of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, for it to exercise its full sovereignty, so that there will be no weapons without the consent of the Government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the Government of Lebanon;”

This of course appears to be the crux of the matter. If the Lebanese Army wanted to or could disarm Hezbollah it should have happened long ago. They cannot because of the strength of Hezbollah and they will not because it is likely to plunge the country into civil war again.

That leaves the UNIFIL force (United Nations Interim Force) as the only force capable of the task. Capability and willingness are two different things. With the rise in popularity of the leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah in the Arab world, it seems unlikely that any European power with an Islamic minority population will be willing to take on the task of disarming them knowing that it might inflame tensions in their own country.

Despite the specific language of the resolution and others before it regarding Hezbollah disarmament, potential European peace keeping nations are seeking clarification of the “rules of engagement” before committing to forces. In many European countries leaders will be mulling over this issue just long enough for the force to be filled with someone else.

Annan re-assured the Europeans by stating that the UNIFIL force would not be waging “war”. Apparently Kofi thinks Nasrallah is willing to give up his remaining weaponry peacefully.

Indonesia, Malaysia and Turkey have stepped to the plate with offers of major contributions, however one can only wonder how secure the Israelis feel about the deployment of troops from predominantly Islamic countries who’s governments are hostile to Israel.

All of this continues to play into Iranian and Syrian plans to keep the area inflamed and the Israelis under pressure. The worst outcome would be the re-arming of Hezbollah under the protection of the multi national force. Add to that the possibility that if hostilities break out again, the Israelis would be firing into territory occupied by UNIFIL forces, the bulk of which might be sympathetic to their enemies.

Why Bother With the United Nations?

Why Bother With the United Nations?
February 20, 2005 | Tim Phares
Posted on 02/20/2005 9:44:29 PM PST by TBP
On Sunday, the head of the United Nations High Commission on Refugees, High Commissioner Ruud Lubbers, resigned under pressure after he was found guilty of misconduct for the sexual harassment of a subordinate female worker at the United Nations headquarters in New York.

Secretary General Kofi Annan reportedly read the report showing clear evidence of Commissioner Lubbers’s conduct and did nothing about it. It seems that protecting the reputation of a friend was more important to Annan than protecting the people who work for the UN. This is unacceptable. When will Annan resign?

Unfortunately, this is not the UN’s only current scandal. The theft of massive amounts of money from the Oil for Food program by UN officials, including Annan’s son Kojo, has been well documented. This was the program that allowed Saddam Hussein’s regime, which was under sanctions, to sell its oil to get money for food and medicine for the Iraqi people.

Evidence indicates that some of the money may have wound up in the hands of terrorists, as well as officials of the Saddam Hussein regime. Other Oil for Food money was misused to build projects like a stadium. Saddam himself pocketed an estimated $17 billion while the United Nations did nothing. Benon Savan, the head of the Oil for Food program, has been suspended. Unfortunately, the suspension means nothing since he is retiring soon.

Muhammad Hassan, an employee of the World Meteorological Organization, embezzled at least $3 million from the UN-affiliated organization over a preiod of three to four years. Now he has gone underground and a woman who says she’s Hassan’s wife has filed a phony death certificate.

UN peacekeepers in Congo have abused Congolese women and girls in exhcange for food or small amounts of money. More than 150 complaints ahve been filed against these peacekeepers. Only six people have been identified. How can the UN justify this?

According to a Fox News poll, 54 percent of Americans believe that the United Nations does not reflect their values. A recent Harris Poll says that less than one-third trust the world body. Yet American taxpayers pay over one fifth of the UN’s total budget.

Why do the taxpayers of the United States countenance this? How can they continue to support this corrupt, ineffective, anti-American organization? The time has come to get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US. Otherwise, our sovereignty will continue to be infringed and the corrupt UN bureaucrats will continue to feed off the poor and weak of the world for their own benefit and that of America’s enemies.

Latin America’s Leftist Menace

Latin America’s Leftist Menace
By Frank J Gaffney Jr.
The Washington Times | October 18, 2006

America’s preoccupation with the crises du jour — the rising terrorist menace to the liberation of Iraq, the Iranian regime’s determination to acquire the means to act on its genocidal threats against Israel and the United States and, most recently, North Korea’s nuclear coming-out party — has left Washington ill-prepared to deal with one of tomorrow’s major security challenges: the rise of the radical anti-American left in Latin America. The emergence of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez as the oil-rich heir to Fidel Castro’s revolutionary ambitions has translated into a mortal threat to liberal democracy, freedom and economic opportunity in much of the hemisphere. With Mr. Chavez’s money and Mr. Castro’s coaching, the two have adapted the longstanding Cuban revolutionary program of violent overthrow of elected governments to meet present circumstances. Today, virulent leftists are seeking, and frequently succeeding at, obtaining power through the ballot box then using it to destroy their government’s constitutional processes and any checks on that power.

The United States government has paid scant attention as Bolivia and Argentina have moved squarely into the Chavez-Castro orbit. A similar disastrous outcome was narrowly averted in Peru but may well be in the offing at this writing in Ecuador. 

The region’s largest country, Brazil, is in the hands of a long-time Castro ally, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Despite his differences with Mr. Chavez and generally moderate approach to economic policy, Lula can be expected to make renewed common cause with the leftist agenda if he is re-elected on Oct. 29. 

Particularly appalling, the region’s Axis of Evil is poised, all other things being equal, to return Nicaragua — the country Ronald Reagan did so much to help free from the Sandinistas’ communist rule — to the tender mercies of their long-time authoritarian comandante, Daniel Ortega. 

Washington’s inattention may also encourage the most strategically important reversal sustained to date by the Chavez-Castro axis to be substantially undone. Despite its concerted and well-heeled efforts to ensure the election as president of Mexico of an ideological soul-mate, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the results of a remarkably clean election gave the victory to a pro-American conservative, Felipe Calderon. There is, as a result, an unprecedented opportunity for constructive relations between the U.S. and Mexican governments. 

Unfortunately, this opportunity — with all it portends for economic prosperity, sensible immigration policies and a common front against the hemisphere’s radical left — could be squandered if Mr. Calderon yields to pressure to make the same mistake as his predecessor, Vicente Fox. That will be the effect if the new president of Mexico restores to office Mr. Fox’s first foreign minister, Jorge Castaneda. 

As a new analysis by Fredo Arias-King just released by the Center for Security Policy makes clear, Mr. Castaneda and his team (including such figures as Mexico’s former consul in New York, Arturo Sarukhan, Mr. Castaneda’s controversial half-brother Andres Rozental and Ricardo Pascoe, former Mexican ambassador to Cuba) are themselves radical leftists who did grave harm to U.S.-Mexico relations the last time around — and will surely do so again if given the chance. 

For example, they were instrumental in withdrawing Mexico from the decades-old mutual defense pact known as the Treaty of Rio, a decision announced ironically just days before the September 11 attacks in 2001. They seemed determined to find occasions to work at cross-purposes with the United States — notably, in connection with our effort to hold Saddam Hussein accountable to various Security Council resolutions. 

Most troubling, however, was the Castaneda cabal’s efforts to convert the initially pro-U.S. Fox and his government into friends of the hard left throughout Latin America. 

Mr. Castaneda personally engineered closer ties to the Castro apparatus in Cuba, encouraged the narco-terrorist FARC in Colombia and strove to rehabilitate Danny Ortega and his Sandinista Party in Nicaragua. It is not hard to assign responsibility for these initiatives, since they were abandoned immediately after Mr. Castaneda left the foreign ministry. 

As a result not only of their ideological bent but their incompetence, Mr. Castaneda and his team blew the opportunity afforded when the newly inaugurated George Bush assigned top priority to what he called a “special relationship” with Mexico and traveled there as his symbolic first trip abroad. Mexico dropped in the priority list for Washington, even before September 11, and has never recovered since. 

The possibility that the likes of Jorge Castaneda might return to power is especially dangerous for both Mexico and the United States at a moment when Mr. Ortega may triumph over a divided democratic-right in Nicaragua and the Chavez-Castro axis is making inroads in so many other places. Under Mr. Castaneda or his cabal, it is unimaginable that the Mexican government would play the constructive role it might otherwise perform in the post-Castro transition in Cuba. 

It would be a tragedy if, at this critical juncture — and despite the preferences a majority of Mexicans expressed at the ballot box, Felipe Calderon were to squander the chance for Mexico to serve as a bulwark against the combined dangers of Chavismo and Fidelismo and to enjoy a strong, constructive and mutually beneficial relationship with the United States. It is in the interests of both of our countries that President Calderon’s vision of a freedom-loving and -supporting Mexico be represented at the foreign ministry, not that of Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Jorge Castaneda.