Monday, August 30, 2010
Yes, the administration is denouncing a US state in our obeisance to the corruptocrats and torture states at the UN Human Rights Council. I'm glad to see Governor Brewer making hay of it. She deserves to: Brewer condemns report to UN mentioning Ariz. law
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer demanded Friday that a reference to the state's controversial immigration law be removed from a State Department report to the United Nations' human rights commissioner.
The U.S. included its legal challenge to the law on a list of ways the federal government is protecting human rights.
In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Brewer says it is "downright offensive" that a state law would be included in the report, which was drafted as part of a UN review of human rights in all member nations every four years.
"The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to 'review' by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional," Brewer wrote...
It all figures in to How Obama Sees America:
...The report -- part of what the UN Human Rights Council calls its "Universal Periodic Review," in which countries grade their own human rights records -- is both ludicrous and offensive. Let's take them in order.
The report reads like a term paper by a very earnest and very politically correct college freshman. After a few perfunctory words of praise for America in the introduction, the rest of the document is a catalogue of terrible liberal sins that are being washed away by wonderful liberal solutions, including (but not restricted to) ObamaCare; the recently passed financial reform law; suing Arizona for its law aimed to curb illegal immigration; the first White House Adviser on Violence Against Women; the "formation of the 9/11 Backlash Taskforce"; an internal review of the Justice Department's 2003 Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies; a commitment to "protecting the rights of incarcerated persons ... including the right to practice their religion"; and of course -- who could ever forget? -- President Obama's hosting "a historic summit with nearly 400 tribal leaders to develop a policy agenda for Native Americans where he emphasized his commitment to regular and meaningful consultation with tribal officials regarding federal policy decisions that have tribal implications."...
...t is yet more evidence that when the president and his administration scan the world for human rights violations, they are irresistibly drawn back to the grave injustices they believe have been and are being perpetrated by America.
It is an unprecedented and alarming thing to witness -- an administration that is not only unwilling to defend the United States but seems to take great joy and satisfaction in undermining her.
I am not comfortable with the Arizona law.
But involving the UN, with its appalling biases and also general uselessness, for example in stopping genocides or interdicting arms as in Lebanon for example, seems inappropriate.
Obama's move is brilliant. He had the US join the HRC because of its inordinate focus on Israel. Apparently, his plan to reduce it is to the have the US compete for spotlight at the UNHRC. If they bash both Israel and the US, why that's less time spent on Israel and the percentage of their resolutions that condemn Israel goes down.
Pretty clever.
Now we know what the president means about unbreakable connection. If they're going to bash the little Satan, they have to come after the great Satan too. It's only fair.
I am not Comfortable with the UN Human Rights Council or the Barrack Hussein Obama Administration.
Where is the regard for human rights in the Obama stance?
It is considered irresponsible to have more children than one can provide for; Why is it humane, even for a liberal, to maintain a porous border so that we have no idea how many illegals come to the US on a daily basis, nor how many are now in the US? How can we presume to provide ( I am maintaining the liberal pretense that
elites actually care for the welfare of illegals ) the necessary
welfare and medical care when the US is struggling with massive debt? And what of the abuse, robbery, rape and murder visited
by coyotes on the illegals who can't pay?
It should be clear this is not a question of human rights, but only of the cynical manipulation of a people to distort the vote of
US citizens ( congress ) and ultimately to overburden the United States ( Obama ).
I wonder...
Would it count as a Human Rights Violation if all citizens of a country are forced to buy a product or service that the government thinks is good for them, whether they can afford it or not?
How about if people are threatened at the polls during a Presidential election, and the government refuses to prosecute the thugs, in spite of having a clear-cut case and no contest?
The Obama Administration isn't doing anything about these issues. The UN Human Rights Council should insist on it.
(Now, if we could figure out a way to demonstrate that these activities were bad for Israel, I'm sure the UN wouldn't waste any time...)