What I've Been Saying

The U.S. Should Oppose the Proposed U.N. Alliance of Civilizations

Read the whole thing, here are some excerpts.

The Report of the High-Level Group is testament to the limited value of such exercises by the U.N. Focused ob­sessively on the failings of Western countries while largely ignoring the faults of Muslim countries, it implic­itly justifies constraining freedom of media, speech, and expression in the name of halting "the spread of hatred resulting in Islamophobia, xenophobia, and anti-Semitism" and proposes a dubious agenda to "improve" non-Muslim media treatment of Muslims. The report glosses over the underlying reasons behind the economic problems of many Islamic countries in favor of a laundry list of objectives.

Despite the report's dubious contributions, on December 18, Secretary-General Annan recom­mended that the U.N. adopt and implement its rec­ommendations.[4] Such action would do little to improve relations between Western and Muslim countries but would enshrine the Alliance of Civili­zations and a host of supplementary bodies in the U.N. system.

The United States should oppose these proposals to give the alliance a permanent mandate, establish a permanent funding stream, and create new sup­porting mechanisms.

The Alliance of Civilizations report offers little more than platitudes, wishful thinking, one-sided analysis, faulty justification for constraining freedom of expression, and repackaged calls for increased assistance from Western countries. Nonetheless, the report shamelessly urges the General Assembly to incorporate the Alliance of Civilizations into the agenda of its 62nd session and to establish a litany of supporting councils, representatives, forums, and funding to expand the work of the alliance. Accord­ing to the Alliance of Civilizations:

[Former] UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General Designate Ban Ki-moon, Spanish President Zapatero and Turk­ish Prime Minister Erdoğan met at UN Head­quarters in New York to discuss the follow-up to the Report of the AoC High-level Group. They agreed that an implementation plan for the Report's recommendations is to be drafted in the coming three months and finalized upon the Secretary-General's nomi­nation of a High Representative for the Alli­ance of Civilizations initiative. Subsequently, Annan, Zapatero and Erdoğan held an infor­mal meeting of the General Assembly to present the plan for implementing the Alli­ance of Civilizations recommendations.[28]

This three-month timeline would end in March 2007. Clearly, the alliance's performance does not justify such expense, expansion of U.N. bureaucracy, or radical expansion of U.N. authority to restrict freedom of expression. Not even the report's sole highlight--a repudiation of the targeting of non­combatants by terrorists--can offset its overall weak­nesses or justify American support.[29] In advance of the announced plan for implementing the Alliance of Civilizations, the United States should:

Call upon Muslim political and religious leaders to denounce religiously based vio­lence and intolerance and to condemn terror­ism by Islamic extremists.
Reject the report's implicit approval of con­straints on freedom of expression and the press and clearly state that the U.S. will not support any international campaign to manip­ulate media coverage of Muslims. Encouraging some media coverage and discouraging other media coverage to prevent "negative repercus­sions" is an invitation to censorship that would likely undermine freedom of speech, expres­sion, and the press.
Insist that primary responsibility for the Mid­dle East's economic and social problems lies with those governments in the Middle East and North Africa that maintain policies that preserve unequal legal and economic treatment of the female population, retard economic growth and job creation, and repress funda­mental religious and political freedoms. Efforts by the international community or donor nations to assist developing nations in the Mid­dle East and North Africa with these problems will be futile unless those countries adopt poli­cies that permit progress to occur.
Point out that sound economic policies, the rule of law, and good governance are essential to promoting economic growth, creating new jobs, and reducing poverty. The U.S. should urge the countries of the Middle East and North Africa to adopt economic freedom and pursue increased integration into the global economy if they wish to experience the increased economic growth and development that lead to job cre­ation and reduce poverty.
Oppose efforts to make the Alliance of Civili­zations a permanent part of the U.N. and refuse to support the establishment of support­ing councils, representatives, forums, and funding to expand the work of the alliance. If individual nations wish to continue their sup­port for the alliance through voluntary contri­butions, that is their right, but financial support should not be provided through assessed con­tributions to the U.N. or its affiliated funds and programs, nor should the alliance be awarded official status within the U.N. system.
Oppose the nomination of Kofi Annan as High Representative for the Alliance of Civili­zations on the basis of conflict of interest. Annan and his close associates were instrumen­tal in supporting creation of the Alliance of Civ­ilizations, initiating the alliance report, and selecting those participating in the High-Level Group, which recommended official status for the alliance in the U.N. system and the creation of a number of new positions and supporting bodies for the alliance. Regardless of what hap­pens with the alliance, in the interest of mini­mizing the impression of corruption or unprofessional conduct in the U.N., Annan and his associates should not be appointed to posi­tions that they had a key role in creating.

The U.S. should clearly refute the report's false assumptions and biased perspective and oppose any effort to make the alliance a permanent part of the U.N.

We've been warned.

Cool Mom Tribute To Her Fallen Marine

God Bless Her.

What a way to honor her son and his memory.

CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. ( March 2, 2006 )

Karla Comfort received a lot of looks and even some salutes from people when she drove from Benton , Ark. , to Camp Pendleton , Calif. , in her newly-painted, custom Hummer H3 March 2. The vehicle is adorned with the likeness off her son, 20-year-old Lance Cpl. John M. Holmason, and nine other Marines with F Company, 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division who where all killed by the same improvised explosive device blast in Fallujah , Iraq , in December 2005.



For Karla Comfort, having the vehicle air brushed with the image of the 10 Marines was a way to pay homage to her hero and his fellow comrades who fell on Iraq 's urban battlefield.

"I wanted to let people know the Marines are doing their jobs honorably, and some of them die," said the 39-year-old from Portland , Oregon . "I don't want people to forget the sacrifices that my son and his fellow Marines made."



Karla Comfort came up with the idea for the rolling memorial when she and her two other sons attended John's funeral in Portland, Ore.

"I saw a Vietnam War Memorial on a car, and I said to my son Josh, "we should do something like that for John." She recalled, " he loved Hummers."



She purchased the vehicle in January and immediately took it to Airbrush Guy &Co. in Benton , Ark. , where artist Robert Powell went to work on changing the plain, black vehicle into a decorative, mobile, art piece.

"I only had the vehicle for two days before we took it in," she said.



Two hundred and fifty man-hours later, Powell had completed the vehicle. The custom job would have cost $25,000. Out of respect for Karla Comfort's loss and the sacrifices the Marines made, AirbrushGuy &Co. did it for free. Comfort only had to purchase the paint, which cost $3,000.

"I love it," she said. "I'm really impressed with it, and I think John would be happy with the vehicle. He would have a big smile on his face because he loved Hummers."



Karla Comfort gave Powell basic instructions on what to include in the paint job. But in addition to the image of her son in Dress Blues and the faces of the nine other Marines, there were several surprises. "He put a lot more on than I expected," she said. "I think my favorite part is the heaven scene."

On the left side of the vehicle, a detail of Marines are depicted carrying their fallen comrades through the clouds to their final resting place. The American flag drapes across the hood, the words, "Semper Fi" crown the front windshield and the spare tire cover carries the same Eagle Globe and Anchor design that her son had tattooed on his back.

"All the support I have been getting is wonderful," she said.

Karla Comfort decided to move back to her hometown of Portland , and making the cross-country trip from Arkansas was a way for her to share her son's story. It's also her way of coping with the loss.

"Along the way I got nothing but positive feedback from people" she said. "What got to me was when people would salute the guys (Marines). It's hard to look at his picture. I still cry and try to get used to the idea, but it's hard to grasp the idea that he's really gone."



Let's get this Hummer going around the world so we don't forget! Please pass this on.

Where is America in Bible Prophecy 2

Is the Security and Prosperity Partnership the beginning of a North America
Some Exceprts:

Is our government working quietly to create the equivalent of a North American Union -- much on the lines of the European Union?

Some charge that such a Union will eventually override our Constitutional government, our judicial system, our economic system and even our currency, which, some speculate, will be replaced by something called the Amero. Can it be possible?

March 23, 2005 President Bush met with Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in what was officially described as a "Summit." The three leaders then announced the signing of an agreement to create common policies concerning various economic and security issues among the three nations.

The initiative is called the Security and Prosperity Partnership or the SPP.

It's purpose?

According to a joint statement from the three leaders, the SPP is to "establish a common approach to security to protect North America from external threats, prevent and respond to threats within North America, and further streamline the security and efficient movement of legitimate low-risk traffic across our shared borders."

As you know, the major debate in the US today is over border security. Our nation is being flooded with hordes of illegal aliens. They are over-burdening our schools, hospitals and social services.

In many parts of the nation, hospitals and services are being forced to shut down, damaging the quality of life of American citizens.

On top of the illegal alien situation, we face danger from the threat of terrorists as Americans are forced to surrender liberty in the name of fighting this threat.

And there is the flood of illegal drugs pouring over the border, straight into our kid's schools.

More than 80% of the American people have demanded something be done to secure the borders.

Yet, the Administration has fought efforts to close the border. Why? It appears obvious in light of agreements made in the creation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership.

The SPP calls for "harmonizing" our borders into one seamless entity called North America.

Who benefits from the creation of such a union? Multinational corporations.

They are the driving force behind its creation. They seek one currency, one set of rules, one controlling entity -- to enable them to move goods and services effortlessly across the border.

Above all, they do not want the public involved in the process

These are just a very few of the details concerning the SPP. We believe it is the beginning of the creation of a North American Union much on the lines of the European Union.

The game plan is very much the same. The excuse for the EU was trade. But today, according to the former president of Germany, 84% of that nation's laws now come from the European Union.

It begins in secrecy and slowly builds incrementally. But step by step a structure is put into place run by communitarian law and regional governing councils of appointed, well connected, yet unknown and unreachable officials hiding behind public/private partnerships, not answerable or responsive to citizens.

This is why we fear the creation of a North American Union.

It sure explains a lot to me. I've been extremely puzzled as to why we have not addressed our border situation, and why National Guard troops at the border are unarmed and not allowed to engage. There should be a no brainer of a solution in dealing with the massive illegal immigrant problem,at least to start, seal the borders! With all of the grave economic and social consequences this problem causes, one would think that this would have been done a long time ago. So why has the administration not done it, at the risk of their own political backlash? Maybe now we know.

Inevitable Clash?

The middle ground on Islam and West

This from a poll of 28,000 people in 27 countries by the BBC.

What drives tension and conflict between Islam and the West?

Is there an inherent incompatibility between the two, making a "clash of civilisations" inevitable?

There are certainly Muslims and non-Muslims who hold that view.

First they quote some findings of "specialists" and "analysts".

Many Muslims, as well as specialists on Islam, reject the sweeping generalisations on which such opinions rest.

So what are these "genereralisations" that lead people to believe there will be this clash. Could it be, Jihad?

While there were radical, jihadi trends, there were also mainstream movements moving, albeit gradually, towards democratisation.

They continue to paint the picture that Jihad is a radical fringe, and that Islam is really interested in becoming democratic. Right.

So what do ordinary people, Muslim and non-Muslim, think?

This oughta be good.

Problems arise from intolerant minorities - on both sides - rather than from cultures as a whole.

Uh huh, those pesky terrorists and the darn fundamental Christian Right. Equally bad, if they could just be made to "go away" the world would certainly be a happy place.

They often argue that Muslim radicalism is the product of global inequalities of wealth and power - and Western foreign policy in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine and elsewhere.

The large Muslim minorities now living in the West also argue they are the victims of social disadvantage and "Islamophobic" prejudice.

So, seeing that this is a poll, would you say that MSM propoganda is effective or not? People have been led to believe that the terrorism is born out of opression, specifically from the West, more specific America and Israel. It is painfully obvious that most people will not look up the history of terrorism and where its roots lie. Islamic terrorism existed long before Western foriegn policy in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, etc. Arguing "Islamophobia" is putting the effect before the cause.

The current global climate is one of polarisation.

Many Muslims are angry about Iraq and Palestine and what they perceive as a Western drive for hegemony.

Since 9/11, the West has been nervous about the al-Qaeda threat.

The Madrid and London bombings kept that threat alive.

The sense of polarisation has been sharpened by recent controversies - over Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, over the Pope's remarks about Islam, over whether face-veils hinder integration.

All these things have set relations between Islam and the West on edge.

Many Muslims, and some non-Muslims, blame the media for fanning the flames.

In a wired-up world, local disputes can quickly become global ones.

Most people, when asked, are likely to favour co-existence and tolerance.

But at moments of crisis, they do not always practise them.

So how exactly were cartoons examples of Western policy and drive for hegemony? And how is the media to blame for reporting Islamic behaviour? Last I recall, there was not one newspaper or major media outlet willing to reprint the cartoons for fear of Islamic backlash and retalliation. It seems to me that Islam apologists allow no responsibility to be placed on the Islamic world for the actions of terrorism that claims to represent it. Where is the outcry of 1.5 billion "moderate" muslim people that want only to live in peace? Until, we hear from them, if they exist, I fear we are facing an inevitable clash.

EU Action Plan: Rewrite Education Curriculum

I've already posted once on what how the New York Times is offering classroom material in conjuction with their newspaper views that will aid in teaching children to look at world news events and history through the lens of the United Nations.

Here is an article from Britian raising awareness of the European Union providing their propoganda to schools in the form of curriculum.

EU 'trying to brainwash children in classroom'

Some snips:

A new teaching pack on the EU has been introduced for use in Key Stage 3 and 4 "citizenship" classes that claims to offer a balanced view of the organisation and its role.

But Eurosceptics were up in arms last night about elements of the lesson notes and pupil worksheets, which guide teachers and pupils in "de-bunking" the views of a man who is critical of a lack of democracy in the EU.

The teacher is also instructed to show pupils how to counter his argument and to lead the pupils to conclude that he is wrong and that the EU is democratic.

"It is obvious that the EU has given up on persuading the grown ups, so now they have started on the children."
Shipley's Tory MP Philip Davies, spokesman for the Better Off Out campaign, added: "The EU gets more like the Soviet Union every day when it resorts to brainwashing children.
"All it does is confirm my worst fears.

Will there be any traction to this wake up call, or will it be silence? Will anybody in the United States take notice?

This is real, and it is happening right now in our schools, here.