UN HUMAN WRONGS COUCIL

It might come as no surprise that, here at Montag's World, we take a dim view of the United Nations. Despite the glowing and benign intentions expressed by the founders of this institution, the best that can be said about it is that it has become a debating forum for corrupt, third-rate, anti-Semitic, Third World bureaucrats.

Worse, it is totally incapable of seeing how corrupt, inept and ineffective it is. Despite, for instance, the absolute corruption of the UN Oil For Food program, Secretary General Koffi Annan was allowed to continue in his post. The UN is incapable of stopping any war or human rights violations, nor can it even recognize genocide, as exhibited by their fecklessness toward the Sudan and Darfur.

While siding with America's enemies at every turn, they insist upon destroying our own sovereignty. Yet they rely on our largess for their anti-American, anti- Liberty programs.

Perhaps the best solution to the problem I've heard involved moving the UN, approximately 500 feet to the East. Of course, that's mere humor and satire, since that would put the UN smack in the middle of the East River. But it does illustrate the frustration and anger that this world body engenders in many Americans.

Many Americans, that is, that are not members of the Left.

This may be something of a continuation of a theme from yesterday's column. For what we will examine today is the new UN Human Rights Council and its official in charged with investigating Israel, Prof. Richard Falk, of Princeton University.

It is perhaps laughable, if it weren't so despicable, that the United Nations has formed this council (see the story at NPR) to review all 192 member states of the UN regarding their human rights records. However, the first nation they plan on investigating is Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians. If that weren't bad enough, they unanimously chose Prof. Falk to lead the investigation.

So, who is Prof. Richard Falk? Why is he such a wrong choice for a study of the Israeli-Palestinian situation?

Prof. Richard Falk is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of International Law and Practice, Emeritus at Princeton University, Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara and a member of the World Federalist Institute, an organization dedicated to forming a world government and abolishing nation states.

In short, Prof. Falk is an extreme Leftist.

That the UN Human Rights Council selected him to a six year term investigating Israeli behavior vis a vis the Palestinians is curious, to say the least. According to the BBC, he is on record "drawing the comparison between the treatment of Palestinians with the Nazi record of collective atrocity, because of what he described as the massive Israeli punishment directed at the entire population of Gaza."

Hello! Israel is under daily attack by Muslims, and they are guilty of atrocities? Is this at all a point of concern to the Left? Probably not.

Nor is Prof. Falk backing down from his comments. The BBC further elucidates with another quote:

"If this kind of situation had existed for instance in the manner in which China was dealing with Tibet or the Sudanese government was dealing with Darfur, I think there would be no reluctance to make that comparison."

Apparently, Prof. Falk wasn't paying attention to the UN and its failure to condemn China and the Sudan.

To say that Prof. Falk is anti-Israel would be to vastly understate the case. The man has no willingness to at all consider the simple fact that Israel was the first free nation in the Middle East, that Palestinians in Israel have more freedom and Liberty than in any other Arab nation.

But then, Prof. Falk seems to be incapable of understanding that Islamo-fascists are really out to kill Americans and bring the Global Caliphate to fruition. The New York Sun reports that he is also calling for a UN investigation into the role of American neo-cons in the 9/11 attacks.

That's right, folks! Richard Falk is also one of those 911Truth.org maniacs. These are those poor, deluded souls who think that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were really inside jobs, perpetrated by the Bush administration at the urging of the neo-cons, for the express purpose of invading Afghanistan and Iraq.

Please note that Liberals always use the word "neo-cons" as a euphemism for "Jews". Just as they engage in projection when claiming Conservatives are bigots (see Real Racism and its Lethal Consequences in yesterday's Montag's World) the tag, "neo-cons" is a code word. In this way, they can deflect any accusations of anti-Semitism.

Not only did Prof. Falk write the forward for David Ray Griffin's 2004 conspiracy theory book, The New Pearl Harbor, he actively sought to find a publisher for the book.

On March 24th, 2008, Prof. Falk, in an interview with radio host Kevin Barrett, said the following:

"It is possibly true that especially the neoconservatives thought there was a situation in the country and in the world where something had to happen to wake up the American people. Whether they are innocent about the contention that they made that something happen or not, I don't think we can answer definitively at this point. All we can say is there is a lot of grounds for suspicion, there should be an official inves-igation of the sort the 9/11 commission did not engage in and that the failure to do these things is cheating the American people and in some sense the people of the world of a greater confidence in what really happened than they presently possess."

He doesn't think he can answer the question of whether Americans made 9/11 happen? This, my Friends, is nothing short of wading in the fever swamps of paranoia. Why is this man allowed to walk about among us without adult supervision?

Kevin Barrett isn't much better, by the way. He is the co-founder of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth. Naturally, he speaks well of the demented professor saying, "I would put him on a list of scholars who are sympathetic to the 9/11 truth movement."

As can be seen from this YouTube clip, Mr. Barrett honestly believes that Islamo-fascists had nothing to do with 9/11, and that there is no reason to believe that other terrorist attacks around the world were by Muslims.

Of course, from my personal experience of graduates of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, I'm not really surprised. This is the most extreme of the most extreme Left in America. If Mr. Barrett was a professor there, and he was, that would go a long way to explain my radically Liberal friends who graduated from that school.

Getting back to the subject, though, here we have a man, who is obviously opposed to Israel and its right to defend itself from aggression, who has long been involved in anti-American causes, who actually contributes to the mental miasma known as 911Truth. And the United Nations appoints him to study Israeli violations of human rights?

Folks, the facts are clear. The United States has no business being in the United Nations. If they want to meet in New York, then let them pay the rent that the real estate actually deserves. While those Third World bureaucrats are at it, maybe they can also pay their parking tickets.

The UN has, without a doubt, long ago passed its use-by date. Time for America to get out and start leading the Free World!

Copyright April 10th, 2008

REALITY CHECK

Many of my friends on the Left believe (rather, they claim to believe) that every single recommendation of the 9/11 Report should have immediately become law and/or official United States policy. Had President Bush, immediately upon entering the White House, presciently knew what those recommendations would be and enacted them in the first months of his presidency, 9/11 would never have happened.


Perhaps. But then, had Bill Clinton not had Jamie Gorelick build that wall between the CIA and the FBI, perhaps something could have been done earlier. Or, as demonstrated by Robert "Buzz" Patterson in his book Dereliction of Duty, if Bill actually took time out from Monica Lewinsky to take Osama bin Ladin down, perhaps this column might not be necessary.


Be that as it may, there are problems looming for the United States, problems that none of the current Big Three candidates for president seem likely to address. These problems all stem from one major issue: illegal immigration.


By way of disclaimer, let it be known that my position on illegal immigration has evolved somewhat. Now, being a radical free market social Conservative with major Libertarian tendencies, and all things being equal, I am generally an open borders kind of guy. Put the government back into its Constitutional bottle (end all social spending, cut taxes as low as possible, radically simplify the tax code, make English the official language, etc.) and no one would really care how many people came from what countries to make a life as an American. Should our economy have a downturn and we aren't able to absorb all those immigrants, well, the market would settle that: news of hard times would get back to the homeland and the flow of immigrants will slow, perhaps even stop.


Nowadays, however, all things are not equal at all. We were attacked on 9/11. Most of the nineteen hijackers were not only in the country illegally, they had multiple drivers' licenses and identities. It has become painfully obvious that open border policies have failed to prevent this act of war.


And what do our leaders, of both political parties, have to offer for solutions? Sadly, only more open borders.


Today's immigration mess didn't just appear out of thin air. The problem goes back at least forty years. Ted Kennedy, back then, decided that our old system of immigration wasn't fair enough. Twenty years later, immigrants from Europe, who by and large share our values, were discouraged in favor of Latin Americans. Not only that, enforcement of our borders was given short shrift.


Of course, twenty years later, there was a public outcry about the burgeoning illegal immigration problem. Ronald Reagan, facing a Democratically controlled Congress, made a deal. The idea was that the border would be closed but, in the meantime, illegal aliens already here were granted a one time amnesty. So what happened?


Well, the Democrats got their amnesty, but blocked all attempts to close our borders, despite their solemn promise. News of the amnesty went South, and still more desperate people went North. Today, we are given estimates of between twelve and twenty-two million illegal immigrants in America.


First of all, there is no way to enforce a serious legal code, not if almost anyone can enter the country at will. And then, how do they get around pesky identifications and taxes and such? No problema! That's what they have identity theft for!


Of course, absent the terrorist threat and absent a government actually following the Constitution, this situation is untenable. Consider how the federal government, either through acts of Congress or the courts, has mandated that these illegal aliens are eligible to all the rights and protections that citizens or legal immigrants are entitled. Consider also, the poor folks whose identities have been stolen for the illegals' benefit. You see, of course, that one broken law begets another, and another...


Now, let's throw in Islamo-fascism and the terrorist threat. The way our borders are currently enforced, does anyone really doubt that terrorists can easily get into the country through Mexico? Does anyone doubt that the "coyotes", those who engage in human smuggling, are taking offers from al Qaeda and the like?


If you doubt me on this, consider the 9/11 Report:

• According to the Report, al Qaeda owns, of all things, a travel agency in Mexico!


• The Report notes that the hijackers committed various irregularities regarding their visas, passports and other documents. Some entered the country illegally, some overstayed their visas, most had fraudulent drivers' licenses. All of this to gain access to American airliners to be used as guided missiles.


• Members of the panel asked many questions about the failures of our Immigration and Naturalization Service, as well as failures on the part of the FBI and the CIA

There is no doubt that, had our border enforcement been better, the 9/11 hijackers would not have had as easy a job to do.

Now, we have several recent stories, which I've culled from World Net Daily:

• Mexico has just arrested two Iraqis with false Bulgarian passports. They suspect that they are being purchased by jihadists for $10,000 from Mexicans in Greece.


• Quoting WND: "In addition, earlier this month, Norwegian authorities reported that Iraqis affiliated with al-Qaeda and former Baath Party members may have slipped into Kuwait after obtaining $15,000 Norwegian passports. Authorities in Kuwait say they are on the lookout for any Iraqi citizen bearing a Norwegian passport."


• Let's not forget that dozens of Iraqis were arrested entering Monterrey, Mexico, illegally, heading for the United States.


• Joseph Farrah, the editor of WND reported in 2003: "While President Bush considers a broad-based amnesty plan for millions of illegal aliens in the U.S., there is growing evidence the Mexican border continues to be used as a covert entry point for the smuggling of Arabs into the country."

We are facing a very serious threat, my Friends. While Chuck Schumer might holler for stricter security in our ports, he has little positive to say about securing our borders.

President George W. Bush has been strong on the War on Terror (God bless him!) but when it comes to securing the border? Chuck Schumer might as well have been the president, for all the differences (or lack thereof) in their positions regarding "comprehensive immigration reform".

John McCain likes to "reach across the aisle" to the Democrats. In this case, we just dodged a bullet with the McCain-Kennedy Bill, also supported by President Bush, which would totally fail to close our borders, while simultaneously granting amnesty to all those illegal aliens who've broken our laws. Been there, done that in 1986. In this time of war, do we need to repeat the mistake of Ronald Reagan?

Yes, McCain has promised on the campaign trail that he "gets it". He's learned his lesson and that he will shut down our borders but good the first thing when he gets to the White House. Yup! And I can sell you a slightly used bridge in Brooklyn for a measly couple of grand. With McCain in the White House and the Democrats in charge of the Congress, we'll have almost all of Mexico, along with whatever al Qaeda operatives there are, in the US and voting Democrat within ten years.

Hillary and Obama aren't any different either. Both want our borders open. Both favor granting illegals drivers' licenses. Neither of them, in last night's debate in Texas, wantto take a stance on making English our official language. In short, both like the influx of unskilled, under educated, illegal immigrants who have no interest in actually becoming Americans. Of course, that would, presumably, not be an obstacle when registering them as Democrats!

Now don't think that I am anti-immigrant. On the contrary, I love immigrants. I'm the grandson of immigrants. But I want immigrants who come here to become Americans. These are not the sort who become illegal aliens.

Read my opening comments about open borders, all things being equal. The mess we're in today is because my ideas about government and immigration were never implemented. We opened our borders without putting the government back into it's Constitutional bottle.

Then again, when I was an open borders guy, we weren't at war. As many folks have noted, 9/11 changes things. What we found out in the aftermath is that we are far too vulnerable thanks to illegal immigration.

My fear is that too many of our political elites, on both sides of the political divide, just don't see it.

Copyright Feb. 22nd 2008