America is Only Partially the Blame

Below is a response to a Facebook buddy Scott Isaacs which I will also post below.

+++++++++++++++++++++

Scott I got to hand it to you. This article is indeed a great piece of writing. The information is extremely accurate.

However, I observe that your conclusions are slanted Left for placing the total blame on America for the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan. I do like the Nazi/Taliban metaphor though.

I have some thoughts as to a possible reason America did not step up to be a rebuilder of Afghanistan after the Soviet Communist departure.

Going back to the Nazi-Germany/Imperial-Japan scenario: Note that after those two lost WWII that the Soviet Union was officially one of the allies. The rebuilding of Germany really was only applicable to the Western portion occupied by the American and British forces. The "East Germany" occupied by the Soviet army did not receive comparable reconstruction. Also not at the end of WWII the Americans and Brits basically gave Eastern Europe over to Soviet hegemony as the spoil of war. Eastern Europe did not receive the same reconstruction as Western Europe.

The Soviet Union never declared war on Japan until defeat was imminent.
America looked the other way as the Soviets took control of Sakhalin Island; otherwise the Soviets showed little interest in a defeated Japan. America was free to reconstruct Japan into a democratic society.

I don’t believe there is an exact comparison of the reconstruction of the fallen axis powers to that of Soviet devastated Afghanistan.

Here is another thought.

America’s involvement in aiding Afghani tribal leaders eject the Soviets from Afghanistan probably gave a pretty good idea of the combination of greed from the petty (basically feudal) tribes and the Hanafi influenced Islam in the area. America had relatively left the Vietnam debacle that was the result of supporting a corrupt South Vietnamese government that alienated it citizens rather than inspire them to fight Communism. I would a good analysis of Afghanistan would be a risky political enterprise investing democratic principles in an area committed to either tribal/familial authority or Islam or both.

I agree that one huge failure was not protecting an asset like Massoud. Allowing his assassination was a grave mistake; however there was also no guarantee that Massoud would have developed into an Afghanistan unifier either. The best that could be hoped from Massoud would have been was a tool to keep the Taliban/Al Qaeda at bay. Investing in a full military-political support of Massoud could just as easily have been like supporting the corrupt South Vietnamese government.

My belief is that America made the correct decision in not getting directly involved in a post-Soviet reconstruction of Afghanistan and made a fatal error in not throwing covert military support to Massoud. If Massoud proved himself to be an able leader to offset the popularity that Taliban justice was perceived to be accomplishing.

One other thought about your reference about the Taliban not being corruptible to drug money from opium interests: If that is true it is more so because of the Taliban’s own opium production and less so because of the justice demanded by Hanafi Islamic teachings.

JRH 7/9/09

The CRC is another Step toward U.N. World Government

John R. Houk
© February 6, 2009

There is a Treaty out their originating from the U.N. pertaining to children and parents. It is called the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children or CRC. Apparently the Convention only needed 20 signatories for it to be considered international law. To date, 193 have signed the CRC and the USA is not one of those nations.

There is good reason for the USA not to sign the CRC.

1. It is a step toward World Government abrogating the U.S. Constitution and American sovereignty.
   
   
2. A foreign international body will intrude on parental rights for its view of what is right for a child.
   
   
3. For example those that believe in spanking (not physical abuse) as discipline would be in trouble with the law.
   
   
4. A child can say NO to parental training such as teaching values (religious or secular) and the government will enforce the child’s wishes over the parents.
   
   
5. A child that has committed a heinous crime cannot be tried as an adult with adult convictions that may lead to capital punishment or life sentences. Here I agree to a point, the problem for me is what is defined as a child. The CRC includes the age up to seventeen. There are remorseless teenagers that know what they are doing when committing gang murders or other thug related murders. There has must be an age of accountability for an adult crime committed at least for teenagers.
   
   
6. CRC would be the beginning of State control of individual lives diluting freedom and liberty to what is defined by the government; in other words Big Brother is watching.

President Obama has expressed to the effect that America should care as much about its children as a 193 other signatories of the CRC. The irony is a huge significant amount of those signatories ignore the implication of the CRC in their own nations. Do you think that Middle Eastern Muslim nations will comply with an international convention if it is contrary to Sharia Law? NO! Yet those same hypocritical Muslim nations will happily join a U.N. enforced sanctions against the USA if the U.N. body determines the USA is not complying with the rules of the Treaty.

If you are politically inclined write your Senator. Whether President Obama wishes the Treaty or not, the Senate will have to ratify it for America to be among the signatories of the CRC.

JRH 2/6/09
*********************************
United Nations' threat: No more parental rights
Expert: Pact would ban spankings, homeschooling if children object


By Chelsea Schilling© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Posted: February 05, 2009 12:00 am Eastern


A United Nations human rights treaty that could prohibit children from being spanked or homeschooled, ban youngsters from facing the death penalty and forbid parents from deciding their families' religion is on America's doorstep, a legal expert warns.


Michael Farris of Purcellville, Va., is president of ParentalRights.org, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association and chancellor of Patrick Henry College. He told WND that under the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, or CRC, every decision a parent makes can be reviewed by the government to determine whether it is in the child's best interest.


"It's definitely on our doorstep," he said. "The left wants to make the Obama-Clinton era permanent. Treaties are a way to make it as permanent as stuff gets. It is very difficult to extract yourself from a treaty once you begin it. If they can put all of their left-wing socialist policies into treaty form, we're stuck with it even if they lose the next election."


The 1990s-era document was ratified quickly by 193 nations worldwide, but not the United States or Somalia. In Somalia, there was then no recognized government to do the formal recognition, and in the United States there's been opposition to its power. Countries that ratify the treaty are bound to it by international law.


Although signed by Madeleine Albright, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., on Feb. 16, 1995, the U.S. Senate never ratified the treaty, largely because of conservatives' efforts to point out it would create that list of rights which primarily would be enforced against parents.


The international treaty creates specific civil, economic, social, cultural and even economic rights for every child and states that "the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration." While the treaty states that parents or legal guardians "have primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child," Farris said government will ultimately determine whether parents' decisions are in their children's best interest. The treaty is monitored by the CRC, which conceivably has enforcement powers.


According to the Parental Rights website, the substance of the CRC dictates the following:

· Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.

· A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.

· Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.

· The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision.

· A child's "right to be heard" would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.

· According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's welfare.

· Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.

· Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

· Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

· Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

"Where the child has a right fulfilled by the government, the responsibilities shift from parents to the government," Farris said. "The implications of all this shifting of responsibilities is that parents no longer have the traditional roles of either being responsible for their children or having the right to direct their children."


The government would decide what is in the best interest of a children in every case, and the CRC would be considered superior to state laws, Farris said. Parents could be treated like criminals for making every-day decisions about their children's lives.


"If you think your child shouldn't go to the prom because their grades were low, the U.N. Convention gives that power to the government to review your decision and decide if it thinks that's what's best for your child," he said. "If you think that your children are too young to have a Facebook account, which interferes with the right of communication, the U.N. gets to determine whether or not your decision is in the best interest of the child."


He continued, "If you think your child should go to church three times a week, but the child wants to go to church once a week, the government gets to decide what it thinks is in the best interest of the children on the frequency of church attendance."


He said American social workers would be the ones responsible for implementation of the policies.


Farris said it could be easier for President Obama to push for ratification of the treaty than it was for the Clinton administration because "the political world has changed."


At a Walden University presidential debate last October, Obama indicated he may take action.


"It's embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land," Obama said. "I will review this and other treaties to ensure the United States resumes its global leadership in human rights."


Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been a strong supporter of the CRC, and she now has direct control over the treaty's submission to the Senate for ratification. The process requires a two-thirds vote.


Farris said Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., claimed in a private meeting just before Christmas that the treaty would be ratified within two years.


In November, a group of three dozen senior foreign policy figures urged Obama to strengthen U.S. relations with the U.N. Among other things, they asked the president to push for Senate approval of treaties that have been signed by the U.S. but not ratified.


Partnership for a Secure America Director Matthew Rojansky helped draft the statement. He said the treaty commands strong support and is likely to be acted on quickly, according to an Inter Press Service report.


While he said ratification is certain to come up, Farris said advocates of the treaty will face fierce opposition.


"I think it is going to be the battle of their lifetime," he said. "There's not enough political capital in Washington, D.C., to pass this treaty. We will defeat it."

________________________________

The CRC is another Step toward U.N. World Government
John R. Houk
© February 6, 2009
______________________________

United Nations' threat: No more parental rights

Chelsea Schilling is a staff writer for WorldNetDaily.
Copyright 1997-2009 All Rights Reserved. WorldNetDaily.com Inc.

MSM is Missing the Threat Evolving in Latin America

Oliver North writes about the recent Latin American summit in Brazil which seemed to feature Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Raul Castro of Cuba.

Evidently several Latin American Heads of State showed up and the USA was not invited and Columbia chose not to participate. North points out that Columbia is dealing with natural disasters but I suspect there is a higher purpose for Columbia’s lack of participation.

President Alvaro Uribe’s Columbia is part of a squeeze move by Communist leadership from Venezuela, Ecuador and FARC. President Uribe has been working in full tandem with the USA to battle drug lords pretending to be Communist revolutionaries in Columbia. Chavez of Venezuela, Correa of Ecuador and now Morales of Bolivia (all Marxist Heads of State) are giving the appearance of cooperating with the Communist/Drug Lords of FARC.

This so-called Latin American Summit was labeled the Latin American and Caribbean Summit on Integration and Development. Hugo Chavez has publicly said the purpose of the Summit was to signify that the United States of America is no longer the big dog of influence in Latin America. Chavez can back up his statement with the huge financial and military investment from nations adversarial to America – Russia, China and Iran.

Ollie ends his article with a tribute to Paul Weyrich who died on December 18, 2008.

The point of Ollie’s article is that the Mainstream Media (MSM) and worse the State Department appear to be ignoring the international cabal that is forming in Latin America. Read Ollie’s article at Real Clear Politics.

JRH 12/19/08

Is BHO Arab Preference Emerging?

I have been very critical of the Bush Administration’s arm twisting of Israel to create a sovereign Palestinian State. Part of the reason for this criticism is that the Islamofascist Arabs terrorizing Israel have no claim to a creation of a nation. That sounds harsh doesn’t it?

After all these Arabs were holed up in refugee camps in Gaza and Arabs in the West Bank have been restricted to their locations in a less than glorious existence. These refugees began their existence after several Arab invading armies were defeated by the little Israeli army in 1949. The proof leans more toward the Israeli contention that the Arabs told their fellow Arabs residing in Israel to flee because they would be in the middle of an Arab army massacre of Jews. A majority of Arabs then fled.

The Arab version is that the Israeli army (or whatever it was called back then) forced the Arabs to leave. Indeed, there were minor cases of Jewish expulsion of Arabs. I say minor for the Jewish expulsion of Arabs in isolated areas was due to Arabs terrorizing Jews – a foretaste of things to come. Any Jewish/Israeli army expulsions were more the result of tactics against a hostile enemy than a forced march of non-Jews. An overwhelming number of Arabs fled just as they were told to do by the invading Arab armies who felt the hubris of assured victory.

The Arab refugee problem grew worse and worse:

1. The Arabs collectively agreed to NOT matriculate displaced Arabs within Arab nations that lost the war in order to create a continuous problem for Israel.

2. From 1949 through 1973 Arab nations launched multiple invasions of Israel which added to the misery of the Arab Refugees. Why? Because the invading Arab nations lost every single war they initiated. The resulted in Israel gaining military control that any other part of the world would be recognized at the least just compensation for invasions. The only provocation for these invasions was because Jews returned to the land of their origins so as to escape racism and persecution that had been experienced nearly since the Romans expelled the Jews in 70 AD.

First Europe and now the USA has began to arm twist Israel in giving up historical Jewish land that was won back as the result of hostile Arab invasions.

Now I have become enlightened as to way Obama associations are so very important.

John Perazzo writing for Front Page Magazine draws a pretty good picture that continued associations are ongoing. Barack Hussein Obama has a foreign policy adviser known as Robert Malley. Malley in the tank as an anti-Israeli and his lineage is a family of down right Jew haters.

Read About it!

JRH 11/12/08
**************************
Obama’s Road to Damascus

By John Perazzo
November 11, 2008
FrontPageMagazine.com

History will record that Barack Obama’s first act of diplomacy as America’s president-elect took place two days after his election victory, when he dispatched his senior foreign-policy adviser, Robert Malley, to meet with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad—to outline for them the forthcoming administration’s Mideast policy vis-à-vis those nations. An aide to Malley reports, “The tenor of the messages was that the Obama administration would take into greater account Egyptian and Syrian interests” than has President Bush. The Bush administration, it should be noted, has rightly recognized Syria to be not only a chief supporter of the al Qaeda insurgency in Iraq, but also the headquarters of the terrorist organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the longtime sponsor of Hamas—the terrorist army whose founding charter is irrevocably committed to the annihilation of Israel. Yet unlike President Bush, Obama and Malley have called for Israel to engage in peace negotiations with Syria.

A Harvard-trained lawyer and Rhodes Scholar, Robert Malley is no newcomer to the Obama team. In 2007, Obama selected him as a foreign policy adviser to his campaign. At the time, Malley was (and still is today) the Middle East and North Africa Program Director for the International Crisis Group (ICG), which receives funding from the Open Society Institute of George Soros (who, incidentally, serves on the ICG Executive Committee).

In his capacity with ICG, Malley directs a number of analysts who focus their attention most heavily on the Arab-Israeli conflict, the political and military developments in Iraq, and Islamist movements across the Middle East. Prior to joining ICG, Malley served as President Bill Clinton’s Special Assistant for Arab-Israeli Affairs (1998-2001), and as National Security Adviser Sandy Berger’s Executive Assistant (1996-1998).

Robert Malley was raised in France. His lineage is noteworthy. His father, Simon Malley (1923-2006), was a key figure in the Egyptian Communist Party. A passionate hater of Israel, the elder Malley was a close friend and confidante of the late PLO terrorist Yasser Arafat; an inveterate critic of “Western imperialism”; a supporter of various revolutionary “liberation movements,” particularly the Palestinian cause; a beneficiary of Soviet funding; and a supporter of the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. According to American Thinker news editor Ed Lasky, Simon Malley “participated in the wave of anti-imperialist and nationalist ideology that was sweeping the Third World [and] … wrote thousands of words in support of struggle against Western nations.”

In a July 2001 op-ed which Malley penned for the New York Times, he alleged that Israeli—not Palestinian—inflexibility had caused the previous year’s Camp David peace talks (brokered by Bill Clinton) to fall apart. This was one of several controversial articles Malley has written—some he co-authored with Hussein Agha, a former adviser to Arafat—blaming Israel and exonerating Arafat (the most prolific Jew-killer since Adolph Hitler) for the failure of the peace process.

Malley’s identification of Israel as the cause of the Camp David impasse has been widely embraced by Palestinian and Arab activists around the world, by Holocaust deniers like Norman Finkelstein, and by anti-Israel publications such as Counterpunch. It should be noted that Malley’s account of the Camp David negotiations is entirely inconsistent with the recollections of the key figures who participated in those talks—specifically, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, then-U.S. President Bill Clinton, and then-U.S. Ambassador Dennis Ross (Clinton’s Middle East envoy).

Malley also has written numerous op-eds urging the U.S. to disengage from Israel to some degree, and recommending that America reach out to negotiate with its traditional Arab enemies such as Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah (a creature of Iran dedicated to the extermination of the Jews and death to America), and Muqtada al-Sadr (the Shiite terrorist leader in Iraq). In addition, Malley has advised nations around the world to establish relationships with, and to send financial aid to, the Hamas-led Palestinian government in Gaza. In Malley’s calculus, the electoral victory that swept Hamas into power in January 2006 was a manifestation of legitimate Palestinian “anger at years of humiliation and loss of self-respect because of Israeli settlement expansion, Arafat’s imprisonment, Israel’s incursions, [and] Western lecturing …”

Moreover, Malley contends that it is both unreasonable and unrealistic for Israel or Western nations to demand that Syria sever its ties with Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or Iran. Rather, he suggests that if Israel were to return the Golan Heights (which it captured in the 1967 Six Day War, and again in the 1973 Yom Kippur War—two conflicts sparked by Arab aggression which sought so permanently wipe the Jewish state off the face of the earth) to Syrian control, Damascus would be inclined to pursue peace with Israel.

Malley has criticized the U.S. for allegedly remaining “on the sidelines” and being a “no-show” in the overall effort to bring peace to the nations of the Middle East. Exhorting the Bush administration to change its policy of refusing to engage diplomatically with terrorists and their sponsoring states, Malley wrote in July 2006: “Today the U.S. does not talk to Iran, Syria, Hamas, the elected Palestinian government or Hezbollah…. The result has been a policy with all the appeal of a moral principle and all the effectiveness of a tired harangue.”

This inclination to negotiate with any and all enemies of the U.S. and Israel—an impulse which Malley has outlined clearly and consistently—has had a powerful influence on Barack Obama.

It is notable that six months ago the Obama campaign and Malley hastily severed ties with one another after the Times of London reported that Malley had been meeting privately with Hamas leaders on a regular basis—something Obama had publicly pledged never to do. At the time, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt minimized the significance of this monumentally embarrassing revelation, saying: “Rob Malley has, like hundreds of other experts, provided informal advice to the campaign in the past. He has no formal role in the campaign and he will not play any role in the future.”

But indeed, within hours after Obama’s election victory, Malley was back as a key player in the president-elect’s team of advisors—on his way to Syria. Mr. Obama, meanwhile, received a most friendly communication from Hamas, congratulating him on his “historic victory.”
_______________________________________

Is BHO Arab Preference Emerging?
John R. Houk
© November 12, 2008
_____________________________________

Obama’s Road to Damascus
John Perazzo is the Managing Editor of DiscoverTheNetworks and is the author of The Myths That Divide Us: How Lies Have Poisoned American Race Relations. For more information on his book, click here. E-mail him at wsbooks25@hotmail.com

Copyright©2008 FrontPageMagazine.com

Iran Rejects Deadline to Curb Nuclear Program

How much of a clue do the Western powers need before these nations comprehend that Iran is proceeding with weapons grade enrichment of uranium and that the constant offering of international negotiations is merely a stall tactic to reach the Iranian goal of nuclear weaponry?

This latest round of multilateral talks ended with yet another rejection by Iranian negotiators and public defiance by Iran’s Mullocracy leadership.

Let us guess the response of the West to this latest rejection. O yes, increased economic sanctions that Iran will ignore AGAIN.

Here is the story according to an e-newsletter from The Israel Project (TIP):

JRH 8/2/08

The enemy within

Here is an American Congress for Truth (ACT) e-newsletter sent out June 30, 2008. It gives further credence to a fifth column movement in North America similar to what the old Soviet Communists got away with from the 30’s through the 60’s.

JRH 7/3/08
****************************
ACT introduction of Ottawa Citizen News Article:

The Ottawa Citizen story below highlights the grave threat of infiltration of our defense and intelligence communities by Islamists working in league with terrorists abroad.

The article references the Muslim Brotherhood Project, the long-term plan created by the Muslim Brotherhood to subvert the West from within.

Brigitte Gabriel’s new book, They Must Be Stopped, scheduled for release around the first of September, devotes an entire chapter to this threat.

America and George Bailey

I know it is not Christmas nonetheless remember the concept. The 1946 movie classic “It’s a Wonderful Life” starring Jimmy Stewart as the character George Bailey is a quintessential Christmas Classic which still makes an annual appearance on television during the Christmas season.

The movie was about the life of George Bailey who struggled with doing the right thing to better others or follow his hearts desire to leave Bedford Falls to travel the sites of the world and become an educated man at College, both difficult challenges in the days when the movie was made by a person without material means.

Bailey began his life of selflessness by risking his life by saving his future no-account brother – Bailey lost his hearing in ear.

A little older, Bailey purposely does not deliver medicine knowing the pharmacist in the grief of the death of his son filled the prescription with poison instead of the correct ingredients. The act saved the Pharmacist’s reputation and delivered him from a murder charge.

Bailey was about to graduate from High School and had saved money to go to College. His Dad dies allowing the town miser to threaten to close a banking institution designed for the little guy during the depression years.

Bailey gets married to the women of his dreams and was about to embark on a traveling honeymoon when there is a run on the Savings and Loan that he operates. Bailey gets out of the car just as he was about to embark on one of his dreams of traveling with wife in arm. The wife eventually uses the honeymoon money to save the day and once again Bailey’s dream is cancelled; however the financial institution is saved once again saving Bedford Falls from the greedy grasp of the town’s miser.

You get the picture!

Bailey’s continued frustrations lead him to consider suicide to provide insurance money for his family in yet another personal crisis.

An Angel from Heaven shows Bailey how Bedford Falls would have turned out if he had never been born. All the acts of Bailey’s selflessness ended in bad news because Bailey was not there to fulfill his destiny. Basically the evil greedy miser takes over Bedford Falls which is renamed Pottersville. Pottersville is a city of a dubious morality with all the citizen’s lives intertwined in the evil grip of the town miser.

What a classic!

YouTube has a video (that has actually been around since February 2007) entitled, “A World Without America.”

MY GOD! THINK OF A WORLD WITHOUT AMERICA!