konane's Blog

Just remember this is the organization that wants to take away our right to bear arms, to control the internet, to impose a tax on us ... yes a tax to cure world poverty (another slush fund since Saddam's Oil For Food bribery scheme has been ended), yada, yada, yada ..... and Democrats  want to surrender US sovereignty to the UN so we can walk lock step behind it.  And just think we can be subject to Sharia law too. 

On August 5, 1990, the 19th Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers adopted the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. According to the official English version, “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’a.” The CDHRI has since then become “a quotable source at the United Nations.”

David Littman warns that “The new rules of conduct being imposed by the OIC [the Organization of the Islamic Conference], and acceded to by other states, give those who claim to represent Islam an exceptional status at the United Nations that has no legal basis and no precedent.” “Will a prohibition of discussion about certain political aspects of Islam become generally accepted at the United Nations and beyond, contradicting ‘the right to freedom of opinion and expression’ promised by Article XIX of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Unless farsighted states, both Muslim and non-Muslim, make it their business to assert and reassert the need for freedom of speech, this precious liberty is at risk of being eroded throughout the system of international organizations.”

Fifty-seven Muslim governments are pressing to include a “ban on the mocking of religions” in a new U.N. human rights body by pushing a resolution under the agenda item “Racism” condemning what they called the “Defamation of Islam.” In a clear reference to the Muhammad cartoons controversy, the proposal stated that “defamation of religions and prophets is inconsistent with the right to freedom of expression.”

The United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights Louise Arbour involved herself in the discussion during the tensions caused by the Danish cartoons. In a letter to the 56 member countries of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), she stated: “I understand your concerns and would like to emphasize that I regret any statement or act that could express a lack of respect for other people’s religion.” In a complaint to the High Commissioner, the 56 Islamic governments asked Louise Arbour to raise the matter with the Danish government “to help contain this encroachment on Islam, so the situation won’t get out of control.” Two UN experts, on religious freedom and on racism and xenophobia, were said to be working on the case.

Danish toy maker Lego was later upset with the United Nations, after the Office of the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights published an “anti-discrimination” poster that used a Lego building block as an illustration of racism. At the same time, David Littman documents the relative UN inaction regarding hateful material used in public schools in Islamic countries. An example is an extract from a book approved by al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, widely viewed as maybe the most important centre of learning for a billion Sunni Muslims. Pious justifications are offered to Egyptian Grade 11 students concerning the reasons for beheading infidels:

“When you meet them in order to fight [them], do not be seized by compassion  [toward them], but strike the[ir] necks powerfully […] Striking the neck means fighting, because killing a person is often done by striking off his head […] This expression contains a harshness and emphasis that are not found in the word ‘kill’, because it describes killing in the ugliest manner, ‘i.e. cutting the neck and making the organ – the head of the body – fly off [the body]’.”

This is now commonplace in Iraq, where more than one hundred foreign hostages have been ritually beheaded. It is also used by Muslim Jihadists against, among others, teachers in the troubled southern provinces of Thailand, since they are viewed as infidel representatives of the predominantly Buddhist state. As scholar Andrew Bostom demonstrates, the Islamic practice of beheading originates from Islamic core teachings, such as the Koran sura 47, verse 4, which says: “When you encounter those [infidels] who deny [the Truth=Islam] then strike [their] necks.” Muhammad and his followers also beheaded some 600 to 900 men from the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza outside of Medina, enslaving their women and children.

While Islamic nations are trying to get the UN to outlaw criticism of Islam on an international basis, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan assures Americans that the plan of leaving the UN in charge of the Internet is nothing to worry about, it is only to make the Internet more efficient. “One mistaken notion is that the United Nations wants to ‘take over,’ police or otherwise control the Internet. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The United Nations wants only to ensure the Internet’s global reach,” according to Annan.

Even as they were passing six resolutions condemning Israel, the United Nations General Assembly failed to define terrorism because the Organization of the Islamic Conference demanded exceptions for terror gangs like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the head-hacking Al Qaeda holy warriors in Iraq. Still, Secretary General Kofi Annan praised the OIC, an organization consisting of some of the world’s worst human rights abusers, stating that “Over the years, and especially the past decade, the United Nations and the Organization of the Islamic Conference have worked to promote tolerance, equality, development and the peaceful resolution of conflict.”

In contrast, Kofi Annan’s deputy assailed the United States for withholding support from the United Nations, encouraging its harshest detractors. Mr Malloch Brown said that although the United States was constructively engaged with the United Nations in many areas, the American public was shielded from knowledge of that by Washington’s tolerance of what he called “too much unchecked U.N.-bashing and stereotyping.” “Much of the public discourse that reaches the U.S. heartland has been largely abandoned to its loudest detractors such as Fox News,” he said. UN Ambassador from the United States John Bolton strongly rebuked the remarks, calling the speech by Annan’s deputy a “very grave mistake.”

Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran have repeatedly called for the annihilation of fellow UN member Israel. Announcing the advancement of the Iranian nuclear program, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reiterated Iran’s goal of “wiping Israel off the map.” The day before, the UN’s Disarmament Commission, the organization that is supposed to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, elected Iran’s Mehdi Danesh-Yazdi as one of its three vice-chairs. Iran denounced the election of Israel to that same commission, calling the Jewish state a threat to peace in
the Middle East.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said no UN Security Council resolution could make Iran give up its nuclear program. “The Iranian nation “won’t give a damn about such useless resolutions” he said, hours before an expected finding that Tehran has failed to meet a Security Council deadline to suspend uranium enrichment. The Islamic Republic of Iran has murdered tens of thousands of its own citizens and is the source of grotesque human rights abuses. It is also the long-time sponsor of Islamic terrorist organizations abroad and has openly threatened to wipe out another country with nuclear weapons. Despite all of this, the country is still a full member of the United Nations, technically treated the same was as Switzerland.

The old UN Human Rights Commission was a body so discredited that it was eventually disbanded. UN critic Anne Bayefsky warned, however, that the new design “promises an institution more contemptible than its predecessor.” The election of some of the world’s worst violators of free expression – Algeria, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia – to be members of the UN’s new Human Rights Council was called a “scandal” by organization Reporters Without Borders:

“There is no difference between the composition of the former Human Rights Commission – whose work was unanimously condemned by NGOs, and by many countries as well – and that of the new council,” Reporters Without Borders said. “They have taken the same countries and started over. What is more, seven of these 10 countries have been elected for three-year terms, the longest envisaged under the council's rules, terms that can be renewed once. So the reforms adopted by the United Nations are clearly insufficient. The UN will not guarantee respect for human rights in the world in the future any more than it has in the past.”

British Prime Minister Tony Blair wants to reform the UN. He states that “it is time the world’s governments faced up to the fact that the world bodies founded in the aftermath of World War II have become moribund and ineffective. Whereas 60 years ago the world was divided into nation states that could operate more or less independently of each other, now international leaders are confronting an ever diminishing world brought intimately together by globalization, a technological revolution that has led to revolutionary approaches to labor employment, and greater economic interdependence between states.” “Yet the world bodies have not kept up with the economic and social progress of the last 60 years.”

Mr. Blair has said he believes that world bodies like the United Nations have not only an important but a leading part still to play in extending freedom to the whole world. But if the United Nations is to take up this task, it must reform itself so that it becomes a body that inspires respect from the world because of the wisdom of its leadership. Mr. Blair will demand that Mr. Annan be replaced by a strong successor as Secretary General, who should be granted greater independence from the General Assembly in intervening in world crises.

Still, the question remains whether the UN is simply so fundamentally flawed that it is beyond repair. Given the Islamic infiltration of the organization, granting more power to it probably isn’t a very good idea.

Hugh Fitzgerald of website Jihad Watch compares the UN to its failed predecessor, the League of Nations: “The League of Nations was not a mess in the 1920s. It became a mess when, in the 1930s, it could not handle Mussolini or Hitler, and failed. The U.N. was not originally a mess when founded, with such tutelary spirits as Rene Cassin and Eleanor Roosevelt. It became a mess sometime when more and more ‘countries’ that were primitive despotisms became members.” “Only a fool nowadays would use a phrase such as ‘international community,’ which attempts to treat Syria and Iceland as the same kind of members, or Costa Rica and Saudi Arabia, as similarly situated and behaving. There are no ‘united’ nations.”

He also points out the Palestinian fetish and the ridiculous amount of time spent at the UN on denouncing one single country, Israel. “How is it that the behavior of tiny Israel has become the Central Question of the Age, while the Jihad is pursued in Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, the Philippines, Kashmir, the Sudan, the Balkans, Central Asia, West Africa, everywhere, without a single resolution denouncing [it]?” This monomaniacal attention to Israel means that there is far less attention paid to other issues:

“A sensible policy requires that the American government every day make efforts to promote among Infidel countries and peoples an understanding of how the UN has been infiltrated, and essentially commandeered, by the forces of Islam: the Islamintern, it might be called. And then to minimize the power, the respect, and the legitimacy still accorded to the UN, this most corrupt and corrupting of institutions. And finally, it must seek not to do the impossible – to truly reform this organization – but to treat it as it should be treated: as hopeless, useless, and irrelevant as was the League of Nations when confronted with the Nazi-Fascist attacks in Spain, Mussolini’s invasion of Abyssinia, and Nazi Germany’s annexation of the Saarland and re-militarization of the Rhineland.”

Fitzgerald thinks that “Unlike the League of Nations, it will not be closed down. But it should be ignored or mocked.” For once, I am not sure I totally agree with Hugh Fitzgerald, a man I otherwise hold in very high esteem. There are those who argue that the UN is useless, that it costs billions of dollars to maintain, without any proof that this helps to ensure world peace. I disagree. I think the UN can be quite useful. To our enemies, that is. It is easy to say that we should remain members of the UN and just “ignore” it, but I’m afraid this won’t work out. There will always be people within the West who take the UN seriously, and in reality, some of its resolutions will
influence our domestic policies.

Roger Scruton points out that the UN granted to the Soviet Union “the kind of legitimacy that it could never have acquired through the conduct of its leadership.” “The Soviet Union used the U.N. and its ancillary institutions as a front. It supported the capture of the United Nations Association (an independent nonprofit organization which was founded to rally support for the international idea) by the peaceniks and encouraged the transformation of UNESCO into an instrument of leftist and anti-Western propaganda.” Soviet Communists recognized the UN “only as a way to neutralize Western defenses.”

Some would argue that Islamic countries are copying this strategy now. As Scruton states, there is another, more dangerous effect of the UN institutions, and one that is insufficiently pondered by Western politicians:

“Both the U.N. and many of its ancillary and subordinate institutions have legislative powers. They can use the original force of the Charter to bind national legislatures to measures that may be profoundly against the national interest. These measures will often be a huge burden to law-abiding states but no burden at all to dictatorships. Yet the dictatorships have as much right to press for them as the law-abiding states. In effect, the lawless have acquired, through the U.N., the power to bind the law-abiding in chains that they themselves escape.”

“One pertinent example is the U.N. Convention on refugees and asylum, ratified in 1951, which obliges every signatory to offer asylum to those fleeing from persecution. This means that Western states, which are bound by their own laws, are forced to admit hundreds of thousands of unwanted immigrants every year, simply because well-briefed lawyers invoke the convention on asylum on their behalf. Most of these immigrants stay even when their claims to asylum are exposed as bogus. The result, in Europe, is a demographic crisis that threatens to rock the foundations of domestic policy.”

To use my own country, Norway, as an example, some UN Conventions are directly incorporated into Norwegian law. This can have serious practical consequences. UN representatives have, for instance, criticized Norwegian anti-racism laws for not being strict enough. And the Norwegian Minister of Justice responded by saying the Norway would work to get more in line with UN recommendations. When we know that Islamic countries in the UN are working hard to get “Islamophobia,” meaning basically anything remotely critical of Islam, to be accepted as a form of “racism,” it becomes extremely dangerous to allow UN authorities to influence domestic policies on such critical issues. Recommendations from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees have also been used to influence Norwegian immigration policies. Admittedly, Norway is one of the more naïve, if not plain stupid countries of the world, but this still illustrates a genuine problem common to all Western nations.

There is usually a close correlation between those in the West who champion Multiculturalism and those who champion the United Nations as in important tool of international affairs. We have an internal enemy that is post-democratic or even post-Western. They believe in Multiculturalism at home, transnational organizations, “international law” and the United Nations abroad. They are weakening Western civilization from within.

Multiculturalism essentially means that all countries should become just like the UN, with hosts of cultures living together on equal terms and without any core culture. Multiculturalism states that all cultures are equally worthy or respect. The basic principle of the UN is that all nations are equally worthy of membership. Which means that the Sudan, Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran should be accepted on equal terms with, say, New Zealand. This is obviously ridiculous. Not all countries are worthy or respect, just as not all cultures are worthy of respect. It is an insult to human dignity that peaceful, democratic states should be treated the same way as terror sponsoring states that oppress their own population.

Our external enemy is the Islamic world. Our internal and our external enemies converge at the UN. Islamic countries want to use the UN as a tool to influence Western and infidel policies, bogging us down with regulations that make it more difficult to avoid being demographically overwhelmed by Muslim immigrants, placing obstacles in the way of stopping terrorist supporters in our countries and from dealing with nations supporting terrorism and Jihadist activities. Meanwhile, Islamic countries will ignore any “human rights” resolutions and will continue with impunity their oppression of Hindus, Christians or other non-Muslims in their own lands. All cultures are equal, but some are more equal than others. There can be no United Nations with Canada and Syria since these countries have absolutely nothing in common.

By discrediting or withdrawing from the UN, we will thus weaken both our external and our internal enemies. It would be more difficult for Islamic countries to influence infidel policies, and it would deal an ideological blow to Multiculturalists and transnational progressives, since the UN is the ultimate symbol of their world view of and a cornerstone of their ideology. It is easier to oppose Multiculturalism on a national scale if we first oppose it on an international scale.

So yes, I agree with Hugh Fitzgerald that we should starve the United Nations for funds, we should ridicule it at any given opportunity and we should de-legitimize it as much as possible. But I’m not sure whether this is enough in the long run. At some point, I think we need to pull the plug on the entire organization, make a clean break and withdraw from it.

Which brings us to the next question: How should international affairs be managed in this post-UN world?

As website EYE on the UN points out, “at the foundation of the UN in 1945, democracy dominated the character of the majority of member states, despite pockets of instability. Nevertheless, democracy was not made a pre-condition for membership in the UN. Sixty years later, the majority of UN members are not full-fledged democracies. The consequences for UN operations and outcomes are profound.”

The number of UN member states that are full-fledged democracies or “fully free” according to Freedom House is 88. The total number of UN member states is 191, which means that less than half of UN member states are full-fledged democracies. Any workable organization needs to be united around something that the member states actually have in common.

We could create a Democratic Union, where only democratic states could become members. This would automatically exclude pretty much all of the Islamic world, which would by itself be a great step forward. However, there is always the possibility that such an organization could become too much like the United Nations or the League of Nations, and become just as impotent and inefficient as its predecessors.

Some would argue that we need an organization for the entire world to “engage” the non-democratic states and spread democracy through interaction with them. This is a naïve view of world politics. There is little evidence that the UN has contributed to “spreading democracy.” On the contrary, it could have the dangerous effect of giving influence over democracies to the world’s worst regimes. Besides, if we want organizations that span the entire world, we already have non-political organizations for this. I don’t mind playing volleyball against Egypt or football against Saudi Arabia, I just don’t want either of them to have any political influence over my country.

Another possibility is an expansion of NATO. Jose Maria Aznar, former Prime Minister of Spain, has argued along these lines. Although not saying that we should dump the UN, he has advocated strengthening and renewing NATO:

“The main purpose of NATO should remain to collectively preserve our democracies. The new mission should be clear: to combat jihadism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.” “I don’t believe in appeasement against terrorism. I don’t believe in negotiation with terrorism. I believe in the necessity to fight against terrorists. It is a very serious mistake to negotiate with terrorism. Terrorists should be frightened and defeated, and this is possible. No other policy exists for me.”

“If defending our own values against the radical Islamists is the future of NATO, we must change the way the Alliance is conceived geographically and open its doors to those nations that share our values, that defend them on the ground, and that are willing to join in the fight against jihadism. Thus, NATO should invite Japan, Australia, and Israel to become full members.” “For me, Israel is a vital part of the Western world.”

Expanding NATO geographically to Japan could be a good idea. I have earlier stated that we have probably arrived at the end of the Western world order, meaning that no one civilization will alone be able to manage world affairs in the 21st century, the way the West did for some time. What the West should do is to enter into strategic alliances with non-Western states that share some of our political ideals and goals. We might consider some other Asian nations besides Japan. India, for instance. Maybe the UN is one holy cow the Hindus of India would be willing to slaughter. The greatest flaw with India as a potential ally is its huge Islamic fifth column.

Still, there are problems with this option, too. There are those who think NATO is just a relic from the Cold War. NATO countries would theoretically be bound together by culture. In practice, this is made difficult by the existence of the European Union, which is by many viewed as a vehicle for countering the United States. The EU also serves as an instrument for our internal enemy of Multiculturalism and transnational post-democrats, as well as a bridgehead for our external enemy, Islam. Maybe we need to get rid of the EU, too, for NATO to function properly.

Besides, NATO hasn’t always worked that well in practice, either. The attacks on the embassies of NATO member Denmark following the Muhammad cartoons didn’t trigger any response from NATO, although it was pretty close to an act of war. The Western world did not rally around Denmark, nor did NATO declare that these attacks on one member state would be viewed as an attack on all member states. This inaction confronted with physical attacks by Islamic thug states such as Iran and Syria was a shameful act of appeasement that is going to cost us dearly.

Kosovo, which has become a hotbed of international crime and Jihadist activities, could soon become an independent state, courtesy of NATO. Western powers bombed the Christian Serbs to pave for ethnic cleansing and the burning of churches and monasteries, all under the auspices of NATO soldiers. NATO thus directly established a Muslim state in Europe, but did nothing when the Islamic world launched a frontal assault in Western core values such as freedom of speech. We shouldn’t kid ourselves into believing that this has gone unnoticed in the Islamic world.

Another issue with both the Democratic Union and the expanded NATO options is what to do with Russia and China. Russia under Putin is hardly a model democracy, and China under the Communist Party certainly isn’t. But both countries are simply too important to ignore in international affairs. China in particular is probably, next to the Islamic world, our greatest challenge in the future. There is, however, a big difference. The Islamic world always has been our enemy and always will be. China does not have to be our enemy, although our relations will be complicated because of her size and her own Great Power ambitions.

Neither Russia nor China would be happy about the loss of their vetos on the UN Security Council. We will need some understanding with and some mechanism for consultations with both of them. It is nice to talk about lofty ideals about democracy and human rights, but in the real world, we still need a good dose of Machiavellian realpolitik as well. Perhaps, instead of any new and formalized organization, the most important countries will simply form ad hoc alliances to deal with issues as they arise.

I do not have all the answers to how such a post-UN world will be like. The most important principle at this point is to isolate and contain the Islamic world. We simply cannot allow our enemies to have direct influence over our policies, which they partly do have through the UN.

Is it unrealistic to talk about the collapse of the EU and the UN? I don’t know. The UN was created in the aftermath of WW2. It survived the Cold War, but now we are rapidly entering into a new world war. My bet is that we will see huge changes in world affairs in the near future, at least as large as those which laid the foundations for the UN to begin with.

Whatever usefulness the UN may have had was lost decades ago. It is today of little use to us, but of significant use to our enemies. The time has come to say farewell to the United Nations.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1224

"Howard Dean, Stalin, advanced psychopathy

By John Burtis

Source Canada Free Press

Saturday, July 29, 2006

"Sadly, for his family and the Democratic Party, which is hard pressed for heroes lately, Howard’s not ensconced at home simply seeing coelacanths in his bathtub or six foot bunny rabbits dressed as SS men eating Fruit Loops from his favorite bowl and leaving it, unwashed, in the sink for Mr. Dean clean up.

Nope, Howard Dean, physician, DNC Chairman, father, Sky Captain, former Vermont governor, health care guru, is going nuts publicly, on stage, in front of millions on television, with his ravings being broadcast to everyone awake at the particular time of his "speech," or later, to folks with a radio.

And with the sad state of today’s media, his noxious slurrings, outrageous bawlings, vicious stammerings, sheer insensate balderdash, and malicious imputations are transmitted as the learned offerings of an utterly sane man.

In fact, this crass lunatic is treated as a man of knowledge and import, whose crazed ideas are viewed as mainstream by a media straddling the same creaky bridge to an inchoate nowhere as Mr. Dean.

Imagine that it is 2017. And a family is entering the public restrooms in a large urban parking structure in, oh, say Santa Monica, California. As the father and his two boys walk in they are met by a disheveled, unkempt and wild eyed man who, it appears, has been awakened from a nap on the floor under the hand dryers.

Surprised, they back towards the door as this ghastly apparition staggers towards them, his arms waving in uneven circles, his wet shoes squeaking on the damp floor.

Suddenly he begins a guttural holler, unintelligible at first, but as he begins to yell more loudly, the words finally become clear.

"They’re all Stalinists and crooks and criminals! They have destroyed me and they’ll destroy you! The end is near! Nobody listened to me! Not to old Howard! Nooo! They did for awhile! But they threw me away! They said I was an idiot! But I’m here to tell you that I see them! They’re here! They’re everywhere! The Democrats are as bad as the dirty filthy Republicans! They’re all criminals and mafia! Are you people here to interview me? Eeeeeyyaaaaaah!"

The family quickly leaves and calls the police.

Within a few minutes four officers approach the man, who can offer no identification other than a small card on which is printed Brooks Brothers, 666 Fifth Avenue, NY, NY, and after a few minutes of a similar high decibel discussion, punctuated with shadow boxing, kicking, and some biting, the officers take the man into custody and transport him to jail.

There the watch commander decides the man needs a 72-hour involuntary commitment to a state hospital, and the subject, who claims to a medical doctor, and who also alleges that he is Howard Dean, the former head of the Democratic National Committee, among other wild and frightening stories, is loaded into a police car for immediate transport.

Although his family is finally located, they claim the man in question does not in any way resemble the Dr. Howard Dean they know and who is, by the way, on a lengthy sabbatical.

Today the only difference is that Mr. Howard Dean has handlers and that the Democrats, the media, and his family still listen to him, at least occasionally, and his off-color badinage.

But just imagine if these support mechanisms simply fell away and left Mr. Dean alone on a street corner in some city. How would he manage on his own? How would he get around? What would this poor sorry broken lunatic of a wreck of a man do for meaningful work? How would he express himself to common folk?

Mr. Dean has called Katherine Harris "Stalin" and a "crook" for simply doing her job and certifying the voting results that Mr. Dean’s Democratic paladins turned into her. If anybody in this mix is the criminals, it would be the Democrats who manned the polls, counted the ballots and forwarded them and their numbers, to say nothing of the chads, to Ms. Harris from the predominantly Democratic counties in question from the great Democratic hoax of their 2000 election sham.

But those small distinctions would matter only to a sane man and Mr. Howard Dean has proven over and over that he is no more sane than the real Mr. Stalin was.

It would be nice to see if Mr. Dean has marked up anybody’s electoral lists with a green pencil calling for more dead, more felons, and more illegal aliens to be added to the tallies like Mr. Stalin would have done in the margins.

Mr. Dean, it’s time to get help. Can you employ the wherewithal to seek the help you need before you end up wandering around yelling and sleeping in your suits and shoes on restroom floors like the poor unfortunates who inhabit so many nooks and crannies in our inner cities?

Physician, can you heal yourself or have things gone too far?  "

 http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/burtis072906.htm

"The House of Representatives voted passed -- by a margin of 317 to 93 -- a bill that would outlaw the use of credit cards on Internet gambling sites, and even allow service providers to block access to the sites themselves. And federal prosecutors recently busted online gambling site BETonSPORTS executive David Carruthers in a U.S. airport as he was changing flights.

Presumably the House and federal prosecutors had hopes for helping folks like me, gambling addicts, in mind when taking action. But my experience with online gambling may help shed some light on what if anything the political class should do about eBetting.

My habit began fairly innocuously at the age of 18 while I was studying for my university degree. I'd bet a little on big sporting events -- soccer, mostly. I occasionally stayed up nights to gamble on baseball. I didn't really understand the rules, but I was more than happy to stay awake in the hope that the team in the white shirts would run around the diamond more than the team in the blue shirts. It was a fun hobby, and it didn't cost much.

I couldn't say exactly when my gambling became a problem. Sometime in my second year of university I began staying up every night to watch US sports -- gambling a hundred, two hundred pounds on football, basketball and baseball. I missed classes and turned in my work late, if at all. Meanwhile, the stakes kept getting higher. I'd find myself betting £500 ($900) on a football (soccer) match -- more than I could hope to earn in a month. When there was no football being played I'd bet on things I knew nothing about: ice hockey, golf, cricket -- even the closing value of the New York stock exchanges. The day I discovered online casinos I graduated to a new level at which I could place a wager every minute, day or night. I made and lost fortunes, plummeting from unbelievable highs to almost suicidal lows in the blink of an eye.

I won't take you through all the tawdry details of my addiction, but online gambling cost me around £25,000 ($45,000) over three years. I had to drop out of university for a spell, and by the time I re-enrolled I'd fallen so far behind I had to repeat a year of study. I destroyed friendships. I damaged my relationship with my family almost beyond repair. I forfeited the right to trust and respect. It was only blind luck that I had people around me who still cared enough to bring me back from the edge.

You'd think, then, that I'd support any measures that might save others from going through the same agony. You'd think I'd hate gambling for what it did to me. Well, no. You see, what I learned is that it wasn't gambling that almost ruined me. It wasn't the flashing banner ads that enticed me at every turn on the Internet. It wasn't the temptation of easy money. I don't blame the bookmakers, websites or casinos one bit.

The fact that I gambled was my own fault. I worried obsessively about my life, and the only avenue of escape I could imagine was to gamble. You shouldn't expect solid logic from a compulsive gambler, but in my head I truly expected to win enough money so that I wouldn't need a degree; enough so that I'd never have to work. I wanted to escape from the pressures of university, and the uncertainty of what would come afterwards.

The same goes for every other gambler I spoke to. During my long (and still ongoing) recovery I spent hundreds of hours on compulsive gambling forums on the Internet. Almost every compulsive gambler I have spoken with believes that the reason they gamble is to escape problems in their personal life. A mortgage, a bad job, an unhappy marriage -- they all gamble for the moments of escape it brings -- moments in which they can forget what they have to go back to, and fantasize about a life without difficulties and complications. I've never spoken to a single compulsive gambler who claims to have started just for fun.

Based on my experience both as a compulsive gambler and a member of addiction support groups, I've always found the reasoning behind arguments to ban gambling misguided. The people who advocate it seem to see gambling as the antecedent of all social ills -- the cause of such things as crime, violence and suicide. I don't subscribe to that belief. Compulsive gambling isn't the cause, but rather the manifestation of pre-existing problems. We gamblers start off with something wrong with our heads -- the addiction is just the visible symptom. If you were to take away the gambling, the root causes of our dysfunction would still be there. I can't prove this, of course. It's simply a belief based on my experience.

Those who are against gambling can, perhaps, draw some comfort from that. If you agree with my view then you'll understand that widespread availability of gambling won't turn us all into an army of drooling simpletons who lose the grocery money playing online baccarat. Some will be more susceptible than others to the lure of easy money, but most will see gambling as what it is: a rather expensive form of entertainment, best used as an occasional pastime rather than a day job.

Instead of vilifying the gambling industry, then, it seems a more productive use of our resources would be to look into the reasons so many people find their lives so hopeless and unfulfilling that they feel their only option is to gamble them away. How should we fund our investigation, you ask? Well, taxes from legalized online gambling may put a few extra dollars in the government coffers. Just a thought.

Keith Taylor is a writer and ex-gambler living in the UK     http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=072606F

Directly from Powerlineblog.com.  I hope they're all prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Great, great news:

A former National Security Agency employee has been subpoenaed by a U.S. grand jury as part of an investigation into leaks of classified information.

The subpoena -- issued Wednesday by two FBI agents to whistleblower Russ Tice outside his Maryland home -- was drawn up by federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia, and the letter accompanying it is signed by an attorney from Justice Department headquarters -- a sign that the investigation is being overseen in Washington.

The subpoena says only that the grand jury is "conducting an investigation of possible violations of federal criminal laws involving the unauthorized disclosure of classified information." But it is believed to be the first public sign of the Bush administration's promised aggressive investigation into leaks about the National Security Agency's highly secret program of warrantless wiretapping of suspected terrorists.

Excellent. Tice has virtually confessed in the press, and his testimony may lead to other criminals who can also be charged. This UPI article does its best to cast Tice as a hero, calling him a "whistleblower." That's wrong, of course. There is a federal whistleblower statute, which prescribes specific procedures if a federal employee thinks he has wrongdoing to report. Those mechanisms do not include leaking to the terrorists via the New York Times. That isn't "whistleblowing," it's a federal crime. And here, the NSA's international terrorist surveillance program was plainly legal under all federal appellate court precedents, as we've pointed out countless times. So let's get on with the criminal prosecutions.

Via Power Line News.

"One of the guys", huh ????????         

Drunk or sober I don't trust either as far as I could throw 'em.  Then again that could be a version of a bull-chip tossing contest. 

Delighted, the leader of the delegation, Senator John McCain, quickly agreed. The after-dinner drinks went so well - memories are a bit hazy on who drank how much - that Mr. McCain, an Arizona Republican, later told people how unexpectedly engaging he found Mrs. Clinton to be. "One of the guys" was the way he described Mrs. Clinton, a New York Democrat, to some Republican colleagues.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain went on to develop an amiable if professionally calculated relationship. They took more official trips together, including to Iraq. They worked together on the Senate Armed Services Committee and on the issue of global warming. They made a joint appearance last year on "Meet the Press," interacting so congenially that the moderator, Tim Russert, joked about their forming a "fusion ticket." ..........

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/29/washington/29rivals.html?ei=5065&en=c05eac31f4771d4a&ex=1154836800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

I love capitalism, competition in a free market.  Consumers win every time.

If you get a new computer with XP, be sure and get one loaded with XP Pro.  After Vista OS is released Microsoft is going to discontinue support for regular XP in 2 years. 

Support for "XP Pro will continue for 7 years.  This info via Kim Komando's newsletter.

"Big bargains ahead for desktop PC buyers
Falling prices on LCDs and microprocessors should bring users the best PC bargains in years

By Dan Nystedt, IDG News Service
July 28, 2006

"A battle between the world's two biggest microprocessor makers and oversupply in the LCD (liquid crystal display) panel industry have sent prices tumbling. Users should see the mark downs showing up in stores any time.
"Over the next few months buyers can expect to continue to see PC bargains as the industry clears stock of older inventory," said Charles Smulders, managing vice president of Gartner's client computing group. He said the fourth quarter might also offer good buying opportunities as PC makers try to keep up sales prior to the launch of Windows Vista early next year.

Longer term, price declines and performance improvements will return to a more normal rate, meaning users should take advantage of the current window of opportunity. "......

http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/07/28/HNpcperfectstorm_1.html 

"KOFI ANNAN'S DRUG DEALERS
Source New York Post
July 28, 2006 -- What's this? Another scandal at the United Nations?

"Alas, it is so.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is so busy hectoring the United States and its allies on their supposed moral shortcomings, he cast a blind eye to the international drug-trafficking operation that was being run out of his mailroom.

Say this for Annan: On his watch, the United Nations has become an equal-opportunity corrupter of the first order: Fraud, sleaze and criminality can be found at all levels, not just the highest ones.

Remember the Oil-for-Food scandal, the multibillion-dollar ripoff that enriched Saddam Hussein, any number of U.N. officials and other diplomats - and even Annan's own son?

The drug dealing doesn't approach that level - what could?

But officials this week busted a ring that's smuggled tons of khat - an illegal East African stimulant - into this country over the past year and a half. The stash has a street value of some $10 million, and the proceeds reportedly helped finance Somali warlords.

In all, 44 people were indicted on federal drug charges (14 remain at large). Named as one of the four ringleaders was Osman Osman, a Somali clerk in the U.N. mailroom, where he's worked since 1977.

According to the federal indictment handed down in Manhattan, the ring used U.N. diplomatic pouches to smuggle the narcotics into the United States.

All of this comes less than two months after Annan's deputy, Mark Molloch Brown, publicly blasted the Bush administration for "failing to stand up for [the U.N.] against its domestic critics." Annan, needless to say, applauded his aide's remarks.

Maybe, just maybe, all that criticism is justified.

And, this time, could a drug-smuggling scheme operating right in the heart of the world body possibly be enough to spark efforts at reform, no matter how modest?

Just maybe?

Nah, never happen.

America's U.N. ambassador, John Bolton, has been one of the most outspoken in calling for a revamping of the organization's structure - but Democrats denounce him as a "bully" and vow to block any effort to reappoint him.

(Just what is it that the Democrats like about the United Nations, anyway? It's a perplexity.)

Whether it's Oil-for-Food - the biggest economic-political scandal in history - or the world body's impotence in dealing with terrorist groups like Hezbollah and rogue regimes like Iran, the United Nations has earned all the scorn that's been heaped upon it.

And now it's running drugs out of the mailroom.

Back in 1998, the General Assembly issued a lofty political declaration that established a worldwide "Office on Drugs and Crime" and pledged to "eliminate or significantly reduce both the demand for and supply of illegal drugs by 2008." 

Wouldn't it be something if copies of that high-minded document were sent out from the U.N. mailroom in diplomatic pouches that then carried smuggled drugs back to the United States?

No surprise, though. The United Nations, like Annan himself, knows no shame. "

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/kofi_annans_drug_dealers_editorial_.htm

Interesting.  Photo only, no explanation.

http://www.stevequayle.com/News.alert/06_Photo_of_Day/060726.photo.of.day.c.html

Source WorldNetDaily.com

After missing a deadline, the U.S. Department of Commerce finally has granted a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain complete disclosure of a congressionally unauthorized plan to implement a trilateral agreement with Mexico and Canada that critics say could lead to a EU-style alliance in North America.

The plan is being implemented through an office within the Department of Commerce called the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America," under the direction of Geri Word, who is listed as working in the agency's North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, office.

As WorldNetDaily previously reported, the White House has established executive branch working groups documented on the Commerce website SPP.gov. The Security and Prosperity Partnership, or SPP, was issued as a joint press statement by President Bush, Mexican President Vincente Fox and then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005.

Granting of the FOIA request comes after the Commerce Department missed a statutory requirement to respond within 20 businesses days.

The request was filed by author Jerome R. Corsi on June 19.

Corsi said the Commerce Department's compliance with the request is a major breakthrough.

"We're now going to get the documentary evidence to determine if the working groups in SPP.gov are creating new memoranda of understanding and trilateral agreements that under our Constitution should more appropriately be submitted to Congress as new treaties or laws," he said.

Corsi added that if this turns out to be the case, "we're going to present that evidence to the American people and let them make up their own minds."

Freedom of Information Act Officer Linda Bell mailed the "first interim response" yesterday and promises more response as batches of documents are processed, according to Brenda Dolan, a departmental officer.

Robert McGuire, attorney for Corsi, e-mailed Commerce July17, notifying the agency of the statutory violation in its failure to respond. He then received an e-mail from Dolan indicating the request was being processed. But McGuire asserted the response was unacceptable, saying the department "skipped a deadline required by law."

"Israel deeply regrets deaths of 4 UN observers in air strikes targeting Hizballah positions at Khaim, Eastern Sector of S. Lebanon

July 26, 2006, 2:26 PM (GMT+02:00)

Jerusalem wants UN secretary Kofi Annan to apologize for accusing Israel of deliberately targeting the UNIFIL post and promises a thorough inquiry.

DEBKAfile adds: The holier-than-thou tone of outrage taken by Annan is surprising when it generally known that many UN missions are exploited as the cover for foreign agents, often hostile, to carry out spying operations in war zones. The inadvertent Israeli air strike revealed the fact that the UN force in Lebanon includes Chinese observers. "
More...    http://debka.com/headline.php?hid=2986

______________________

"In Bint Jubeil, Israeli forces killed Khalil Amin Shivli, 44, commander of the Central Sector in South Lebanon, with four lieutenants Tuesday

July 25, 2006, 11:48 PM (GMT+02:00)

DEBKAfile: He is the most senior Hizballah officer to die in the Lebanon war. His function paralleled a regional brigade commander of the Israeli army."

http://debka.com/
____________________

"DEBKAfile Exclusive: Rice learns in Beirut that neither the Lebanese government nor its parliamentary majority wants a ceasefire

July 25, 2006, 12:56 AM (GMT+02:00)

Speaking privately to PM Fouad Siniora Monday, July 24, the secretary of state said, according to DEBKAfile’s exclusive Middle East sources: You don’t want to be like the Palestinian Authority which stands by and watches its people go to ruin.

She rejected pro-Syrian leaders’ demand for a ceasefire without first establishing its components. Washington is willing to consider a multinational force, or even a NATO presence, but would insist on the full implementation of Security Council resolution 1559, namely the disarming of Hizballah."..........

http://debka.com/headline.php?hid=2975

 Never thought I'd live to see CNN admit being a hand puppet for anything.   

"CNN's Robertson Admits: Hezbollah 'Had
Control' of His Piece

  "  Better late than never? On CNN's Reliable Sources on Sunday, CNN's senior international correspondent Nic Robertson added all of the caveats and disclaimers that he should have included in his story last week that amounted to his giving an uncritical forum for the terrorist group Hezbollah to spout unverifiable anti-Israeli propaganda. Back on July 18, Hezbollah took Robertson and his crew on a tour of a heavily damaged south Beirut neighborhood. The Hezbollah "press officer" even instructed the CNN camera: "Just look. Shoot. Look at this building. Is it a military base? Is it a military base, or just civilians living in this building?"
    In his original story, Robertson had no complaints about the journalistic limitations of a story put together under such tight controls, and Robertson himself at one point seemed to agree with the Hezbollah propaganda claim that Israeli jets had targeted a civilian area: "As we run past the rubble, we see much that points to civilian life, no evidence apparent of military equipment."

    [This item, by Rich Noyes, was posted Monday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]

    Challenged by Reliable Sources host (and Washington Post media writer) Howard Kurtz on Sunday, Robertson suggested Hezbollah has "very, very sophisticated and slick media operations," that the terrorist group "had control of the situation. They designated the places that we went to, and we certainly didn't have time to go into the houses or lift up the rubble to see what was underneath," and he even contradicted Hezbollah's self-serving spin: "There's no doubt that the [Israeli] bombs there are hitting Hezbollah facilities."

    But the closest Robertson came to making any of these points in the taped package that aired last week was admitting that "we [he and his CNN crew] didn't go burrowing into all the houses," after pointing out (for the second time) that "we didn't see any military type of equipment" in the area Hezbollah chose to let them tour.

    Five days later, Robertson argued that "journalistic integrity" required skepticism: "When you hear their [Hezbollah's] claims, they have to come with more than a grain of salt, that you have to put in some journalistic integrity. That you have to point out to the audience and let them know that this was a guided tour by Hezbollah press officials along with their security, that it was a very rushed affair."

    While some viewers undoubtedly deduced out that it was "a guided tour" from the numerous soundbites from the Hezbollah press officer, it's not as if Robertson ever complained about his limitations or explicitly warned viewers that there was no way he could confirm any of the claims.

    For more, including an audio/video clip of Robertson's piece which will be added to the posted version of this CyberAlert: www.mediaresearch.org

    Nic Robertson, of course, isn't the only correspondent going on these Hezbollah-arranged tours, as CNN's Reliable Sources noted. In a set-up to his interview with Robertson, Kurtz played clips of NBC's Richard Engel and CBS's Elizabeth Palmer relating their trips into the damaged areas, with Palmer providing the sort of disclaimer that Robertson failed to include last week: "This morning, Hezbollah showed journalists around the ruins of its former stronghold, but Hezbollah is also determined that outsiders will only see what it wants them to see."

    Now, more of Robertson's live interview from Lebanon (10:15am EDT) on the July 23 Reliable Sources (transcript corrected against the actual broadcast):

Excerpted, this is a very powerfully worded article about the corrupt UN, its mindset toward democracy, freedom, Israel defending its very life. 

Taking it one step further it shows why the UN is so anti-US ... it only gives lip service to democracy and freedoms which are built into the fabric of the US. 

Yes the UN is anti-Israel, anti-US because those two nations are what the current UN will never be without a house cleaning from the ground up.  I don't foresee that happening within my lifetime.  Hope I'm surprised.

"How the UN legitimizes terrorists

By Alan M. Dershowitz
Published July 25, 2006

Source Chicago Tribune

<excerpt>

 ......"The UN peacekeepers on the Lebanese border have turned out to be collaborators with Hezbollah, videotaping the Hezbollah kidnapping of three Israeli soldiers in 2000 and then refusing to release the video--which could have helped in the rescue--on the grounds that it might compromise their "neutrality."

This is a real test for the UN. If it cannot--or will not--distinguish between terrorists who target civilians and a democracy that seeks to stop the terrorism while minimizing civilian casualties, it has become part of the problem, rather than part of the solution."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0607250113jul25,0,1381784.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-he%22%22

Looks like Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame may have filed a personal damages lawsuit to deflect attention away from something else more sinister as attention is focused William Jefferson's documents and they dig deeper.

This article which is excerpted is well worth clicking the link and reading.

"The documents seized in the FBI raid on the offices of Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) remain unread by Justice Department investigators, pending a federal Appeals Court ruling scheduled for August 27. Jefferson is anxious to overturn the ruling of federal Judge Hogan of the Washington, DC federal District Court, who allowed the raid. One can only surmise that the seized documents contain material even more embarrassing than the discovery of $90,000 in cash in Jefferson’s freezer.

But we already know a bit about the charges and some of the alleged partners of Congressman Jefferson. Two people have pleaded guilty to bribing him. One of them is Vernon L. Jackson, owner of a technology company called iGate. The Washington Post reported: 

Federal authorities have alleged in court documents that Jefferson took more than $500,000 in bribes in exchange for using his official position to promote iGate’s technology in Nigeria, Ghana and Cameroon. The FBI said it videotaped Jefferson taking a $100,000 payoff on July 30, 2005.

The affidavit discloses an alleged scheme in which Jefferson introduced officials from Netlink Digital Television (NDTV), a Nigerian company, to Jackson.

NDTV agreed to pay iGate nearly $45 million for the right to use its technology and to distribute it in Nigeria. The affidavit alleges that Jefferson, without iGate’s knowledge, separately negotiated with NDTV officials to receive $5 for each subscriber in “return for Jefferson’s official assistance if the deal was successful.”