Blog @ MoreWhat.com

So who cares if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid opposes the ground zero mosque and Senator Dick Durbin supports it? Answer: only liberals who view this party split as one more reason to expect a severe beating at the polls in November. What? Reid takes his position based on election year politics and Durbin concludes he should support the mosque for the same election year considerations?

More to the point is that Dick Durbin uses the lame argument that this is about religious freedom and the idea that America is a cultural melting pot. He says NYC Mayor Bloomberg supports it and that’s good enough for him.

Once again it is not about religious freedom. No one is suggesting that Muslims are not allowed to practice their religion. Unless you agree they believe all infidels must convert or die and somehow that is not at odds with the founding of our nation. Much about Islam is at odds with the founding of our nation.

If Mayor Bloomberg is so supportive of the ground zero mosque and as Durbin suggests this is about religious freedom ask them this. What about the St Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church that was destroyed on September 11, 2001 when a group of Muslims committed acts of terrorism or war at the World Trade Center?

It is approaching a decade later and their church is still not rebuilt. You can follow this link if you are unfamiliar with the story. Where was Bloomberg’s support for St Nicholas’ Church during his years in office. You know, the years he extended by corrupt politics. While you’re at it ask the Port Authority why the St Nicholas Church is still not replaced.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Howard Dean’s approach is to sound like he gives a damn while pushing the liberal agenda. That is clear throughout this vid.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The name says it all. Wikileaks produces ’sensitive materials to communicate to the public’. In the name of a self-proclaimed ‘multi-jurisdictional public service’ this organization displays information without regard for the damage it may cause. In their own words the material is sensitive. They should understand that no matter how noble their intent might be the consequences of their actions can be viewed as irresponsible. That reasonable distinction between transparency and irresponsible behavior trumps any noble intent.

Of the nine people listed on their board for 2007 five are described as activist, dissident or social justice advocate. The other four are listed as writer, security expert or physicist.

If the actions of others resulted in the death of an activist, dissident, advocate or writer, etc., it would be no surprise if these same people at Wikileaks expressed outrage and a desire for justice. If death is caused by their brand of ‘transparency’ to someone outside their sphere of influence it is predicted no such outrage or call for justice would be forthcoming from Wikileaks.

In the days ahead a more complete accounting of Wikileaks latest crusade will develop. Questions about the content and validity of ’sensitive materials’ displayed will be raised. The effect and possible ‘unintended consequences’ may also be analyzed.

If harm to anyone comes from this action by Wikileaks fair is fair. They should be held accountable for their actions. Like most other things in life you can take whistleblowing too far. Any reasonable method for any reasonable purpose can be misused. It is only a matter of time before a group like Wikileaks finds that threshhold and violates standards of ethics and good judgment.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

story source:

WikiLeaks Founder Defends Releasing US Documents on Afghanistan

Afghan, Pakistani Reactions at Odds Over Leaked US Documents

Analysis: Leaks Only a ‘Snapshot’ of Afghan War Effort

‘and jihad is not terrorism’ is what one of the five said outside a Pakastani court ealier this year according to AP.

So the story goes, made contact with a group tied to al-Qaida in Novvember 2009. Traveled to Pakistan in December of 2009. Arrested in the home of the leader of the group they contacted also in December 2009. Defended by CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, who says the five made a ‘farewell video’ stating ‘Muslims must be defended.’

So they didn’t get life for terrorism in a Pakastani prison why? Back in December 2009, Pakistani police have said they plan to ask the court to press terrorism charges, carrying life sentences.

A Pakistani court on Thursday sentenced five American students accused of contacting militants in Pakistan over the Internet and plotting terrorist attacks to 10 years each in prison, the deputy prosecutor said.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

If the recent rev/con of the United Nations on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty for 2010 is any indication the world is no closer to being the nuke-free peaceful utopia envisioned by UN rhetoric or that of US President Barack Hussein Obama. Statements made by Iran and Israel merely extend the never ending debate on Middle East peace that is equally illusive.

The following report from a few days ago inspired this post.

Israel denounces NPT ‘hypocrisy’ as Iran hails accord
by Gavin Rabinowitz Gavin Rabinowitz – Sat May 29, 4:24 pm ET

TORONTO (AFP) – Israel Saturday denounced as “hypocritical” a resolution adopted by the Non-Proliferation Treaty’s 189 nations and said it would refuse to take part in a conference on a nuclear-weapons-free Middle East.

Israel said the resolution adopted at the United Nations on Friday singles out the Jewish state and fails to mention arch-foe Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

One may have to take the announcement above at face value until the 28 page doc from the UN is available. As of this writing the following notice was found at the UN’s website.

8:58 AM 6/2/2010
Parts I and II of the Final Document of the 2010 NPT Review Conference are still being finalized and will be posted here (in English only) as soon as they are available. Other language versions will be added when ready.

It always seems that some sources are able to receive these items before the general public. But there are other items that help paint the picture.

UN NPT conference backs steps to disarm
Sat May 29 2010 12:05

A Major Gap

The disarmament action plan also inevitably leaves a major gap, since it doesn’t obligate four nations that are not members of the treaty - India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea, all of which have or are suspected of having nuclear arsenals.

On the Middle East, Arab states and Israel’s allies had been at odds over wording in the plan to convene a conference in 2012 to begin a process to turn the region into a zone free of nuclear and other mass-destruction weapons.

This Arab proposal for a WMD-free zone, to pressure Israel to give up its undeclared arsenal of perhaps 80 nuclear warheads, was endorsed by the 1995 NPT conference but never acted on.

Israel has long said a full Arab-Israeli peace must precede such weapons bans. But at this conference the US, Israel’s chief supporter, said it welcomed “practical measures” leading toward the goal of a nuke-free zone, and US diplomats discussed possibilities with Israel.

And what about Iran?

NPT 101: Is Iran violating the nuclear treaty?
By Scott Peterson, Staff writer / May 4, 2010
Istanbul, Turkey

Is Iran violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)?The answer isn’t black and white. It depends on whom you ask – and how deftly you define “violation.” But in essence, Iran is following the letter but not always the spirit of the NPT.

Iran claims it is in complete compliance with its NPT obligations, including declaring all its nuclear material and allowing inspectors to monitor its facilities. It advocates against nuclear weapons and notes that despite thousands of hours of inspections in Iran, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – the United Nations body that monitors NPT compliance – has found no evidence of a bomb program.

It is not like the IAEA never dropped the ball regarding Iraq, Iran or other investigations they have undertaken. No one really knows the status of Iran’s nuke program but their repeated call for the elimination of Israel raises suspicion about nuclear weapons.

But let’s not get all worked up over Israel’s denouncement of this year’s nuclear theatre courtesy of the United Nations. Just last year there was at least one similar response by another nation under similar circumstances.

Friday, September 25, 2009, 00:47 IST
UN passes NPT resolution, India says no

New Delhi: India refused to abide by the UN Security Council resolution asking all non-NPT nations to sign the pact, saying it cannot accept the “externally prescribed norms or standards” on issues that are contrary to its national interests or infringe on its sovereignty.

India maintained that it cannot join the NPT as a non-weapon country even as it reiterated its commitment to no testing and no-first-use besides non-discriminatory universal non-proliferation.

The details may have changed over the years but generally speaking we are no closer to a nuke-free world than we were decades ago. Nothing anyone has expressed improved the chances of the world becoming peaceful. Perhaps focusing on nukes misses the point although it makes for popular news stories. War and other armed conflict with ‘conventional weapons’ as well as violence in general needs to be addressed in addition to nuclear threats before ‘universal’ peace can be achieved. Something that seems unlikely given the history of humans on this planet.

It would be helpful to keep the nuclear club at its present size. It would be more helpful to keep terrorists from making an IED from nuclear material e.g., a ’suitcase bomb.’ It might be fair to state that government leaders over a long period of time have caused this predicament in the way relationships, strategies and tactics have been arranged. Changing alliances and ‘national interests’ at odds with solutions that benefit all or at least do not unduly burden some while others gain are at the heart of the matter.

Until those trends are resolved the larger problem of a nuke-free world and an end to armed conflict are simply wishful thinking.

If only wishing for a perfect world made it so.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Jan Brewer knocks another one outta the park. Enjoy.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Delivery on the lighter side but the message still rings true.

Illegal Immigrants: Deport Thyself

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Enjoy part two and the rest of the series. And pass this message along.

Illegal Immigrants: Deport Thyself

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Immigration once was a benefit to all. Circumstances have changed.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Mexican immigration rules vs US Immigration rules. Wuz up Felipe?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The third video in this series is a reminder of the liberal shamnesty agenda and the Democratic party’s endorsement of Calderon’s shamnesty message to Congress.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The second video in this series includes a discussion of Calderon’s errors in his push for shamnesty. It is also interesting the Mexican president criticizes Arizona’s law and how it might be misused yet Mexico was slammed by ‘human rights’ groups for mistreating illegals. Conveniently Mexico claims they no longer view illegal entry as a crime yet their handling of such matters includes more protections than they suggest the US should employ.

Calderon is a liberal PR nightmare in the making. That’s helpful for November 2010.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

For the record, a series of videos will be presented here on the issue of illegal immigration. The content of this first video in the series is absolutely not endorsed by this blog. To the contrary, Felipe Calderon is in lock step with the open borders, shamnesty crowd. Keep in mind that US Congressional Democrats gave him a standing ovation. Needless to say, Republican members of Congress did not.

But it IS an election year in the US. And the GOP can read the polls. 2/3 to 3/4 of the US population is ‘bone tired’ of illegal immigration. In 2007 the GOP was not so keen on enforcing US immigration law or securing the borders.

What changed? Tea Parties didn’t hurt. Angry voters got their attention. The anti-incumbent mood was a wake up call. This year the public may finally be heard. Thank you Arizona for getting the ball rolling again.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Illegal immigrants: Deport thyself

President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and other US officials have not read SB 1070, the Arizona law signed by Governor Jan Brewer. Yet they criticize it and those who support it. The race card and other typical liberal tactics are employed to denounce opposition to illegal immigration and efforts to correct it. Both Democrats and Republicans and much of the corporate world support what they call ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ which is nothing more than open borders and amnesty for illegals.

President Calderon of Mexico addressed the US Congress this week. He criticizes US immigration policy even though enforcement rarely if ever exists. Allowing open borders and illegal immigration for decades is what caused the problem. An example of Mr Calderon’s dishonesty on this issue is demonstrated by the excerpt below.

Calderon Criticism of Arizona Law Overlooks Mexico’s Tough Immigration Policy

Mexico repeatedly has been cited by human rights groups for abusing or turning a blind eye to the abuse of migrants from Central America. Until recently, Mexican law made illegal immigration a criminal offense — anyone arrested for the violation could be fined, imprisoned for up to two years and deported. Mexican lawmakers changed that in 2008 to make illegal immigration a civil violation like it is in the United States, but their law still reads an awful lot like Arizona’s.

It’s real simple. The US needs strong immigration laws and associated enforcement. Employer sanctions are needed to dry up the job market for illegals. That effort and related immigration policies would solve the problem in a relatively short period of time.

And after self-deportation of illegals is achieved by eliminating taxpayer handouts that fuel illegal immigration supported by those listed above the liberal argument can finally be defeated. Meaning those who truly and honestly want to come here can get back in line and do it the right way. And those who have abused the situation for selfish purposes will no longer be enabled by lack of enforcement.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related:

Mexico Tourism Promoter Running Threatening Ads in Arizona Newspaper?

crossposted at Maggie’s Notebook

As much as China and Russia have demonstrated their opposition toward ’sanctions’ against Iran’s nuclear pursuits more impotent reaction appears forthcoming from the security council at the United Nations. As noted below, a ‘fourth round’ of UN sanctions indicates previous provisions have accomplished nothing.

If Iran sends uranium to Turkey and Brazil for further enrichment with the stated medical purposes expressed a minimum of several questions come to mind. What is to stop others from intercepting and/or advancing enrichment to weapons grade? What value can sanctions have if they have not worked to date and Iran’s nuclear pursuit advances unchecked?

Spokespersons from Iran and Turkey have offered political rhetoric on the topic. Western nations have expressed a real concern that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. Also in the report below readers are reminded of frequent expressions from Iranian leaders that they intend to eliminate the state of Israel.

And the past and current situation with Iran has done nothing to resolve these issues. But it has allowed Iran to continue unimpeded. It is long past the time for an effective response to Iranian nukes. And all that sending uranium around the planet achieves is higher risk that the material will be used by rogue states or terrorists supported by them.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from VOA News….

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the United States and other major world powers have agreed on a draft resolution that could impose a fourth round of United Nations sanctions on Iran.

Clinton made the announcement in testimony to a Senate committee Tuesday, a day after Iran announced a plan to send some of its enriched uranium to Turkey in exchange for nuclear fuel.

The Security Council is set to hold consultations on the sanctions draft Tuesday.

Clinton said the plan followed talks among the five permanent Security Council members - the United States, Britain, China, France and Russia, as well as Germany.

She noted the agreement had been reached in cooperation with China and Russia - two nations that have previously resisted imposing more sanctions on Tehran.

On Monday, Iran signed an agreement with Turkey and Brazil to send 1,200 kilograms of low-enriched uranium to Turkey in exchange for higher-enriched nuclear reactor fuel to be used in a medical research reactor in Tehran.

Both Turkey and Brazil are non-permanent members of the Security Council.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast accused Western nations Tuesday of “seeking excuses” to avoid resolving the nuclear dispute with his country.

Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said talk of sanctions could “spoil the atmosphere” and lead to an “escalation” of statements that might “provoke” Iranian public opinion.

The United States and its Western allies accuse Iran of working to make a nuclear weapon. Iran says its atomic program is for peaceful purposes.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with top Cabinet members Tuesday to consider a response to the Iranian plan.

Israel views a nuclear-armed Iran as a threat to its existence because of repeated calls by Iranian leaders for the demise of the Jewish state.