Blog @ MoreWhat.com

It is difficult to determine which one is attempting to be more deceptive, Hillary Clinton or Iran’s Foreign Minister. Do you suppose inviting Mottaki to a sit down was worked out behind the scenes with Iran and the White House? Let’s see, there’s a NATO meeting in Brussels and a ‘conference’ gets conveniently scheduled at the same time. What an unremarkable coincidence that Clinton invites Iran to the sit down. And Iran’s FM predictably ‘considers’ the option, makes a few equally predictable comments hoping to make this all look spontaneous. Who’s buying that after Obama states he’s willing to do just about anything to appease those who would do us harm at the first opportunity?

Sure, according to Mottaki, Iran wants nothing but ‘peace and stability’ in Afghanistan. Just like they did not hing to disrupt that pursuit in Iraq or never said they want the elimination of Israel. And if memory serves, they refer to the US as Satan and want all infidels to die. Last time anyone checked, most of the US population would qualify as ‘infidels’ minus any sleeper cells. It is not known if those residing in the US who are Muslim meet the criteria for not being ‘infidels.’

Both Russia who is helping the Iranians with nuclear projects and the Iranians themselves are probably quite pleased that all this diplomatic foolishness takes such a long time. Whether they are ready to make or use nuclear weapons does not really matter. With all the wasted time over diplomacy with those who have no use for it Iran will most likely have or use a nuke before the talking ever stops.

Here once again is the requisite reminder that appeasement and surrender did not work for Neville Chamberlain. What makes anyone think it will work now? Probably the same reason that those who approve of Obama’s New Deal brand of socialism think it will work when it never has. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Iran Considering US Invite to Afghan Talks

Iran said it is weighing a U.S. invitation to participate in an international conference on Afghanistan.

Iranian FM Manouchehr Mottaki (source: Wikipedia)

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told Serbian state television Friday that Iranian officials were considering whether to attend the March 31 talks, but would not say whether they would.

Mottaki said he would discuss the matter with Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini during Frattini’s upcoming visit to Tehran. Italy said that trip has been postponed because of Iranian officials’ recent anti-Israeli and anti-American comments.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proposed that Iran be invited to the conference during a NATO meeting in Brussels Thursday. She said Iran would be invited as a “neighbor” and that the meeting would include other neighboring countries as well as NATO members and donors.

In the interview Friday, Mottaki blamed the U.S. for Afghanistan’s deteriorating security and said Iran’s strategy is the “return of peace and stability” in the country.

Iran’s invitation to attend the Afghan talks comes as the United States reviews the previous administration’s policy of isolating Tehran, including whether to open a low-level diplomatic office there.

The location of the conference has not been announced, but Clinton suggested Thursday that United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon open the ministerial-level meeting. She also suggested U.N. special envoy for Afghanistan Kai Eide chair the proceedings.

NATO ministers were reviewing the situation in Afghanistan ahead of upcoming presidential elections. They agreed on the need to assist Afghan authorities in providing security to assure a fair and free vote.

The United States has pledged an additional 17,000 troops for Afghanistan, and other NATO members are being asked for further contributions.

Delegating tasks is one thing but would someone please explain how it would not be entirely Hillary Rodham Clinton’s fault for dropping the ball on this one? A US Secretary of State tries to be cute and offer the Russian Foreign Minister a gift featuring one word in Russian and gets it wrong. Another fine example that the Obama Administration is amateur hour.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

‘Reset Button’

Vice President Joe Biden said last month that it was time for the two countries to hit the “reset button” in their relations, a phrase often repeated since. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev likewise said he was “reassured” by the positive signals coming from Washington since Barack Obama’s victory.

Clinton played on Biden’s phrase for photographers at the beginning of her meeting with Lavrov, handing him a green-wrapped box complete with bow and containing a mock “reset” button.

The two laughed as Lavrov explained that the mistranslated Russian word on the button didn’t say “reset,” as intended, but rather “overcharge.”

“We won’t let you do that to us,” Clinton said in response, before getting more serious. “We mean it and we look forward to it.”

Lavrov smiled and thanked her.

“We’re going to push the reset button of constructive cooperation,” Lavrov told reporters after the meeting.

The report indicates Hillary Clinton said the US will pursue a two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians. How does that square with her quote below that different opinions will be respected? And how can she claim ‘time is of the essence’ if not to mean she wants a political win for her 2012 resume’? With at least one neighboring state calling for Israel to be eliminated and no significant history of progress towards peace since 1948 or before no one can really expect this situation to change soon.

Without serious impediments placed on groups like Hamas and their rocket attacks from a wide variety of nations in the world including Arab countries asking for cease fire agreements is just more of the same that has accomplished nothing worthwhile over decades. It is obvious the vast majority of nations in the world are not interested in solving this conflict. At least not in a way that would benefit all involved. When all the opinions vary and feature self-serving proposals or strategies as solutions there can be little optimism for the illusive prize some call peace. It would appear that most do not really seek peace but having their own way.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the United States will press for a two-state solution to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Mrs. Clinton met with Israeli officials in Jerusalem Tuesday as part of her first foray into the region as Secretary of State.

Secretary Clinton’s pledge of support for a two-state solution may put the Obama administration at odds with Israel’s new leadership. The country may soon be led by the hawkish Benjamin Netanyahu who has refused to declare his support for a totally independent and sovereign Palestinian state.

At a news conference with Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on Tuesday, Secretary Clinton said the White House believes that moving toward a two-state solution is in Israel’s best interests.

“It is our assessment as I expressed yesterday and again today that eventually the inevitability of working toward a two-state solution seems inescapable,” Clinton said. “That doesn’t mean that we don’t respect the opinions of others who see it differently. But from my perspective and from the perspective of the Obama administration time is of the essence.”

Clinton’s schedule on Tuesday included a meeting with Mr. Netanyahu, who has been designated to form a coalition government after last month’s inconclusive elections. Mr. Netanyahu has said he wants to focus less on negotiations with the Palestinians and concentrate more on shoring up the Palestinian economy. He also supports the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank - something the United States sees as an obstacle to peace.

The Secretary of State acknowledged the road ahead will be difficult. She said the process of peace must start with finding a solution to the Gaza conflict. She called on Hamas to cooperate.

“The first step right now, not waiting for a new government, is a durable cease fire, but that can only be achieved if Hamas ceases the rocket attacks,” Clinton said. “No nation should be expected to sit idly by and allow rockets to assault its people and its territory. These attacks must stop.”

Israel’s defense ministry says militants in Gaza have fired more than 120 rockets at Israel since the end of Israel’s 22-day assault in January.

Mrs. Clinton on Tuesday also sought to ease Israeli concerns over the new U.S. approach to Iran. During his campaign, President Barack Obama said his administration would be open to dialogue with the Iranian leadership, triggering concern among many here that Washington might soften its position on Tehran.

Secretary Clinton assured the Israelis that will not happen.

“When we talk about engagement with Iran, do not be in any way confused,” Clinton said. “Our goal remains the same: to dissuade and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and continuing to fund terrorism. It happens to be a goal that is shared not only with Israel but with many countries that view Iran through the same prism that we do.”

Regarding Syria, she announced Washington plans to send two envoys to Damascus soon to begin discussions on improving relations with the U.S. and furthering peace efforts in the region.

On Wednesday, Mrs. Clinton is due to travel to the West Bank for meetings with President Mahmoud Abbas and other Palestinian officials.

For those who continue to offer their unconditional support for President Obama’s Administration another report indicates public opposition for his policies and the suggestion he embraces appeasement as well as other dangerous strategies in both his foreign and domestic agendas are anchored in fact. Understandably Russia has been puffing up their chest lately as the anxiety of a diminished role in international affairs and the lesser ability to influence outcomes since the demise of the Soviet Union in the eighties and nineties takes its toll. Rather than incorporate these conditions into foreign policy of strength there is evidence the Obama Administration once again prefers the path of appeasement in an attempt to resolve other issues. In other words, we will abandon the missile defense program in Europe if you help foil Iran’s plans for a nuclear weapon.

Russia maintains no such agreement is in the works. Obama and his crew publicly suggest missile defense may not be necessary if Russia helps out. Any way you slice it there is every reason to conclude these political statements are simply that and Obama is fully invested in appeasement. It is another way of saying we won’t challenge you if you won’t hurt us. How is that going to improve national security? The sad truth is it won’t. Just see how it worked for Neville Chamberlain.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

In Moscow, Medvedev spokeswoman Nataliya Timakova said that Obama’s letter contained various proposals and assessments, but offered no quid pro quo.

“Obama’s letter contained various proposals and assessments of the current situation,” she said . “But the message did not contain any specific proposals or mutually binding initiatives.”

She further disclosed that Obama’s letter was in response to one from Medvedev and that the Kremlin appreciated the “positive” spirit of Obama’s message.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama has written to his Russian counterpart suggesting U.S. plans for a missile defense system in Eastern Europe might be unnecessary if Moscow helped in blocking Iran’s progress toward building long-range missiles, senior administration officials said on Tuesday.

Plans for deploying U.S. missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic, ostensibly to guard against Iranian attacks on U.S. allies in Europe, are among a host of issues that soured U.S.-Russia relations during the former Bush administration. There have been indications Obama, who has vowed to shake up American foreign policy, might be willing to set aside the missile defense system.

“President Obama sent a letter to Medvedev that covered a broad range of issues, including missile defense and how it relates to the Iranian threat,” one senior administration official said on condition of anonymity to discuss private communications of the president.

“The suggestion is that need for missile defense deployment could become unnecessary if, working together with Russia, the Iran missile threat is addressed,” the official told The Associated Press.

Obama Offers Russia Secret Missile Defense Deal
By VOA News
03 March 2009

Senior officials in the Obama administration say President Barack Obama has offered Russia a deal involving a controversial plan by the U.S. to deploy a missile defense system.

The officials say Mr. Obama made the offer in a letter delivered early last month to his Russian counterpart, Dmitri Medvedev.

In the letter, the U.S. president offers to reconsider plans to deploy a missile defense system in Eastern Europe, in exchange for Moscow’s help to stop Iran from developing long-range weapons. Russia has developed economic and military ties with Tehran, and has resisted the hardline U.S. stance against Iran.

Russia has yet to respond to Washington’s overtures. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will discuss missile defense with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when they meet Saturday in Geneva.

Presidents Obama and Medvedev will meet in London April 2.

The missile defense plan angered Moscow when it was proposed by the Bush administration. Former President George W. Bush wanted the defense system, saying it was needed to deter Iran in case Tehran developed a nuclear warhead to fit on long-range missiles.

The Bush administration’s plans included building a high-tech radar facility in the Czech Republic, and deploying 10 interceptor missiles in Poland - two nations that Russia once considered within its “sphere of influence.” Mr. Bush rebuffed a Russian counter-proposal to install part of the system on its territory and jointly operate it.

Vice President Joe Biden has used the colloquial phrase “press the reset button” to describe the Obama administration’s goal of reviving and renewing Washington’s relations with Russia.

Over the years many published reports indicate terrorism is fostered in the West Bank and Gaza for the high unemployment, predominantly youthful population with no opportunity and a crowded populace living in poverty and dire conditions. Then how did Abbas calculate they would need $2.8 billion to rebuild Gaza? How does Clinton determine $300 million in aid will make Gaza peaceful and responsible? And then there are 75 ‘donor’ nations meeting to raise more money. The better question is how smart do you have to be to realize if you launch rockets against Israel long enough to force retaliation after the smoke clears you will receive billions of dollars to do with as you please? The secondary question is this. If Gaza is so bleak and suffering from deplorable conditions why would it cost that much to rebuild and why do the Palestinians need wads of cash to ‘cover a budget’ and for ‘institutional reforms and economic development’? Is this the first time they have ever received money in this manner? No.

There seem to be glaring contradictions not to mention an international scam that the US should not condone. Pay to bury the dead and patch up the wounded and humanitarian aid you can verify but how do they expect to avoid terrorists from getting there hands on the money? Hamas may not touch donations directly but there is nothing to stop millions from filtering to them through the many sinister alliances present in the region or across the street.

And some wonder why the situation never changes.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the United States’ pledge of $300 million in humanitarian aid for Gaza is intended to help achieve a Palestinian state that is “peaceful” and “responsible.”

In remarks Monday in Egypt at the international donors’ conference on reconstructing the Gaza Strip Clinton said U.S. monetary support for Gaza cannot be separated from achieving a “comprehensive peace” in the region.

Clinton said an additional $600 million of U.S. aid will go to the Palestinian Authority to cover budget shortfalls, institutional reforms and economic development. The U.S. says none of the money will benefit Hamas militants, who do not recognize Israel’s right to exist.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told international donors that financial aid without an end to the conflict with Israel would be “insufficient.”

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon warned that rebuilding the coastal enclave will be a daunting task as long as border crossings between Israel and Gaza remain closed, calling the situation “intolerable.”

Representatives from at least 75 donor nations are meeting in Sharm el-Sheik with a goal of raising money to rebuild Gaza after Israel’s military offensive.

The Palestinian Authority says it needs to raise $2.8 billion to reconstruct Gaza.

The six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council said Sunday they would contribute $1.65 billion.

This trip is Clinton’s first to the Middle East as U.S. secretary of state. After the conference, Clinton is scheduled to meet with Israeli and Palestinian officials, including Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Israel and Hamas declared separate cease-fires in January, but rocket fire into Israel from Gaza has continued and Israel has launched targeted attacks on militants and smuggling tunnels in Gaza.
Some information for this report was provided by AFP and AP.

“The stimulus was political nirvana: cut taxes and raise spending,” said Robert Bixby, executive director of the fiscal watchdog group Concord Coalition, who is among those invited to the summit. “This is the opposite; it is the political agenda from hell.”

Some of the promises made by Barack Obama may have disappeared. Much talk of bipartisanship and reaching across the aisle leading up to the stimulus package and his administration in general along with transparency have faded. Quotes like the one above needed to generate debate on the stimulus before it became law. As cited by many in Congress, mostly from the GOP, no one may have had time and no one certainly read the 1000 plus page document. Hundreds of politicians voting on something they know little if anything about. And the public was shut out. Where is the promise from Obama that the public would be able to view and comment on the ‘proposal’?

Now we finally hear warnings and criticism that deficits will be too high, long term economic health is being ignored for expediency and there may be a ‘grand plan’ for the third rail of politics in the near future. While concern is voiced about entitlements and they were once the critics’ favorite target deficits and the willingness of foreign countries to buy our debt have taken center stage. With the new Secretary of State essentially begging China to buy more US debt and the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee on an appeasement mission to the Middle East we have much to be concerned about beyond the overwhelming insanity of the economic ‘fixes’ coming out of Washington.

Despite the embarrassment caused by Gregg’s about-face, the White House believes that he could be one of its most important allies in the overhaul of Social Security, Medicare, and tax policy. That is because Gregg is the co-sponsor of the measure that would create a bipartisan commission to put together far-reaching recommendations for an up-or-down vote by Congress.

In an interview, Gregg said that under such a procedure, the measures could be passed within a year, as long as most of the benefit cuts and tax increases were not slated to take effect until well after the recession is over. “We need an up-or-down vote on a package that will be unquestionably bipartisan and fair,” Gregg said, a reference to criticism that Obama’s stimulus bill was too partisan.

Financial numbers from the Obama Administration that could make the man of steel wince and the opposition party talking benefit cuts and tax increases for social security is reason enough to conclude Washington has lost its collective mind. Not like it wasn’t a strong suspicion in the past but there is no other way to paint it these days.

Adding to the problem is evidence a previous post here asking whether GOP governors would embrace porkulus for their states has been answered. Two Democratic governors and two GOP governors were on Fox News Sunday and the view here is they all will gorge at the pork table. Granholm, Democratic governor of Michigan, said not only would she enjoy the pork but would eat the other’s shares if they turned it down. Rendell, Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, mentioned he will only be governor for a while longer and will plunder the pork yet be concerned about the problems facing those after he leaves. That’s reassuring. Mark Sanford and Tim Pawlenty, GOP governors of South Carolina and Minnesota respectively, were slightly more vague about their pork menus. Sanford will likely continue to criticize the stimulus and only indulge in those items for which he can acquire political cover. Pawlenty will undoubtedly do the same.

Going out on a limb the view at this blog is there is no politician alive who will not take the money. If Obama maintains a policy of use it or lose it you can bet staffers of every politician have already compiled a variety of public statements to cover every possibility. Either they will take the money and offer an excuse or offer the excuse and then take the money.

To listen to those praising infrastructure spending and citing the need can cause one to wonder if Saddam Hussein was not the only one ignoring such things in the last few decades. As an example the governor in my home state has been accused of robbing the transportation budget to pay for pet projects during his tenure. Now he looks forward to porkulus to make up the difference. But what is to stop him from doing more of the same. It would be no surprise if other states found themselves in the same situation.

And CITI group, bank, whatever, as well as other beneficiaries of the ANOTHER bailout of many are again asking for more money. You have to ask yourself if this will ever end? And perhaps more important will it do any good for the ‘economy’? Which brings to mind another words of wisdom type of sentiment.

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Special interests? What special interests? (Michelle Malkin) 

With the manufactured row over the NY Post stimulus bill cartoon plus past comments by Obama, Holder and others about all the racists in the US the Clintons are adding their two cents as well as other news stories which seem to be going retro as well.

The meaning of retro in this case points to themes in current events, politics and the like which are reminiscent of the fifties or even further in the past. About the only new item is that the US elected its first black President. Everything else is a rerun. From talk focused on comparisons to Lincoln and FDR primarily due to the direction of economic policies and race to the rhetoric in Korea sounding like notice of an active continuation of the Korean War we’re walking backwards.

The report below includes Hillary’s own actions contradicting her denial she is not Tammy Wynette.

Clinton discusses her love for Bill in SKorea

AFP -
SEOUL (AFP) — US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, taking a break from nuclear disarmament issues, discussed women’s rights and her love for husband Bill …

Okay, the white guy is giving the black guy advice he probably doesn’t want.

A month in, 2-termer Bill Clinton has some advice for rookie Obama

Los Angeles Times, CA -
Tone down the economic despondency talk some and ratchet up the optimism a bit. All gloom and doom could worsen the situation. Scare people. ...

How is this news, others have stated Obama is focusing on nothing but gloom and doom to promote his socialist agenda. It is just that Slick Willie says it different and being a loyal liberal claims all Obama actions are positive but sound bad.

Bill Clinton: Obama Should Sound More Hopeful

ABC News -
By TAHMAN BRADLEY Former President Bill Clinton gives President Barack Obama an “A” grade for his first month in office, but tells ABC News that Obama needs …

A link with some quotes from former Prez Bill to the anointed one’s followers as well as another attempt to keep his name in the news.

Former President Bill Clinton on the Stimulus, the Economy …

FOXNews - 1 hour ago
This is a rush transcript from “On the Record ,” February 19, 2009. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated. GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS …

Will this really lead to armed conflict or are the two Koreas playing this for all it’s worth?

Official: SKorea to retaliate if NKorea attacks

The Associated Press -
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — South Korea will retaliate if North Korea attacks its naval ships in waters near their disputed maritime border, the defense chief …

If you are not concerned about all of this you are not paying enough attention. If you opposed the Bush Administration and love the Obama Administration there is an obvious contrast in your preferences. With the worst Bush Administration policies people outside the US may have found themselves on the short end. With the worst Obama Administration policies (all of them currently) people inside the US will be on the short end. When picking your poison on the worst that can happen with selecting a US President the current outcome indicates McCain still would have been a better choice. His downside could have been managed by Congress and public outrage in the form of an avalanche of complaints clogging DC’s phone systems and other communications. The same cannot be said with the GOP in repair mode and the Kool Aid drinkers awaiting handouts.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts
Screw the UN

More on the Obama Adminisration and troubling trends are in the news. It is not a surprise nor necessarily atypical for a President of one political party to undo that of a former President of another party. The Obama Administration rescinded the Mexico City Policy ban on funding foreign abortions which has a history of reversals with each change in President of the opposing party. He appeared to be reversing policy on Gitmo but the jury is still out on that one. And the liberal fringe is not happy about the new President’s action or inaction on Iraq and Afghanistan or some other matters.

Does it seem odd to you that the President Obama’s first foreign trip was to Canada while his new Secretary of State headed for Indonesia and China and the rest of Asia? It is not unlike an opinion voiced by Rush Limbaugh on news the President does not favor the Fairness Doctrine. El Rushbo suggests we should not be optimistic about the news in that Obama did not say something like he would not sign or would veto such legislation. Alternatively, Limbaugh suggested it as a trait of the new liberal President to not spend political capital when he can get others to do it. That may also explain his trip to Canada. And Hillary is simply trying to add to her lacking resume’ for 2012. But Canada is boycotting Durban II. Hmmm.

That brings us to this issue, Durban II. The US and Israel were the only countries to vote against it in 2001 or beyond. Now that Obama is in office funny how the UN’s agenda on race again takes center stage. In the past there was the suggestion that opponents of Israel would use the opportunity to gain advantage by using international events to portray Israel and/or the US as racist. Given Obama and Holder’s notable quotes on the topic this may be of some concern to the public at large. Another reversal of Bush 43 policy which may also prove to be dangerous.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Op-Ed: Boycott Durban II

Jewish Telegraphic Agency, NY - Feb 18, 2009
The April 2009 Durban II conference promises to top that fiasco, despite the Obama administration’s decision to attempt to influence the process. …

Can the United States fix Durban II?

Reuters - Feb 18, 2009
Israel and Canada have already announced they would boycott “Durban II,” as the conference is being called, and the Bush administration was opposed to the …

Obama officials meet US Jews to explain their Durban II policy

Human Rights Tribune, Switzerland - Feb 18, 2009
Jerusalem fears that the “Durban II” summit, set to be held in Geneva this April, will be used by Arab nations and others as a forum to criticize Israel as …

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook
Screw the UN

Another in a long list of additions to the Obama Administration reinforces the concern that while Hillary Rodham Clinton was unsuccessful in becoming President she succeeded in establishing a third Clinton term in spite of the loss. Susan Rice is US Ambassador to the United Nations and was a member of the Obama Biden Transition Team as well as senior foreign policy adviser for their 2008 campaign.

It has been said of Obama that filling vacancies from the previous administration demonstrates a preference for persons with impressive resumes’ in both education and experience. This selection was no departure from that criteria or strategy. A Wikipedia account of Dr Rice states her father told her to ‘never use race as an excuse or advantage’ and that she was concerned her accomplishments would be viewed as the result of affirmative action. Her personal success is impressive. It is possible she hails from a family with above average means so affirmative action should be a moot point. But what if any is the role of nepotism?

Madeleine Albright is described in the same account as a family friend and mentor to Rice. She urged Clinton to appoint Rice as an Assistant Secretary of State in 1997. While she impressed many and certainly enough to be confirmed others felt she was inexperienced and inflexible. A few years in the Clinton Administration and then to the Brookings Institution. A common career path for unemployed public servants similar to former Congressman becoming lobbyists. Next up the Clinton Obama Wars and filling the Administration with former staff to appease the Clinton clan before the convention. Oh there’s no nepotism here. And this is not a criticism directed at Rice for it is the case with most if not all Obama selections. So how is that working or shaping up for the average citizen?

Regarding President Obama’s election UN Sec Gen Ban Ki Moon expressed ‘Our goals are shared. Together, the United States of America and the United Nations can look forward to a new era of strong and effective partnership, delivering results and the change we need.’ If you take that statement at face value avoid persons selling infrastructure in Brooklyn or vacant land in Florida. Moon had more to say. Earlier this week, he welcomed Mr. Obama’s election “with great optimism,” noting that the UN and US have many common goals. By his own admission and that of Obama and Clinton these goals include but are not limited to the following:

United Nations reform (which will never happen)

Climate Change (or the promotion of more gloom and doom)

The Darfur Peace Process ( which does not exist, resembles the climate change item and is as likely to fail as that in the Middle East )

Global Economic Crisis (his words, and something these spendthrifts no nothing about )

But what Ban Ki Moon and the rest of the posse at the UN were really interested in was this.

UN Launches $613 Million Appeal for Gaza
By Lisa Schlein
Geneva
29 January 2009

The United Nations is appealing for $613 million to help tens of thousands of people in Gaza recover from the three-week Israeli military offensive in the Palestinian territory. The money will provide life-saving assistance over the next six to nine months. The U.N. appeal was launched at the annual World Economic Forum in the Swiss alpine village of Davos.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is the first world leader to enter Gaza since Israel imposed a blockade on the Palestinian territory in June 2007. He describes his distress at what he saw.

And how does Moon qualify for the designation in the report above as a ‘world leader’? More to the point is what does the UN do besides make headlines and statements when they’re not collecting money and using it for who knows what? Could it be that aside from all the other conspiracy theories about the UN that they are quite happy with the Middle East conflict as another venue to work their craft of separating people from their money and giving it to their friends? If you object to that suggestion please explain why none of their ‘programs’ end in success or just end? Sustaining conflict in the world would be of benefit to them given their methods of operation.

So what does Dr Rice bring to the party?

26 January 2009 – There is no more important forum for effective cooperation among States that the United Nations, the new ambassador of the United States to the United Nations stressed today, following her first meeting with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

“I am looking very much forward to engaging in a cooperative, constructive fashion with my colleagues here in New York. I will listen, I will engage and I will work to advance United States interests, recognizing that in many, many instances, our national interests are best advanced when we are working hand in hand with that of others,” Susan Rice told reporters at UN Headquarters in New York.

Ms. Rice said she had an “excellent meeting” with the Secretary-General, covering a range of issues including climate change, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), UN peacekeeping, non-proliferation, Sudan and the situation in the Middle East.

“The United Nations is a vitally important institution. It has great potential. It still has room for great improvement,” she said, adding that she and Mr. Ban also touched on the challenge of making the Organization more effective and more efficient.

She recalled that President Barack Obama had wanted to place the US at the centre of the fight against poverty, and had stated that the MDGs – the globally agreed targets to slash poverty and other development challenges by 2015 – were now US goals.

Based on President Obama rescinding The Mexico City Policy, the liberal thirst for abortion and a press conference by the executive director of the UN population fund the crew must be drunk with sadistic pleasure over the spoils of a political victory. Here’s the damming evidence from the UN press conference in their own words.

“President Obama’s actions sent a strong message about his leadership and strategic vision to support causes that will promote peace and development, equity and dignity, equality for women and girls and economic empowerment of the poor in all regions of the world,” she said. With the resumption of United States funding, UNFPA would be able to maintain recent gains during the current financial crisis and provide support to women in the poorest countries of the world. United Nations Member States had repeatedly said that progress for all would not happen without progress for women. That meant making women’s health, rights and equality an international priority.

She also welcomed the decision of the new United States administration to revoke the Mexico City policy, which paved the way for a restored United States partnership with some of the world’s leading non-governmental organizations that provide family planning services around the world. Access to safe and effective voluntary family planning, as Mr. Obama had said, was one of the most effective ways of preventing unwanted pregnancies and empowering women and men to plan their families. If a woman could not take decisions about her own fertility, she could not make decisions about anything else in her life.

And the final expression of support for ’safe’ abortions as ‘family planning’.

To a question about family planning, she said that its importance was demonstrated by the fact that unsafe abortion was considered the second leading cause of death for African women. Women who did not have access to family planning would go to have unsafe abortions, which often led to death.

Translation:: The money is used to pay for abortions the ‘patient’ cannot afford which would lead to back alley practitioners who care less about the patient than the liberals care about the unborn child. And ‘family planning’ is liberal-speak for abortion. The only reason they support contraception is political. It gives them another pork item to support in legislation and lets them believe they have convinced you they are trying to do things the right way. Could it be any more pathetic?

So Dr Susan Rice will be doing the bidding of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Bill and Hillary Clinton. Keep in mind both Clinton and Obama rescinded the Mexico City Policy. Also notable is Obama’s weakness for ACORN and voter and campaign finance fraud as well as the Clintons’ scandal history including illegal transfers of sensitive technology via Chinagate. The perils of international politics grow larger. And the threat is not always from without but within.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

So much changes and so much stays the same. While visions of Chinagate danced in her head. Hillary Rodham Clinton figured the scandal was dead. Opponents claim with evidence to support. Obama is a third Clinton term with more espionage to thwart. Right outta the Gates warning of preparedness with who flung poo, Clinton seeks more with China as if selling secrets is not taboo.

A Clinton Administration via President Obama is not a suggestion off the mark based on staffing since The One assumed office. A little background refresher of only one chapter from the Clinton book of scandals raises serious questions about a new Secretary of State focusing on China after Chinagate.

Try to make the argument that this is not something about which we should be concerned. For those of you who voted for Clinton and/or Obama in the 2008 campaign and/or election, did you consider this before entering the voting booth, mailing your ballot, doing the driveby or letting ACORN vote for you?

There are reports available suggesting President Clinton supported transferring sensitive technology as a method to insure no single nation had military dominance over the others. Liberals are a nightmare even terrorists could appreciate…… and do.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Exhibit 1
From approximately 1994 to 1998, Bernard Schwartz, who was the chairman of Loral Space & Communication Ltd., became the single largest donor to the Democratic Party by making contributions totaling approximately $1.5 million to various Democratic Party entities, including President Clinton’s 1996 reelection campaign.

Exhibit 1a
Congressional and other related investigations subsequently found that, when a Chinese rocket attempting to launch a Loral-manufactured satellite failed, Loral helped China to identify the cause of the failure, thereby advancing China’s missile program and threatening U.S. national security. Loral subsequently paid a $14 million fine relating to this transfer of sensitive U.S. technology.

Exhibit 1b
“The Amended Complaint alleges that Hillary Rodham Clinton devised, agreed to participate in and implemented this unlawful scheme, and that President Clinton and Vice-President Al Gore authorized, agreed to participate in, and also implemented the scheme.”

For the lazy among you…..

The Idiot’s Guide to Chinagate (from Newsmax)

Exhibit 2
This is the same Justice Department that has botched up the investigation of the theft of information on the W-88 warhead, that has refused to appoint an independent counsel to investigate campaign fundraising illegalities, and that continues to cover up vital information in defiantly refusing to release the LaBella and Freeh memos suggesting that crimes may have been committed in the Chinagate scandal.

Exhibit 2a
Is this the first time the Clinton administration has been involved in lawbreaking and corruption? Hardly. It has almost become a way of life: Travelgate, Filegate, Buddhist Temple fundraisers, illegal foreign campaign contributions, the compromise of high-technology nuclear secrets to China, not to mention perjury and obstruction of justice–the list goes on and on.

Exhibit 2b
On the one hand, there is the mind-boggling story of how the Clinton administration deliberately changed almost 50 years of bipartisan security policies–relaxing export restrictions, signing waivers to allow technology transfers, ignoring China’s violation of arms control agreements, and its theft of our nuclear secrets, opening up even more nuclear and high technology floodgates to China and others–thus harming U.S. national security.

On the other hand, there is the continuing coverup–the effort to hide from Congress and the American people the true damage that has been done to national security and the Clinton administration’s central role in allowing so much of it to happen on their watch.

A face only an anarchist could love.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called for a “comprehensive dialogue” with China, extending beyond economic issues.

Secretary Clinton Tuesday said U.S. economic problems mean that people are losing jobs not only in America but also in China. So Clinton said that while the economy will always be a centerpiece of the U.S. relationship with China, the new U.S. administration wants it to be part of a broader agenda.

She said the Bush administration turned the strategic dialogue with China into an economic one.

Clinton did not mention what other issues she would bring up with the government in Beijing.

Human rights activists have called for renewed U.S. pressure on China to improve its human rights record and freedom of expression.

The French news agency said groups such as Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders, and veteran Chinese dissident Harry Wu expressed hope at a U.S. congressional hearing Tuesday that President Barack Obama will give China’s human rights problem a high priority.

The Associated Press quoted Defense Secretary Robert Gates as telling a Senate hearing Tuesday that the United States is ready to handle any foreseeable military threat from China.

Some information for this report was provided by AFP, AP and Reuters.
Trackposted to Rosemary’s Thoughts, Allie is Wired, third world county, Political Byline, The World According to Carl, DragonLady’s World, Wingless - Cuba: Beautiful Country, People…Not so Beautiful System…, Rosemary’s News and Ideas, Conservative Cat, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

crossposted to:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

The debate and/or division among opponents and supporters of abortion may never end. That supposition is based partly on the near equal division in US politics demonstrated in the back and forth restoring and rescinding of the Mexico City Policy initiated in the Reagan years and named after the location of a UN conference on population where it was announced.

From the standpoint of ‘rights’ those who approve of abortion typically refer to it as a ‘woman’s right to choose’ and those reject it defend the rights of the child to live. In the Mexico City Policy debate those who oppose the policy say it not only denies money to NGOs who provide abortion but other contraceptive methods as well. And of course opponents of abortion who favor the policy typically indicate pro-choice advocates support abortion as a barbaric after-the-fact solution for irresponsible behavior and a failure to accept the consequences of their actions.

About the only thing the two sides agree on is encouraging a decrease in the number of unintended pregnancies. Pro-life advocates maintain that better alternatives for unintended pregnancies include abstinence and adoption. Many pro-choice advocates would likely support the notion expressed by Barack Obama during the presidential campaign. ‘Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,’ he said. ‘I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.’

Below is a brief review excerpt from USAID on President Bush restoring the policy in 2001 shortly after taking office. After that is a link to President Obama rescinding the policy shortly after he took office. After President Reagan initiated it in 1984 President Clinton rescinded it in 1993, again, shortly after taking office. The trend is painfully clear.

Restoration of the Mexico City Policy Concerning Family Planning

“This policy recognizes our country’s long history of providing international health care services, including voluntary family planning to couples around the world who want to make free and responsible decisions about the number and spacing of their children.”

The White House
January 22, 2001

On January 22, 2001, President George W. Bush announced reinstatement of the so-called Mexico City policy that required non-governmental organizations to “agree as a condition of their receipt of Federal funds that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.” The President is committed to maintaining the $425 million funding level provided for in the FY 2001 appropriation because he knows that one of the best ways to prevent abortion is by providing quality voluntary family planning services.

President (Obama) rescinds “Mexico City Policy” on Abortion

If one searches data on abortion recurring statistics may shed some light on the problem. A significant percentage of the abortions performed each year are not the patient’s first. As many as one out of five abortions in given years were the patient’s second or third. A not so surprising number of women reported inconsistent use of contraception as the reason for the unintended pregnancy.

Wikipedia history, etc., of Mexico City Policy

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Senate roll call vote: Taxpayer funding of overseas abortions reinstated (Michelle Malkin)