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

“As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances,” he said.

Another piece from Voice of America had this to say.

U.S. President Barack Obama’s support for an Islamic center to be built near the scene of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks has done little to mollify critics of the plan. However, it has strengthened the argument that it should be allowed in because of America’s tradition of religious freedom.

And this is what the Bill of Rights has to say about freedom of religion.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No one is demanding a law about religion nor requesting that anyone not be allowed to practice their religion. But at the very least it is in bad taste to place a mosque in close proximity to the location where more than a dozen Muslims carried out the vicious murder of thousands of innocent victims.

Mr President, the flaw in your appeal to the Bill of Rights to defend what has been called an intentional provocation by certain Muslim individuals or groups obviously avoids the other side of the ‘rights’ equation. That is responsibility. When the rights of two or more persons clash a reasonable approach is needed to solve the problem.

Rather than pander to a special interest in direct opposition to the American traditions you cite as part of your argument you might consider calling them out on how they justify the description of a ‘religion of peace’?

Better yet, name one other religion that calls for the death of non-believers or infidels who do not convert to their religion. Name one other religion who has been responsible for as many deaths as Islam in the last 235 years. Name one other religion that calls for the destruction of an entire nation. Name one other religion having members who claim to denounce the radical elements within and do nothing to change it.

Could it be the quiet ones privately condone the violence of the religion of peace? Could it be their Jihad has its sights set on world domination? Could it be you will deny the threat of Islam until it is too late to respond?

Or are some of your critics right? You are just a Muslim at heart willing to aid the Jihad.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

While reviewing some documents on the four American presidents who were assassinated at least one fact unknown to this blogger was revealed. I was reading about President Garfield because he was the one of the four about which my memory was the least clear. And it was the initial reason for conducting the search.

The senseless act of violence known as assassination defined as the murder of a public figure not only reminds us of how depraved humans can be but how senseless the perpetrator is.

Garfield had little time to savor his triumph. He was shot by Charles J. Guiteau, disgruntled by failed efforts to secure a federal post, on July 2, 1881, at 9:30 a.m. The President had been walking through the Sixth Street Station of the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad (a predecessor of the Pennsylvania Railroad) in Washington, D.C.. Garfield was on his way to his alma mater, Williams College, where he was scheduled to deliver a speech, accompanied by Secretary of State James G. Blaine, Secretary of War Robert Todd Lincoln (son of Abraham Lincoln[25]) and two of his sons, James and Harry.

Were it not for this despicable act the setting described above suggests a pleasant situation not likely a regular routine during anyone’s presidency. Further reading provided a glimpse of how history and the lives of presidents dramatically impact a nation and its citizens. And occasionally how they impact those who are not citizens.

Garfield was one of three attorneys who argued for the petitioners in the famous Supreme Court case Ex parte Milligan (1866). The petitioners were pro-Confederate northern men who had been found guilty and sentenced to death by a military court for treasonous activities. The case turned on whether the defendants should, instead, have been tried by a civilian court. Garfield went on to plead other cases before the high court, but none was as high profile as his first argument before the Supreme Court in Milligan.

President Lincoln has been criticized by some for his suspension of habeas corpus. Before James A. Garfield was president he was involved in Ex Parte Milligan as described in the preceding paragraph. And of course Presidents George Bush (43) and Barack Obama have been in the center of the controversy over those held at the military facility at Guantanamo Bay, Gitmo, and whether the trials should be military tribunal or held in civilian court.

The first case to be tried in civilian court is presently being determined. Which causes this blogger to present the following excerpt from Ex Parte Milligan. It has to do with the notion of Lincoln suspending habeas corpus as viewed by the Supreme Court in 1866.

An armed rebellion against the national authority, of greater proportions than history affords an example of, was raging, and the public safety required that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus should be suspended. The President had practically suspended it, and detained suspected persons in custody without trial, but his authority to do this was questioned. It was claimed that Congress alone could exercise this power, and that the legislature, and not the President, should judge of the political considerations on which the right to suspend it rested. The privilege of this great writ had never before been withheld from the citizen, and, as the exigence of the times demanded immediate action, it was of the highest importance that the lawfulness of the suspension should be fully established. It was under these circumstances, which were such as to arrest the attention of the country, that this law was passed. The President was authorized by it to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus whenever, in his judgment, the public safety required, and he did, by proclamation, bearing date the 15th of September, 1863, reciting, among other things, the authority of this statute, suspend it. The suspension of the writ does not authorize the arrest of anyone, but simply denies to one arrested the privilege of this writ in order to obtain his liberty.

This blogger by no means suggests any personal expertise in matters of law. But the passage above seems to indicate the court agreed on Lincoln’s right to suspend habeas corpus. That would seem to indicate a current suspension would be valid also. And in much of the content of the court’s opinion in Ex Parte Milligan there seems to be a recurring theme.

The rights and rule of law are being considered in terms of citizens. That is to say it seems the discussion centers around the rights of citizens and not non-citizens. It seems to me that those confined at Gitmo are seeking their ‘liberty’ by a process not afforded them under US law. And that those who support their ‘civilian’ day in court are co-conspirators.

That’s just my humble opinion.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Arizona voters, taken after the ruling was issued, finds that 66% still favor the recently passed immigration law. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are opposed. Support for the law is unchanged from when it was first passed in April.

By a 59% to 34% margin, Arizona voters disagree with Judge Susan Bolton’s decision to block implementation of some parts of the law.

Not surprisingly, voters favor Governor Jan Brewer’s decision to appeal the ruling by a 59% to 29% margin. Brewer has risen in popularity since signing the law and is now well ahead in the Arizona governor’s race.

Nationally, 59% of voters support passage of a law like Arizona’s in their own state, and 50% disagree with the judge’s ruling.

It is extremely rare that this blog author watches television. Before last Sunday I can only guess that it has been many months with the exception of the occasional online news video featured on this blog. So what was the attraction to listen to Meet the Press this week?

I couldn’t resist the appeal to confirm my suspicions that listening to Gregory’s guests would be excruciating. It was. Governor Rendell, Mayor Bloomberg and former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan were predictable as well as annoying.

Either during a commercial interruption or after the programmed concluded I took a quick look at what was on the other channels. My location features 11 off-air OMG digital broadcast channels. That’s right. No point in subscribing to cable or satellite if I don’t watch TV more than once every few months for less than an hour.

The local public television station offers three channels. One of them was airing a public affairs program populated only by liberals and perhaps a token conservative. The liberals were whining about Arizona’s state immigration law. Along with that they were whining about all the racism and inequality in America.

The point is this. One of the fine liberals concluded the poll data above or other polling data like it was wrong. He did his level best to convince the viewers he was right and most people opposed the Arizona law.

The problem is he had no data, no evidence or any other information to support his opinion. He simply presented his opinion as fact. This is exactly the reason I do not watch television very often. Given the financial woes of most broadcast and print media it may be the only people watching regularly are liberals.

Where else would anyone agree with their fantasies? And how long will it be until the rest of the liberal media goes the way of Air America? (bankrupt and out of business)

With any luck at all a return to the rule of law will begin after Novmeber 2010. Then the simple method of cutting off taxpayer provided benefits, free education for illegals, anchor babies and chain migration as well as sanctions against employers who hire illegals can begin in earnest.

For a return to national security and border control we can borrow a currently familiar phrase. ‘Yes we can.’ To anyone who claims it is not possible to remove all illegals from the US I say you are a closet shamnesty supporter. The simple method outlined above is more than possible. It is necessary and will work. Those who oppose it support illegal immigration.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

STATEMENT BY GOVERNOR JAN BREWER

PHOENIX – “I am disappointed by Judge Susan Bolton’s ruling enjoining several provisions of “The Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act” — SB 1070; though I am heartened by some findings – including the ban on sanctuary cities.

“This fight is far from over. In fact, it is just the beginning, and at the end of what is certain to be a long legal struggle, Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens. I am deeply grateful for the overwhelming support we have received from across our nation in our efforts to defend against the failures of the federal government.

“I have consulted with my legal counsel about our next steps. We will take a close look at every single element Judge Bolton removed from the law, and we will soon file an expedited appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

“For anyone willing to see it — the crisis is as clear as is the federal government’s failure to address it.

“The judge herself noted that the stash houses where smugglers hide immigrants from Mexico before bringing them into the country’s interior have become a fixture on the news in Arizona and that, ‘You can barely go a day without a location being found in Phoenix where there are numerous people being harbored.’”

“When I signed the bill on April 23rd, I said, SB 1070 – represents another tool for our state to use as we work to address a crisis we did not create and the federal government has actively refused to fix. The law protects all of us, every Arizona citizen and everyone here in our state lawfully. And, it does so while ensuring that the constitutional rights of ALL in Arizona are undiminished – holding fast to the diversity that has made Arizona so great.

“I will battle all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary, for the right to protect the citizens of Arizona. Meanwhile, I also know we still have work to do in confronting the fear-mongers, those dealing in hate and lies and economic boycotts that seek to do Arizona harm.

“We have already made some progress in waking up Washington. But the question still remains: will Washington do its job, and put an end to the daily operations of smugglers in our nation, or will the delays and sidesteps continue? I believe that the defenders of the rule of law will ultimately succeed with us in our demand for action.”

###

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

Hardly a day goes by without some ‘rights group’ being featured in the MSM. There are groups that could be defined as ‘responsibility groups’ but they receive little attention from those individuals that regard themselves as journalists or organizations that claim to present news and information based on standards of journalism.

Last week one report opened by describing Human Rights Watch as a ‘leading human rights group.’ Could the author be referring to the executive director’s salary? Since 1993 a lawyer named Kenneth Roth has been the executive director of HRW with an annual salary of $350,000. That’s nearly 18% of HRW’s management and general expenses for the year. And they may have 275 employees. And let’s not forget their fundraising expenses of $8,641,358 for 2008 (according to Wiki).

The non-governmental organization claims they do not accept government money directly. But they receive funds from other groups who may. And they supported ACORN at least in 2000 and/or 2001 to the tune of a half-million dollars.

So what’s this all about? The report out last week has Human Rights Watch whining about the rights of illegals. And for all their whining the problem they perceive could be solved if no one entered the United States illegally. They bad mouth countries all over the world for claimed wrongdoing. It is interesting that they say nothing about Mexico’s ‘responsibility’ to correct their own problems and eliminate the attraction to cross the border illegally into another country.

Here’s the report. Have a good laugh. HRW is a scam. The last three paragraphs assume the reader is extremely gullible. Correction, the entire report assumes you are gullible.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from VOA News….

A leading human rights group is calling on the U.S. Congress and the Obama administration to include protections for immigrants’ rights in their proposals for immigration reform.

New York-based Human Rights Watch released a report Friday saying more needs to be done to protect undocumented immigrants in the workplace and in court.

The group says at work such people are vulnerable to exploitation - including sexual abuse and poor working conditions - and should be allowed to find other jobs in such cases.

It also recommends giving undocumented immigrants a path to legalization that includes government protection, so they feel safe to report crimes.

Earlier this month, President Obama called for bipartisan support for immigration reform. He described overhauling the system as a “moral imperative.” Congress is sharply divided over the issue, with Republicans generally opposing what they call amnesty programs.

The Human Rights Watch report also urges the government to allow immigration judges to consider the ties legal permanent residents have in the United States before deporting them for minor crimes. The group says thousands of legal residents are deported each year without having their family connections or past military service considered.

Human Rights Watch also calls on the government to limit immigrant detentions. The group says those who have committed nonviolent crimes should be exempt from detention.

This is no surprise to anyone. Beyond the problem of national security, border control and ignoring the rule of law and founding principles of our nation illegal immigration is a crushing economic burden. It’s time for a reminder to all the liberals supporting shamnesty. Like the rest of the liberal agenda the notion of shamnesty is dangerous. An excerpt from a new report on the economic risks associated with illegal immigration is presented below followed by a link to the full report. Read it and weep, or join the fight against illegal immigration to save our country.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers

Executive Summary

This report estimates the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level to be about $113 billion; nearly $29 billion at the federal level and $84.2 billion at the state and local level.

The full report (click here)

Wow, RINO McCain does it again! The same man who conspired with Bush 43, Ted Kennedy and others in the 2007 push for shamnesty now says in an election year that we should deport illegals.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Tuesday he would favor immigration reform that would deport many of the residents of the United States who are here illegally.??

McCain, who at one point had been the top Republican advocate for immigration legislation promising a pathway to citizenship for some illegal immigrants, said he favored establishing a guest worker program. But McCain expressed opposition to any program that would give illegal immigrants a way to become citizens.

“No amnesty. Many of them need to be sent back,” McCain said during an interview on KQTH-FM in Tucson, Ariz.

McCain aka McShamnesty, also favors a guest worker program for the guest worker who never leaves. This is no different than before. Neither is his flip-flop on shamnesty. Sounds like John Kerry. I was for it before I was against it.

RINOs are disgusting. As much as I oppose liberals, RINOs are worse. At least you know where a liberal stands even though they are wrong. With RINOs you may get fooled if you haven’t paid attention to them for a while.

Right or wrong I have more respect for someone who stands up for what they believe in than those like McCain who play politics all the time. A liberal example more principled than John McCain is when vulnerable Democrat Blanche Lincoln said win or lose she’s a Democrat and will pursue re-election as a Democrat. McCain is a RINO and only talks conservative as a political strategy.

Voters in Arizona would do well to vote for JD Hayworth. He may not be perfect but what has Arizona gained by having McCain in the US Senate? How about the need for SB1070 although Jan Brewer supports McCain. Go figure.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The previous post touched on President Obama’s recent immigration speech. Reviewing the speech once again compels commentary. The first excerpt to be evaluated demonstrates that Mr Obama can present inspirational messages.

I was a candidate for President that day, and some may recall I argued that our country had reached a tipping point; that after years in which we had deferred our most pressing problems, and too often yielded to the politics of the moment, we now faced a choice: We could squarely confront our challenges with honesty and determination, or we could consign ourselves and our children to a future less prosperous and less secure.

That IS the speechmaking undoubtedly responsible for many casting a ballot for then candidate Barack Obama. But as Mr Barone pointed out in his writing at the Washington Examiner referenced in the previous post this particular immigration speech was all about election year politics. The very plague that then candidate Obama denounced to get elected.

It gets worse.

I believed that then and I believe it now. And that’s why, even as we’ve tackled the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression, even as we’ve wound down the war in Iraq and refocused our efforts in Afghanistan, my administration has refused to ignore some of the fundamental challenges facing this generation.

Sorry Mr President, you have not ‘tackled’ the economic problems. And you and your liberal followers used anti-war rhetoric, campaigning and personal attacks on the very man you now hail as the best choice to lead the military operations in Afghanistan, General Petraeus. In addition you and your crew have refused to acknowledge the success of the surge in Iraq for allowing the winding down in Iraq. Your senate leader Harry Reid went so far as to say the war was lost.

But you are correct on the last point. Your administration has refused to ignore ’some’ of the challenges. Those items you choose to target are for purposes of your liberal agenda. The items you mention in this speech: the economy, healthcare, Wall Street, energy and immigration are all targets of your liberal agenda and your attention to them has nothing to do with ‘confronting the great challenges of our times’.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

‘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

During the last 12 months or so a local radio station began airing the Allen Hunt Show. The station describes itself as ‘news/talk’ and gives the impression they offer conservative talk shows. A local radio personality has a talk show for about 2 1/2 hours in the morning. That is followed by Rush Limbaugh, then Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and Mark Levin during the week.

There is a mixture of syndicated programming on the weekends that now includes the Allen Hunt Show. I never heard of Allen Hunt before this local programming began. One weekend evening as I worked around the house I listened to the show. I was not impressed. Tried to listen again a couple of times but was not interested as I was opposed to many of this man’s opinions.

Now comes a reason to seriously oppose the Allen Hunt Show. His take on illegal immigration includes his statement that he believes in open borders/immigration. This past weekend I listened to the last hour of a financial program that was pre-empted for sports programming for the first two hours. That was followed by the Allen Hunt Show and his topic from the 16th according to the website was aired today on this station.

Allen Hunt believes a man who was brought here illegally by his parents when he was 4 should be allowed to stay. The man is now 19 and finished his first year at Harvard. Hunt says Obama will deport all those fitting this description and that ICE or CBP have apprehended this man and have him in custody scheduled for deportation.

First it was a student here in Georgia. Now the controversy has moved to Harvard. A student there was arrested for being an illegal immigrant in the country even though he has been her since he was 4, and can’t remember not speaking English. It’s just another example of how messed up our immigration policy is, and how we are targeting the wrong people.

One caller to the show made the correct rebuttal to Mr Hunt’s misguided kindness. Don’t blame the US or Americans for this person’s situation. The blame falls on his parents. If this man is unhappy with his situation he has no one else to blame other than his parents.

If you give this man a pass on immigration laws it simply gives other illegals another reason to break the law. You cannot reward people for breaking the law. It is unfortunate that this man has to suffer the consequences of his parents’ actions. But it is not for the US or its citizens to ignore the rule of law.

Laws are necessary for a civil society to exist. Laws maintain order, protect citizens and their liberty and keep things from getting out of control. Not enforcing the laws related to immigration is why illegal immigration is, go figure, out of control. Eliminating the laws will not solve the problem. Enforcing them will.

Had the law been enforced effectively about 15 years ago the man mentioned on Hunt’s show would not be in the position he is in now. His parents plan to break the law would have been thwarted and we would not be having these discussions.

My conclusion about the Allen Hunt Show early on was correct. His opinions are flawed. He says he is not a liberal. But his opinions say otherwise.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

If a candidate or other political personality is not featured on this blog or in the sidebar it does not indicate whether or not they are supported or opposed here. At any given time the decision to support or oppose said political person may be withheld until more information is collected.

Such is the case for this site and California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman. But given the latest news about this ‘Republican’ candidate related to illegal immigration opposition to her election can now be expressed here.

Whitman Disses Ariz. Law in Spanish to Court Calif. Latinos

Republican Meg Whitman is translating her message into Spanish, and emphasizing her opposition to Arizona’s controversial immigration law, to court Latinos in her quest to become California’s next governor.

Is there any other way to interpret this move by this candidate than to say it’s an obvious sellout for votes? If there is this blog hasn’t found it. No amount of campaigning can convince this blog author that Whitman’s immigration blunder simply means she opposes illegal immigration and may support another solution for the problem. She simply sold out in public for all to see.

The candidate who doesn’t vote has more money than California and is looking to be CEO of the land of fruits, nuts and flakes gives that state what it deserves. A choice between herself and Moonbeam Brown.

Add to this another story that should rally the troops against the shamnesty scam by larger numbers than ever.

Obama Administration to File Lawsuit Against Arizona’s Immigration Law

Obama administration officials have decided to file a federal lawsuit to block a politically popular Arizona law cracking down on illegal immigration, Fox News and other news organizations reported Friday.

There are some interesting details from these reports. Liberals at the Justice Department and other ’senior’ officials are anonymously stumbling all over themselves to spin the latest development.

The confirmation comes after an inadvertent confirmation by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in an interview last week with an Ecuadorian journalist.

If the healthcare ripoff, national debt, deficits and the Gulf oil mess were not enough to rile voters in an election year the libs are apparently willing to go all in on their agenda bets for this cycle.

Regardless of any other considerations regarding Arizona’s new immigration law those who support Governor Brewer and this effort would do well to financially support the state of Arizona in their fight against the lame Obama administration and its desire to allow anyone to enter our country whenever they feel like it.

As a reminder, when immigration meant those coming to America brought something to the table rather than simply pursuing handouts or to do this country harm the melting pot was a good thing. All that changed when libs decided to put up the sign ‘free for all’ opening the floodgates to illegal immigration.

Illegal immigration must be eliminated.

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