1. Iceland
2. Finland
3. Norway
4. Sweden
5. New Zealand

Feminists in Sweden will likely be outraged that we are not at the top of the list, and feminists in other Western countries will likely be complaining that their country is not like Scandinavia. However, instead of occupying our minds with these quibbles, why not have a closer look at the report to see what they actually have measured, and how these measurements have been performed? Early on in the report its author explains how the Gender Gap Index used in the report works:

Our aim is to focus on whether the gap between women and men in the chosen variables has declined, rather than whether women are “winning”the “battle of the sexes”. Hence,the Index rewards countries that reach the point where outcomes for women equal those for men, but it neither rewards nor penalizes cases in which women are outperforming men in particular variables.

In other words, every area where women are outperforming men is ignored, made invisible and left out of the report. What’s even worse is that the author of the report isn’t even ashamed of plainly stating this for everyone to see, as if it was some kind of achievement. What has the world come to when the author of a high-profile report is proud of “only” ignoring men, instead of actively labeling male discrimination a good thing which can give countries a higher score in the report?

It’s also interesting to note the four different categories that are used to determine the Gender Gap Index:

1. Economic participation and opportunity
2. Educational attainment
3. Political empowerment
4. Health and survival

If men’s situation hadn’t been actively ignored, then the author likely would have been forced to report that men do worse than women when it comes to health and survival, and in many countries around the world female students are dominating the colleges and universities. Furthermore, categories that are of great interest of men are actively excluded, for example quality of life indices, substance abuse, access to your children, number of close friends, etc. The chosen categories primarily measure the areas where men do better, and ignore the areas where men are struggling.

Unfortunately, this report is yet another sign that feminism has become a worldwide phenomenon that distorts our perception of how the genders are doing–both at a national and an international level.

Pelle Billing is an M.D. who writes and lectures about men’s issues and gender liberation beyond feminism.

As described in Jailed parent Amir Sanjari has refused food for two weeks Sanjari, an Iranian-born British citizen has faced injustice and corruption throughout his ordeal. His website CorruptUSJudicialSystem has background information.

In a recent call from the Elkhart County jail Sanjari says his civil rights are still being violated.  “Before this call, I wasn’t allowed to use the phone for 12 days,” he said.

At one time Sanjari and his ex-wife shared equal custody and had similar incomes, yet he was ordered to pay $1,000 a month in child support.  When he lost his job and applied for a reduction, it was denied.  His ex-wife won sole custody of the children, he says, by lying about him while he was out of the country on vacation.

From the same jail where a man doing community service work was trapped inside a cell for over 12 hours, Sanjari says the child support system is a conspiracy.  “It’s fraud,” he explained, “They’re lying in order to criminalize [non-custodial parents] to force them to pay the money.  They get away with it,” he says, “because people don’t ask questions.”

Sanjari says there is no due process.  “I asked Judge Bonfiglio to recuse himself because I’ve sued him in Federal court in the past, but he refused.”  He says he’s powerless while people at the jail make problems for him.  “They delayed my paperwork,” he said, “so it couldn’t be filed.”  He says the prosecutor is playing dirty too.  “They refused to recognize that I was representing myself,” he explained, “so they wouldn’t have to share information and evidence with me.  The court had to order them to do it.”

In an attempt to draw attention to the human rights violations that separate parents from their children and turn them into criminals, Sanjari hasn’t had any solid food since March 26, the day he was arrested.  Once a thin but healthy 150 lbs, Sanjari now weighs about 115.  He says he drinks nutritional supplements for the potassium and sodium, to keep his brain functioning normally.

A pre-trial hearing was held on the 22nd, with another scheduled for Oct. 29.  Sanjari’s trial for nonsupport of a dependent child and contempt will be November 9 at Superior Court 6, 315 S. 2nd St, Elkhart, IN.  (case # 46516)  Sanjari, who spent his time helping other parents with their cases while he was on the run, hopes parents dealing with the family court system and child support collections will come to his trial to show their support.  (MAP)

Amir can receive mail:

• Dr. Amir Sanjari
• ID # 106395
• Medical Unit – MI – A11
• 26861 County Road 26
• Elkhart, IN 46517

Subscribe to my family rights articles by email or RSS or:

Recent articles:

• Activist Murtari resumes You’re a Parent Notification Act campaign in Lyons
• Texas denies male victims of domestic violence
• Child support torture victim claims hidden bloody evidence
• Tortured for child support
• Feminist DV service providers fight for cash and control, not equality
• Fathers 4 Justice announce support of CT father on hunger strike
• MA getting closer to equal parenting via HB 1400

Recent SF Family articles:

• Make these pet costumes for little or no money
• Serve the family healthy hearty stew for ten bucks
• Thursday’s Shake Out drill, family earthquake education
• Energy conservation requested after fallen transmission tower, storm
• Cheap costumes and Antioch’s free costume exchange Wed
• Visit these Bay Area haunted houses
• Halloween freebies for kids and pumpkin stencils
• Thrill the World announces six Bay Area locations for breaking world record
• Halloween decorations: shrunken head apples to electronic displays
• Mom asks Bay Area community to help find missing son

He notes that international treaties take precedence over domestic application of the Constitution. The climate agreement aims to create broad politically malleable mandates to be imposed on industry and individuals, managed from the top by an unelected world government. It would result in unlimited undemocratic government power, much of which will be in the hands of foreigners, with no mechanism to impose restraint against intrusion of any kind – thus, eliminating entirely the nation defined by the Constitution and the American way of life.

I’m not the first to ask. What happens when the employees put in charge of government operations rebel and refuse to play by the rules? It is more than our reasonable expectation that the Constitution remains in force, that the federal government operates within limits, and that our sovereignty remains intact. Every office holder has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution as a condition for holding office. We have a contract and natural rights should they choose to violate it.

We have not yet effectively demanded those rights. It seems at times that we have become convinced that in practice the United States operates as a “pure democracy” in which the will of the majority in Congress cannot be held in check. In our system, merely being elected or having a party majority does not in any sense offer a mandate for unconstitutional dealings. We have been given that impression because, regardless of which party is in control, the other party desires a return to power over all else. The only solution they offer is to vote for them in the next election. Once elected, they follow the same general course of increasing their own power. Clearly, the element of democracy that is in our system – represented in fact by a “two-party system”– has failed.

Even if elections provided such a powerful mandate – and they do not – the choices voters made were the result of blatant fraud.

Over the past three decades, party bosses have operated in secret to engineer a dramatic restructuring of government and a complete transformation of its relationship with the people. It was not done formally as prescribed by the Constitution. Party politicians controlling the national purse used public funding to, in effect, purchase “states’ rights” from state party politicians. State party politicians take the money in part, as a surreptitious increase in state taxes (collected in the form of federal taxes). Party judges, who have also received money in connection with these transactions, have transformed the laws so that they fit rules of federal jurisdiction.

Federal government does not operate by the same rules and relationships as state governments. The tasks assigned to the federal government by the Constitution require broad political discretion, while those left “to the states and to the people” are subject to more stringent checks and balances designed to protect liberty. The greatest cost of unconstitutional federalism is civil rights. The best known example is the federalization of marriage and family law, which resulted in the legal destruction of marriage and family as fundamentally private institutions in the eyes of corrupted law. Marriage and family are now defined as components of government programs, completely under arbitrary political control.

Did you learn that from msnbc? No. CBS? No. Time, Newsweek, New York Times, … It is obvious that the political class has used the established communications networks for deception. And we continue to see it now. Were we told openly about the decades long effort to establish a One World Government? No – politicians continuously denied it. We also know that there is no climate catastrophe requiring political action. Yet when voting, many people were convinced that there was. The so-called “mainstream media” maintained the hoax in support of party politics. The people were deceived. The politicians in power simply ignore criticism and continue to lie.

I respect Lord Monckton’s understanding of the Constitution when he says; “If that treaty is signed, your constitution says that it takes precedence over your constitution, and you can’t resile from that treaty unless you get the agreement from all the other states’ parties.” However, I must assert that the people of the United States are in a position to declare any such agreement null and void. Its purpose is deception, to achieve goals that are not within the Constitutionally authorized powers of government. The People do not agreed to cede national sovereignty. The effect of such an agreement would amount to a coup – an act of war.

Beyond that, it is the American struggle to terminate the public employees who have so despicably violated their contract to that end; and to restore a proper relationship between government and the people.

Let’s first dispel any doubt that the offered reasons for awarding President Obama the Nobel Peace prize were ungenuine. He hadn’t warmed the king sized bed in the White House when he was nominated, which means that any real evaluation of his authentication as a Nobel awardee, other than the oratory of his campaign, was impossible. In the end, the Nobel Committee stated that it, “… attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.” Reality and common sense in both Norway and the White House seem to have vacated the premises.

Promises made by politicians are for electioneering, and they rarely see daylight. Remember when Obama made a bold and firm commitment that he would pull out of Iraq if he were made President? That was a defining and differentiating moment in the race to the Oval Office. Did he do what he committed to do? Are some of his phantasmagorical promises also the delusions of the Norwegian Nobel Committee? We will find an answer in the upcoming Copenhagen climate summit to be held in early December.

140 nations will meet in Copenhagen to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which runs out in 2012, with a global deal supposedly intended to limit CO2 emissions, reduce the destruction of rainforests, and help developing countries to become low-carbon economies. On the surface, the publicly claimed intentions of cleaning up our emissions from our air, our garbage from the oceans, and our toxins from the soil are lofty objectives very deserving of acclamation. The reality that will arise from the United Nations Copenhagen Climate Change Conference will prove to be something altogether different. What is to become the “Copenhagen Agreement,” will in fact be the largest international redistribution of wealth ever undertaken. The Earth and our environment will enjoy no benefit.

On December 10, Obama will receive his award in Oslo, just in time to energize the “Copenhagen” agenda. Whether or not he shows up at the UN meeting, the ideological intensions and expectations have been air freighted in the form a Nobel Prize. The Nobel awarded to Obama is a very personal stimulation to procure his support and therefore the financial commitment of the U.S. to a blueprint claiming to save the world.

The Copenhagen meeting in December will require that the United States and Canada annually transfer billions of dollars to the developing world as “climate debt” for past transgressions in their emissions of CO2. A key element in the penalization process will be the degree to which a developed country meets an allocated allowable emission schedule. Countries like the U.S. and Canada will have a tougher time than most, since it is always the last 10% or 20% that is the most difficult and most expensive to “scrub” from your emissions when you have already done more than most to clean up your own mess.

Developing countries will be using starting points with disastrous emission levels, comparable to that of the U.S. and Canada over a century ago. Minor improvements will give poor countries a leg-up on developed countries. Industrialized countries will in effect be penalized for already having well equipped, technologically advanced infrastructures. Canada in particular will very likely incur the highest penalties per capita since it is a net energy producer with production requiring extensive energy consumption, and it endures cold winters and hot, humid summers. This is not to say that every industrial sector should not strive to reduce its carbon footprint. We all should. The conundrum rests in what methodology to apply to the process and to enforcement given the reality that much has already been done by developed countries, and more is planned since all levels of society have become conscious of the need to reduce pollution.

The transfer payments from developed nations to poor ones will be made through purchases of unused “credits,” as well as through outright payments which will be made over and above the current billions distributed as foreign aid. Developing countries will be compensated for “lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity,” and the funds are to be divinely distributed by the United Nations. The UN will also be the arbiter of good taste in all things CO2 emissionable, including all approvals of emission scrubbing plans and the ensuing allocations of emission credits. The agreement also leaves room for developing countries to do absolutely nothing on emissions should they feel they are not receiving enough technological and financial support from developed countries. How is that for a backdoor to escape adaptation?

An invigorated and supremely powerful United Nations is in the offing. The principal justification for turning the UN into a true world power is this: The most advanced industrialized countries are responsible for global warming which in turn is responsible for the drought and famine being suffered by the poorest nations, ergo, the most developed countries owe cash to the undeveloped ones. How more obvious can the planners be than allowing rich countries to buy offsets rather than make emission cuts at home?

Kyoto’s good intensions have mutated into a politically charged Copenhagen draft agreement for a global plan to redistribute wealth to the tune of an estimated $1.4 trillion over the coming decade, which in and of itself will have little or no impact on pollution. The agreement’s impact on climate change will be even more amorphic, nevertheless, we can expect an abundance of fear mongering on the road to ratification.

Obama’s upcoming acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize and the invisible strings attached to it, while he is quite entitled to claim it, along with his plans for Cap and Trade, may prove to be an enormously expensive exercise for all taxpayers on this continent. The “Copenhagen” supporters on the Nobel Committee, on the other hand, are counting on it.

James Raider writes The Pacific Gate Post

Regardless of what culture we are talking about, and regardless of the level of development of that culture (pre-modern, modern, postmodern), men and women are part of the same gender system and are assigned roles and tasks according to what works, not according to any kind of oppression. Therefore the gender system is always some kind of variant of women being protected (and perhaps limited) in order to be safe during pregnancy and when raising the next generation, while men take risks in order to find adequate resources for the women and the children, as well as defend them from any dangers. Instead of taking in the entirety of this gender system, feminism somewhat simplistically postulates that the gender system oppresses women while giving men all the benefits, and this very assumption means that feminism tries to correct an imbalance that doesn’t exist, instead of effectively working towards increased freedom and opportunity for both sexes. This is exactly what is now starting to happen in Third World countries.

One example of how misguided feminism is creating unnecessary problems in poor countries is microfinance programs. These programs usually target women, instead of giving equal opportunity to men. Partly this is because feminism informs these organizations that women’s role will be strengthened by allowing them to start their own business, and the other common reason given is that women are more likely than men to repay these loans. However, neither of these arguments are sound.

Regarding the feminist argument that women’s role need to be strengthened… well, this is nothing but propaganda, since it is notoriously hard to determine what gender is worse off in any given society, and since the two sexes are part of the same gender system, it usually makes sense to help both sexes at the same time. Women may be more likely to repay the loans they are given, but that is because women generally take lower risks when doing business. Assuming less risk may decrease the chance of bankruptcy, but it also decreases the chance of creating a truly profitable company that will end up employing lots of people. Men, on the other hand, tend to assume more risk, and while this may lead to bankruptcy it may also lead to larger companies, industrialization and the eradication of poverty.

When it comes to education in poor countries, feminism states that women should be educated first, since they will educate their children, thereby spreading the knowledge. As correct as that observation may be, it is only a partial truth. Men may not be as prone to teaching their children, but men–as we just saw–are more likely to use any skills, funding or education they receive to start new companies and build prosperity here and now. Educating men can thus lead to prosperity within five or ten years, without having to wait a full generation, which the feminist model assumes is necessary. Why not simply educate men and women alike, thereby creating positive change both short term and long term?

There are many more examples of how the feminist mantra “we must always help women” creates new problems and imbalances in underdeveloped nations, but for now, I just want to say that postmodern feminism is problematic in Third World Countries for two reasons:

• It is in itself a skewed model of reality that doesn’t produce beneficial results even when applied to postmodern countries, therefore it makes no sense to export it to other countries.
• Learnings from postmodern societies cannot always be applied to pre-modern societies, even when they are sound. Pre-modern societies need to make the transition to modernity and industrialization, before becoming postmodern. Poor countries are therefore less in need of human rights than they are of industrialization, because it is industrialization that leads to human rights, not the other way around.

This is not to say that there aren’t lots of important gender issues to be addressed in poor countries, just as there are in modern democracies. We certainly need a strong awareness of gender roles when analyzing any given society and its problems. However, feminism is too flawed and too one-sided to be the model that guides us in these endeavors, and I dearly hope that we will soon reach a point where gender issues are discussed more freely, using research and facts as much as possible.

The new law will provide $1.5 billion each year from 2010 to 2014 for schools, hospitals, roads, agricultural aid, roadwork and other development projects.

“This act formalizes that partnership, based on a shared commitment to improving the living conditions of the people of Pakistan through sustainable economic development, strengthening democracy and the rule of law, and combating the extremism that threatens Pakistan and the United States,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said

However, critics say they do not believe building schools and hospitals will do much to stop the Taliban and Al Qaeda and that what appears to work in Iraq will work in Afghanistan, a nation that’s been war-torn for many years prior to the US-led invasion.

“This is the liberal-left strategy for fighting a war against terrorists: build schools and hospitals. In other words, increase the number of targets for the enemy — the Taliban and Al Qaeda,” said former NYPD detective and Marine intelligence officer Sid Franks.

“This strategy may have worked in Iraq, but the Afghan terrorists and radicals have been hardened by years of fighting warlords, Russia’s military and now the US. They don’t want our schools and hospitals and Obama just doesn’t get it,” said Det. Franks.

“As usual, when faced with a problem most US politicians believe throwing taxpayers money at it is the solution,” said political strategist Mike Baker.

Meanwhile, on the same day as Obama’s law-signing, terrorists attacked three security agency buildings in Pakistan today, including the Federal Investigation Agency headquarters and two police training centers in Lahore. In addition, a suicide car bomber struck in the northwestern city of Kohat, and a bombing in Quetta in the southwest of the country left more dead.

There were five terrorist attacks in less than 24 hours and at least 40 people have been killed in the latest Taliban attacks.

These attacks follow a rash of violence in Pakistan by an increasingly emboldened Taliban, including an attack over the weekend on Pakistan’s army headquarters.

The U.S. Embassy in Islamabad strongly condemned the terrorist attacks in Pakistan, vowing continued U.S. support to help Pakistan combat violence, according to Donna Miles of the American Forces Press Service.

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called Pakistan Army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani following that attack to express personal condolences for those killed, while emphasizing continued U.S. support.

Mullen has made numerous trips to Pakistan during the past 18 months, and talks regularly with his Pakistani counterparts about their stepped-up counteroffensive against extremists.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said today the United States is encouraged by the way the Pakistani government is “taking on the threat that exists in their country.”

“The Pakistani government looks like they are committed to taking the necessary steps to deal with this threat,” he said.

Whitman called the attacks particularly troublesome because, he said, they take their biggest toll on innocent civilians.

U.S. embassy officials in Pakistan expressed outrage today over the latest string of attacks.

“The horrific injuries and loss of life witnessed in Lahore, Peshawar and Kohat today, along with those lost in the attack on the Pakistan Army General Headquarters, are another stark reminder of the amoral nature of those who commit such acts,” a statement released today declared. “These attacks will not deter the people of Pakistan from continuing in their commitment to a free and democratic society.

“The United States will continue to support the people and government of Pakistan in combating all forms of violence,” the statement continued. “We mourn the senseless loss of life and extend our condolences to the victims’ families, friends and community.”

There were five terrorist attacks in less than 24 hours and at least 40 people have been killed in the latest Taliban attacks.

These attacks follow a rash of violence in Pakistan by an increasingly emboldened Taliban, including an attack over the weekend on Pakistan’s army headquarters.

The U.S. Embassy in Islamabad strongly condemned the terrorist attacks in Pakistan, vowing continued U.S. support to help Pakistan combat violence, according to Donna Miles of the American Forces Press Service.

The embassy issued the condemnation of the attacks as President Barack Obama signed a law that provides $7.5 billion in nonmilitary aid to Pakistan over the next five years. The funds are part of a comprehensive plan that recognizes the importance of confronting the root causes of extremism as well as extremists themselves, stated Miles.

The new law will provide $1.5 billion each year from 2010 to 2014 for schools, hospitals, roads, agricultural aid, roadwork and other development projects.

However, critics say they do not believe building schools and hospitals will do much to stop the Taliban and Al Qaeda and that what appears to work in Iraq will work in Afghanistan, a nation that’s been war-torn for many years prior to the US-led invasion.

“This act formalizes that partnership, based on a shared commitment to improving the living conditions of the people of Pakistan through sustainable economic development, strengthening democracy and the rule of law, and combating the extremism that threatens Pakistan and the United States,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said today.

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called Pakistan Army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani following that attack to express personal condolences for those killed, while emphasizing continued U.S. support.

Mullen has made numerous trips to Pakistan during the past 18 months, and talks regularly with his Pakistani counterparts about their stepped-up counteroffensive against extremists.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said today the United States is encouraged by the way the Pakistani government is “taking on the threat that exists in their country.”

“The Pakistani government looks like they are committed to taking the necessary steps to deal with this threat,” he said.

Whitman called the attacks particularly troublesome because, he said, they take their biggest toll on innocent civilians.

U.S. embassy officials in Pakistan expressed outrage today over the latest string of attacks.

“The horrific injuries and loss of life witnessed in Lahore, Peshawar and Kohat today, along with those lost in the attack on the Pakistan Army General Headquarters, are another stark reminder of the amoral nature of those who commit such acts,” a statement released today declared. “These attacks will not deter the people of Pakistan from continuing in their commitment to a free and democratic society.

“The United States will continue to support the people and government of Pakistan in combating all forms of violence,” the statement continued. “We mourn the senseless loss of life and extend our condolences to the victims’ families, friends and community.”

Grayson ruffled feathers and spread glee among the partisan flock a couple of weeks ago when he made this claim:

“If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: die quickly. That’s right. The Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick.”

How Grayson could know enough to debate the matter is a bit of a mystery. How many times do we need to mention it? Congressional Democrats are in such a hurry to “do something” about everything, that there’s no time to write, read, or discuss the substance of legislation before agreeing to it. It was a bizarre claim to be sure, but since their “hope and change” has been provoking national rebellion, any distraction is apparently welcome.

Presumptively, the Republicans should have a “health care” plan. Maybe one that would compete with the mystical conjurings of Democrats – costs nothing, does everything. Don’t talk about substantive details though. That would counter-act the magical spells cast upon it by the Wizard-in-Chief Barack Obama. Just imagine, as Alan and Barack want you to, clicking your heals together three times as you do, that the result might be something that you want.

Or how about this? We could all go live in the United States of America again where Congress isn’t actually supposed to be in the insurance business and providing sales commissions to its members. We could imagine instead, on firmer intellectual ground, that they’re trying to pull another fast one on us, overstepping their Constitutional authority again, trying to do something as corrupt as a petrified turd in a drain pipe.

More recently, Grayson stepped to the podium to once again say that he won’t apologize for his earlier remarks – fueling speculation that he might be subtly poking fun at Republican Congressman Joe Wilson for apologizing after yelling “You lie!” during Obama’s stump speech to Congress. (What else should I call it, really?) He had some additional remarks.

“[The American People] understand the if Barack Obama were somehow able to cure hunger in the world, the Republicans would blame him for over-population. They understand the if Barack Obama could somehow bring about world peace, they’d blame him for destroying the defense industry. If fact, they understand that if Barack Obama has a BLT sandwich tomorrow for lunch, they will try to ban bacon.”

Well, Barack Obama did win a Nobel Peace Prize for talking about peace and harmony. If imagining things based on flowery speeches is good enough for the Norwegian Nobel Committee – oh wait, the American people actually have to live with the real-world results and pay for them – even die for them when it becomes too expensive (especially without jobs) to heat homes and buy food and pay taxes and when foreign military actions are not properly managed. That can be especially frustrating when many in the rest of the world are content to leave the expenses and heavy lifting to Americans, and then stand around complaining as they do it.

But those nasty Republicans better stay away from banning BLTs. Bacon might not be good for our health, but I like it. While we’re at it, let’s allow smoking in public places again. A lot of people – American people – like that but somebody came along and banned it. The Democrats should also consider lifting the ban on proper history and civics lessons in public schools, citing the Pledge of Allegiance, singing the National Anthem, and praying. These things are all being replaced by activities that are truly bad for our health.

“Only nine months into his presidency,” reported a baffled CNN news anchor this morning. “President Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. The announcement made jaws drop even at the White House.”

When I first heard the news, I thought it was a joke.

The announcement from the Nobel Committee defies belief, even as I’ve come to expect the inconceivable from the committee. I learned long ago not to take the Nobel Committee seriously. And yet, this gesture far exceeds any previous towering leap of incredulity by the committee.

To be sure, I knew the Nobel Committee would at some point award Barack Obama its hallowed prize. That was a given. But right now, only nine months into Obama’s presidency, when Obama himself would surely agree that he cannot name a single foreign-policy accomplishment?

Actually, the situation is worse than that: According to news reports, nominations took place eight months ago, only weeks into Obama’s presidency.

How could that be? Does this make any sense at all?

It does when you consider what the Nobel Committee has become, and how it operates according to leftist political objectives. The committee has honored Barack Obama in order to make a political statement in support and encouragement of his foreign policy. The committee knows that its award has nothing to do with the absent foreign-policy accomplishments of a presidency not even a year old, or a diplomatic record that doesn’t exist. Its purpose is to help Obama pursue the kind of foreign policy favored by the leftists who run the Nobel Committee.

The European-globalists on the committee agree fully with the leaders who heaped praise on Obama during the U.N. circus two weeks ago. They agree with Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez that Obama has brought “hope” to the world. They agree with Fidel Castro’s hailing Obama’s lead on “climate change.” They agree with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Obama agrees with him on America’s past “ugly behavior.” Like Moammar Kaddafi, they wish Obama could be president “forever.”

This award is not a statement on what Obama has done but a rubber-stamp approval of his plans for America and the world. The committee wants to lend cover to Obama as he pursues a global course opposed by conservative Republicans back home and his generals and commanders abroad. To be sure, this is the kind of meddling in domestic politics that the Nobel Committee usually decries.

That said, I’m actually quite pleased with this action. Why? Because it further undermines the credibility of the Nobel Committee as an allegedly impartial organization. This further shows that the group is inherently political and unabashedly left-wing. In other words, this gesture has the noble effect of exposing the ignoble Nobel Committee for what it really is.

I would like to offer two quick examples from the very recent past:

In 2002, the Nobel Committee awarded President Jimmy Carter. Personally, I long supported recognizing Carter for negotiating the Camp David Accords, which was a great accomplishment in an otherwise disastrous presidency. And yet, the Nobel Committee waited over two decades to give Carter the prize. It awaited the presidency of George W. Bush, whose foreign policy these liberal Europeans doggedly opposed, as did a very vocal Jimmy Carter.

The committee’s decision to finally commend Carter was motivated in large part by its desire to make a statement against Bush. It was a crass political move by the shamelessly partisan committee. It put a dark cloud over Carter’s recognition; it stained the prize.

One more example: A decade before Carter, the Nobel Committee honored Mikhail Gorbachev.

Here, too, I think Gorbachev deserves accolades. I’m a conservative who credits Gorbachev for helping to peacefully end the Cold War. Unfortunately, the committee should have given Ronald Reagan a share in that prize. Instead, the committee specifically thanked Gorbachev for taking down the Berlin Wall, an action that Gorbachev had explicitly opposed from the outset—thus prompting Reagan’s Brandenburg Gate speech. What a farce.

And now, in 2009, once again, the Nobel Committee has honored a leader in a blatantly political way—and in a way that dishonors itself.

Frankly, Obama supporters should be angry. This award, based on transparent political interests, will not be taken seriously. Had the Nobel Committee done this later, Obama’s advocates would have something to applaud.

Instead, they will find themselves trying to defend the nonsensical—or, at least, the left-wing nonsense of the Nobel Committee.

— Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. His books include “The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan’s Top Hand” and “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.”

Surely, America could only succeed if Obama succeeds. This is the heart and soul of liberalism. But, like the rest of the liberal philosophy, it is fundamentally wrong. From the welfare state to the public school system to the various “family service” agencies that consistently peddle their poisonous anti-family agenda, it is liberalism itself that fails America on every occasion that it gains any new toehold in society.

In short, Limbaugh’s assertion was that he hoped Obama’s far-left radicalism would not succeed in doing still more damage to the country than has already been done by past liberal endeavors at state sponsored “compassion.” Nor does he, or any other sincere American patriot, want to see a continuation of the international disasters that ensue as predictable repercussions of naive, morally and spiritually rudderless leftist dabbling in international affairs.

Unfortunately for the radio talk-show giant, as well as the rest of heartland America, that is precisely what Barack Obama, with his twisted philosophies and his ineptitude, has in store for this nation. The Olympic sight selection fiasco at Copenhagen was only the beginning.

To the hopelessly dull-witted, it may seem contradictory that European nations, who loudly claim to be so much happier with Barack Obama than they ever were with George W. Bush, would nonetheless rule against Obama’s wishes on an issue in which he invested so much of his credibility. The “slap in the face” that they delivered to him on the world stage will not soon be forgotten. Yet to expect otherwise, based on the presumption of universal international adulation for the Obamas, is to ascribe to a worldview that is completely devoid of the realities of modern international relations.

When dealing with the America of George W. Bush, foreign leaders were compelled to respect the intentions and desires of America, whether they liked it or not. In the wake of 9-11, Bush’s assessment of the world as “either with us or against us,” imputed a requirement on all countries to take a side in the Terror War, and expect to be held accountable to it.

Of course this generated much backlash against President Bush, since so many of America’s “allies,” had frittered away the decade of the 1990s, when they should have been shoring up their defenses against the dangerous rise of militant Islam. But while the Islamist threat grew and metastasized, several European nations were making underhanded deals with middle-eastern leaders. The infamous “oil for food” program, by which Saddam Hussein exploited the corruption of so many prominent Europeans, was the most egregious example. That sort of international game playing, which lined the pockets of crooked officials while yielding the insidious side effect of empowering terrorist states, could not continue unchecked without eventually reaching a day of reckoning.

President Bush was indeed despised for standing firm and effectively shutting down the scam. So of course the countries that had benefited from the laxities of Clinton-era international relations were not happy that their lucrative game was ending. Now they once again see increased opportunities to wheel and deal as they had done, unhampered by an American executive branch that is too weak and ideologically disjointed to call them to account.

The problem for Barack Obama is that, prior to the Copenhagen decision, he had perceived the international reaction to him as supportive and sincere. Only under such a muddled premise could he or his wife have hoped, by their sophomoric and self-absorbed lobbying, to garner victory in their bid to have Chicago host the 2016 Olympics. Make no mistake about it, this was no mere decision on the location of a sporting event. By his presence in Copenhagen, Obama had elevated its significance to that of a major international accord. In the end, the other participating nations viewed it as no less significant.

Now, the brutal reality of his real international standing is hitting him directly in the face, though he may still be too self-aggrandizing and shallow to comprehend it. The other nations of the world do not “like” him personally, but they like the detrimental effect he is having on a nation that they have long viewed as too powerful and too competitive with their own interests.

America, in their view, needs to be cut down to size. And Barack Obama, with his abhorrent and counterproductive economic and domestic policies, is just the person to do it. If the American economic engine can be sufficiently weakened, then the rest of the world can move past it. Ditto on the diplomatic front. As the sole world “superpower,” America has historically been the defining force in the direction of international affairs in which it became involved. But if it can be mired down in failed social and diplomatic policy, its international role can likewise be significantly reduced.

This is the America that Europe, and much of the rest of the world wants to see. This is the “change” for which America’s competitors on the world scene had so fervently hoped. And if the “useful idiot” leading the country eventually becomes a victim of the collapsing international standing that he has so diligently championed, such “collateral damage” is of little or no consequence to them.

Christopher G. Adamo has been active in Wyoming politics for many years and is a managing partner in Best American Buy (www.bestamericanbuy.com), an e-commerce business that markets American made products including the incomparable Abigail Adams Bedspread Set from Bates Mills. Contact information for Chris Adamo, and his archives, can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

This is yet another plan by Progressives to allow a United Nations style tax on American citizens, according to officials at the American Conservative Union. ACU officials say that this “sickening bill could potentially force the United States to spend as much as $845,000,000,000.00 on welfare to third-world countries.”

While the Senate record of President Barack Obama may appear to be a bit lacking, he did take a leadership position in pushing forward this unique piece of legislation. While the idea of eliminating global hunger and disease throughout the world would be a worthy goal, critics of the Global Tax say this legislation appears benevolent only on the surface.

Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the UN’s “Millennium Project,” says that the UN plan to force the US to pay 0.7 percent of its GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the US already spends. Over a period, from the time when the U.N.’s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the “Millennium Development Goals,” this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.

Obama’s bill has only six co-sponsors. They are Democrat Senators Robert Menendez, Maria Cantwell, Dianne Feinstein and Richard Durbin, with Republican Senators Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar,. But it appears that Biden and Obama see passage of this bill as a way to highlight Democratic Party priorities in the Senate.

“This is the same tax on Americans that the socialists and New World Order enthusiasts have been dreaming about all these years. Americans are a generous people and may believe their leaders want to help the impoverished, but it is an idea that in reality is just one step closer to Globalism,” claims political strategist Michael Baker.

“The socialists would like nothing better than to tax the people of the United States with the blessings of liberal-left American politicians and activists,” he said.

“What is driving the global taxation agenda is a Marxist view that the US is exploiting the people and natural resources of the world. According to this perspective, international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and even the UN must be restructured and provided with new financial resources to supervise and manage the redistribution of the world’s wealth. The United States, being the leading capitalist state, has to pay the largest price,” said Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid.

“Their attitude was expressed at a non-governmental organization forum in Monterrey, Mexico, associated with the U.N.’s International Conference on Financing for Development, that Christopher Columbus ‘invaded, destroyed and pillaged’ the hemisphere and that a global tax was necessary to pay for the damage,” said the news media watchdog.

According to critics of the Global Tax, since no one wants to be on the record as not wanting to combat poverty, some politicians — without a doubt — will feel pressure from some of their less courageous colleagues to go along with a policy they know is harmful to the American people. Plus members of the news media have shown themselves to embrace socialism and will help to get this horrendous Obama-sponsored bill passed without alerting Americans about its ramifications.

“This is all part and parcel of a new world order: Third-World countries taxing the American people,” said award-winning actor (Bang the Drum Slowly, Law & Order) and political activist Michael Moriarty.

“These Maoists and Stalinists realized they could never bring people in other countries up to the standard of living we have in the United States. So, what do they do? They try to drag down the American people so that they are as poor and miserable as the impoverished in other countries,” accuses Moriarty, who is a regular contributer to EnterStageRight.com.

“It is not humane to burden the American taxpayer with billions in additional foreign aid. It is more than unacceptable,” he added.

“How do liberals fight poverty? They make more people poor,” said a New Jersey school teacher who has been critical of this nation’s government schools.

“If history is to be our guide, American ‘foreign aid’ often winds up lining the pockets of Third-World tyrants and bureaucrats who hate America and do very little to help those who are truly in need,” she said. “Remember the United Nation’s Oil for Food scandal?”

The educator points to the United Nation’s Oil for Food criminals who made extraordinary amounts of money while the Iraqi people went hungry as an example of the failure of internationalists to help people.

“I’m always reminded that when politicians say they want to help you, the best thing you can do is run away from them as fast as you can. They’re not in the business of helping people — they’re in the business of grabbing as much power for themselves as possible,” said Baker.

“Obama’s costly, dangerous and altogether bad bill (S. 2433), which could come up in the Senate any day, is called the Global Poverty Act. It would commit U.S. taxpayers to spend 0.7 percent of our Gross Domestic Product on foreign handouts…

“$845 BILLION is hardly a drop in the bucket and, yes, that’s in addition to our Foreign Aid programs, which, in 2006, cost American taxpayers almost $300 BILLION!”

“If the Democrat-controlled Congress passes this bill, the United States will have taken the first step toward the complete surrender of our national sovereignty,” Baker said.

In his most recent PR thrust, this past Friday, he brushed the national fury aside by characterizing it as typical right-left drivel, and likened himself to Franklin D. Roosevelt. FDR, of course, instituted a number of socialist programs, primarily from Sweden, in the face of opposition. Most of the programs were temporary and none were aimed at destroying free-market capitalism by taking control of all economic activity. But Obama’s message was clear. Implementing his agenda is a foregone conclusion. What the American people want and what they have to say just doesn’t matter. If FDR got away with it, so will he.

That was followed by action. Back to business-as-usual on Tuesday, he addressed a group at the United Nations in a process intended to lead to a new international Cap-n-Trade agreement.

That so many of us are here today, is recognition that the threat of climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing. Our generation’s response to this challenge will be judged by history. For if we fail to meet it boldly, swiftly, and together, we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe. No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change. Rising sea levels threaten every coast line. More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent. More frequent droughts and crop failure breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive. On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees. The security and stability of each nation and all peoples, our prosperity, our health, and our safety are in jeopardy, and the time we have to reverse this tide is running out. And yet, we can reverse it. John F. Kennedy once observed that our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man.

Even while protagonists continue the propaganda campaign, an already large and still growing number of people realize that the global warming scare is a hoax. Climate change is not man-made and there is nothing we can do that would have a significant impact on global climate. Carbon dioxide, made the villain in the fake battle, is not a pollutant nor is it threatening catostrophic global warming. The threat of rising sea levels, more powerful storms and floods, droughts and crop failures, shrinking islands and climate refugees are ideas popularized by Al Gore’s work of fiction, “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Meanwhile, the climate seems to be in a bit of a cooling trend. Even this doesn’t seem to matter. We can only imagine that the election campaign in 2012 may sport a claim that rapid political action is already yielding positive results. Perhaps then, the army of unemployed, growing in response to Barack Obama’s leadership, will remind us of what we already know. BO is not FDR.

According to Ash Patil, President of shared parenting group Fathers4Equality, “These provisions in the family law act were specifically implemented to reduce the epidemic of false allegations and parental alienation that permeate every corridor of the Family Law Courts, to the clear detriment of the innocent children caught in the cross-fire.

But Bryant wants them removed, and fails to explain how the innocent victims of maliciously false allegations would be protected without them.

James Adams adds, “What is more astonishing it seems is that unlike the parliamentary committee that recommended these laws in the first place, the Chief Justice has not consulted widely before making such an extraordinary intervention (in fact she has not consulted with any fathers’ groups at all).

Rightly or wrongly, Bryant will now be perceived to have compromised views on this issue, denying her the opportunity to have played a unifying force in the process of family law reform in this country, much like the wasted opportunities of her predecessor.”

The two provisions Bryant wants specifically removed include:

*the order of costs, at the Judge’s discretion, against a parent who has been proven to have “knowingly” made false allegation in Court,

and

*unspecified actions, at the Judges’s discretion, against a parent who has purposely alienated or deliberately maligned the children against the other parent.

The importance of these provisions Patil explains.  ”These provisions have been specifically implemented to reduce the disturbingly common practices by some separated parents in making contrived and sinister allegations in Court against the other parent, and to otherwise engage in concerted efforts to destroy the relationship between the child and the other parent. This is done knowing full well the children will be irrevocably harmed in the process, both psychologically and emotionally.

Yet it goes on and will continue to go on given human nature, unless we have laws to help it stop.

“So these are ‘good’, modest provisions designed to stop misguided parents from misusing the system and abusing innocent children”  were introduced only after extensive community consultation.

According to Adams “These provisions were agreed to by a bi-partisan parliamentary committee (both Labor and Libs/Nats) that went around Australia canvassing the views of all Australians for over two years.

Finally this committee was so appalled at the extent of institutional abuse in the Family Court that it recommended measures to protect innocent children and parents who were victims of contrived allegations and parental alienation by spiteful ex-partners.

” But Bryant wants to override the will of the Australian people and the will of Parliament, and to completely remove all disincentives against lying in the Family Court.

Really soft penalty for a very serious crime.

Patil, who claims that many F4E members are subjected to false allegations, states that “Proving that someone has ‘knowingly’ made false allegations rather than ‘mistakenly’ or ‘recklessly’ is quite a tall order. The standard of proof in these matters is a very tough hurdle to pass, and as a result ‘knowingly false’ allegations have only been proven in a relatively few cases in recent years.

If they are proved, they may result in a costs order, although this has been rarely applied in children’s matters by the judiciary. “Now given that perjury in any other Australian court may result in 10 years or more jail time, one must be mindful of the fact that this is a really soft penalty for a very serious crime.

It is a provision however that can work as a disincentive, albeit a modest one, in dissuading many parents from lying in the Family Court in the first place.” So these are “good”, modest provisions designed as a disincentive to those misguided parents who may in a moment of weakness be tempted to make contrived allegations in Court.

Measured responses to issues of concern Patil and Adams are frustrated by the logic used by the Chief Justice, and Patil adds that “Bryant justifies the need for these changes by suggesting that some people have misunderstood these provisions.

Even if this is true, her suggested fix is a remarkable over-reaction to an issue that could be addressed through a number of simple measures.” “Given that most parents in family law proceedings are either represented by lawyers, have visited a family relationship centre or have sought government funded legal services, a simple review could identify the cause of this misinformation from within these service providers, and provide an opportunity for corrective measures to be implemented.”

Adams wonders why the Chief Justice needs to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and opines that “a request to the Attorney General to implement an educational campaign to educate parents about these provisions would go a long way in addressing any existing misconceptions, and would be a more measured and effective approach to the issue at hand.”

Adams continues “Given the unprecedented nature of these family law amendments, what is required are sensible, well-measured & ultimately timely approaches to these issues, in order to allow for proper outcomes based research to develop. Anything less than this would put at risk the very wellbeing of those we are trying to protect.”

Broader consultations as a first step Fathers4Equality would like to encourage the Chief Justice to put some thought into what checks and measures she would alternatively suggest be implemented, if the current provisions are removed, to protect children from the devastating damage resulting from alienation and perjury in Court.

Given that lying in the Family Court and parental alienation are forms of child abuse, we stress the importance of carefully considering the implications to the welfare of children if these safeguards are removed.

Secondly and in reference to a recent campaign that has promoted a less than accurate reflection of these new laws, we would ask the Chief Justice to consider making a public statement to the effect, as is the case, that no evidence exists of any escalation of child abuse as a result of the new amendments.

This would be an important statement from the Chief Justice in the interests of an informed community discussion on this matter, and would help ensure that the debate is discussed in terms of facts, not innuendo.

Finally, we would like to draw attention to the increasingly under-resourced and overworked child protection authorities in this country, and the fact that too many cases of genuine abuse are not thoroughly investigated, in part because of the level of false allegations emanating from the Family Court.

It must be recognised that for every hour that a child protection officer is investigating a false allegation, it is one hour less protection that can be given to a child in genuine need, and this is a cost that the children of Australia simply cannot afford. Fathers4Equality would be open to discussing these important issues further with the Chief Justice, if she is willing to accept our invitation.

One of the biggest fears advanced by myself and people who I have had the honor of working with in the quest to educate Americans on the threats and dangers posed by radical Islamists, is that the American people would soon forget the horrors of September 11th; that they would start to forget the sense of helplessness they felt as they watched the World Trade Center collapse into the streets of New York City, the carnage at the Pentagon and the despondency of rescuers demonstrated in a field in Shanksville. We all understood that there would be a waning of the immediacy felt in the aftermath of the attacks – immediacy of response, education and prevention – but we feared the encroachment of apathy to the grotesque loss of life and butchery foisted upon the American people on that day. We feared it because we all understood – and still believe today – that to abdicate vigilance to the threat of Islamist aggression is to set the stage for another catastrophic event.

In the days after the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Liberal media (formerly referred to as the mainstream media) began to remove the images of the attacks from our television screens. Gone were the images of dust-covered people wandering the decimated streets of New York. We were no longer able to see the images of heroic firefighters and Pentagon workers frantically searched for people to rescue. And we were no longer provided the images of frustrated first responders – professionals trained to save lives – milling about the wreckage of an airliner in a field with no one to save. The media explained the removal of these images – these realities – by insisting it was done in the name of preventative tolerance; to quell any hatred, any catalyst for retribution toward the Muslim community.

The images of the most devastating attack to be perpetrated on American soil by a foreign enemy were replaced by a full-blown propaganda offensive designed to demand “tolerance” toward the American Muslim community. This propaganda offensive was employed not only by the media, but by our government. Leaders in Washington DC, including President George W. Bush (whom I respect and admire to this day) insisted that Islam was a “religion of peace” and that the terrorists who attacked our nation were a small, radical and violent faction of an otherwise peaceful religion. And as the message was repeated, the American people began to distance themselves from the feeling of vulnerability that embraced the country on September 11, 2001, the images of that day fading into the history books.

During the hours of the attack on September 11th, and over the course of the next few days, as we waited to see if any survivors would be found amongst the wreckage of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, many of our lives were changed forever. Many of us did the civically responsible thing and took the time to study the culture that gave birth to the fanaticism of al Qaeda and the ideology that harbors those who would champion brutal oppression, violent conquest and denial of Natural Law to all but their own in the name of religion. Some of us – including myself – came to understand that the ambitions of radical Islamists were far greater than simply striking out at “the Great Satan,” the United States of America. In fact, the goal of radical Islamists – be they Sunni or Shi’ite – was to establish a global caliphate as directed by their Prophet Mohammad; a caliphate that would encompass the world and bring all the people of the world to exist under Islamic Law; Sharia Law.

The quest to establish a global caliphate understood, the popular notion among the Progressive Left that the attacks were retribution for American policies in the Middle East was exposed as naïve, hollow and sometimes disingenuous rhetoric. Even Osama bin Laden’s 1996 and 1998 declarations of war against the United States, while calling for the withdrawal of American forces from the Islamic holy land of Saudi Arabia went further in conveying that jihad was the way to the global Caliphate and that the establishment of the global Caliphate was the path to Allah. Truth be told, the freedom and liberty valued by the United States and the West is simply a hurdle that radical Islamists have to navigate on their journey toward religious fulfillment. The hatred for Western culture held by radical Islamists, for those that value freedom and liberty, is not exclusive to the United States, as is evidenced by the terrorist attacks in Europe, the South Pacific, Asia, Africa and elsewhere.

Today, the US government has identified 72 terrorist organizations, with thousands of operatives, existing and operating within the borders of the United States. These organizations include al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Abu Sayyaf, Islamic Jihad, Jamaat al Fuqra and the Muslim Brotherhood, to name but a few. They have literally set-up offices in Boston, Chicago, New York, Dallas, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Tampa, Washington DC and over 38 other cities around the country. The recent conviction of officials from the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas, Texas – in which the Council on American Islamic Relations (a Saudi funded pro-Islamic lobbyist group) was named an unindicted co-conspirator – exposed the fact that many Islamic organizations disguised as “charities,” some with IRS 501c3 tax exempt status, are raising, laundering and funneling money back to the Middle East to support their terrorist organizations.

In our schools, the wrongfully accepted premise of separation of church and state is routinely violated on behalf of Islam under the guise of teaching tolerance. Some California schools even had the audacity to suggest that parents were outside of their authority when they complained about school children being made to be “Muslim for a day.” Would the schools mandate that students be “Catholic for a day” or “Jewish for a day” or “Protestant for a day” we could be certain that the American Civil Liberties Union would unleash all of its resources to stop said action.

CAIR, it has been found, routinely initiates lawsuits on behalf of Muslims in pursuit of preferential treatment. From cab drivers refusing to take fares that carry liquor, to prayer rooms and foot baths being constructed in public places using taxpayer monies, to receiving contractual obligations from private employers that agree to special treatment in the workplace, CAIR has facilitated the preferential treatment of the American Muslim in American society. Through it all, the voices coming from within the American Islamic community who decry such unwarranted preference are muted by the deafening silence of the majority of American Muslims who selfishly refuse to address not only the inequity of status that taxes the rest of American society in deference to their religion, but the violence perpetrated in the name of their religion.

To add to the complexity of the situation, the United States is experiencing a diminishing birthrate among our people. Conversely, the Muslim birthrate in the United States greatly surpasses the birthrate of Americans. Left to the singular device of reproduction the US population – as well as the world population – will be consumed by those who practice the Islamic religion through simple demographics in a few generations. By the sheer power of their numbers, Islamists, including those who wish to establish a global caliphate, will be able to inundate and monopolize any democracy on the face of the earth and no political maneuver, no procedural end-around and no amount of military might can overcome this inevitability.

Meanwhile, President Obama has adopted the strategy of extending an “open hand” of peaceful engagement to rulers and despots like Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Syria’s Bashar Assad and the Afghan Taliban – tyrants who routinely use the “fist” of totalitarianism and the ideology of radical Islam to not only attack the West but to destroy their own people. To date, this open hand has been met with indifference at best and indignation in the least.

Here at home, Attorney General Eric Holder, in one of the most transparent acts of political persecution, has chosen to investigate the Central Intelligence Agency for inappropriate behavior in the use of enhanced interrogation techniques when questioning radical Islamist terrorists captured on the field of battle. Newly released information has validated former Vice President Dick Cheney’s assertion that these techniques garnered critical information that prevented additional attacks on American soil.

Further, both President Obama and Attorney General Holder – along with the Progressive Left – are doing everything in their power to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and to introduce terrorists into the US legal system, a system routinely manipulated by the ACLU and CAIR.

It can be argued successfully that the US government and the American people are not doing all we can to win the battle against radical Islamist aggression. In fact, it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to argue that some within the inner workings of Washington DC actually champion the advancement of Islam in the United States.

On this, the eighth anniversary of the September 11th attacks, we need to rededicate ourselves to understanding the threat that radical Islam presents to We the People of the United States and to the people of the West. We need to take the time to read the Quran and the Hadith – in tandem – so as to realize, first-hand, the violent and oppressive tenets of the Islamic religion, the tenets embraced by radical and fundamentalist Islamists. We need to call on the American Muslim community to lead the charge against these violent and oppressive tenets, to confront the demons within their own religion and to bring about a reformation of their religion so it can exist peacefully with the many different people of the world.

Only when these things come to pass will we as a human race be able to face down and conquer the evils and barbarity of radical Islamists. Make no mistake, radical Islamists are at war with the world. They have said as much in the past and they continue to say as much today. The question we have to ask ourselves is this: Why do we refuse to listen to what they are saying?

From their graves, the 3,017 souls lost on September 11th, 2001 and the many lost in radical Islamist attacks around the world, beg for justice. It is our duty as human beings to hear them and to defeat radical Islam wherever it exists.

In memory of those lost on September 11, 2001.

When Senator Kennedy passed away, I got requests immediately, via phone calls and emails. I declined them because I didn’t want to seem uncharitable or speak ill of the man upon his death, given that the KGB memo is not exactly flattering.

Within only hours of that personal decision, my position became increasingly untenable as Rush Limbaugh addressed the subject at great length. Ultimately, once the funeral had passed, I published a piece in American Thinker laying out the specifics, and even posting the document (in Russian and English). I’ve now been doing roughly five radio interviews per day on the subject, not to mention responding to numerous other forms of inquiry.

I will not revisit the entire saga here, as readers can look elsewhere. But there is one telling thing about the whole incident that has been missed, and which showed up with intriguing historical irony just this week. Let me explain:

The most striking aspect of the KGB memo, not to mention Senator Kennedy’s many public statements and writings at the time—see, to cite just two examples, his March 24, 1983 Senate floor speech and March 1984 piece for Rolling Stone—was the late senator’s lack of faith and trust in President Ronald Reagan in contrast to his amazing faith and trust in Premier Yuri Andropov. This was evident in the memo, where the KGB head underscored that Kennedy was “very impressed” with Andropov—as opposed to Reagan, whose “militaristic politics” and “belligerence,” Kennedy judged, were the culprits for the increasingly tense Cold War.

This was a quite incredible perspective by Kennedy. I literally cannot name a single other American politician, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, who saw the Stalinist Andropov as anything other than cold, calculating, brooding, sinister. Yuri Andropov was no Mikhail Gorbachev. He was a throwback to the Stalin years.

And yet, because of that misplaced faith and trust in Andropov, Senator Kennedy believed that he could help arrange a P.R. tour for the Soviet dictator in the United States in August-September 1983, where Andropov could “influence Americans” with his (alleged) charm and generally produce a betterment in U.S.-Soviet relations, arms control, peace, and “define the safety of the world.” To quote the steps outlined in the KGB memo: “Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year, televised interviews with Y. V. Andropov in the USA.”

On its face, this was obviously an extraordinarily misplaced judgment, quickly apparent to anyone who lived through the 1980s and remembers Yuri Andropov. But the full degree to which this is so brings me to the other historical irony that passed unnoticed this week:

It was 26 years ago, early September 1983, when Soviet fighter pilots shot out of the sky a peaceful South Korean passenger airliner dubbed KAL 007, which had veered off-course into Soviet airspace. The attack killed 269 innocents, including 61 Americans. Andropov and his cruel regime scandalously denied and tried to cover up the dirty deed, but Ronald Reagan, his National Security Adviser Bill Clark, and his administration blew the whistle on Andropov at the United Nations. The good guys forced the bad guys to admit the crime, to concede responsibility for what Reagan labeled a “barbarous act” born of a society that “wantonly disregards” the most basic human rights.

Now, we don’t know what, precisely, caused the cancellation of the “August-September” 1983 Andropov tour of America proposed by Senator Kennedy in the May 1983 KGB memo. We don’t know because none of the liberal reporters who dominate the American media ever asked Kennedy these basic follow-up questions, even as the information in this KGB memo was first reported way back in a February 2, 1992 article in the London Times (titled, “Teddy, the KGB and the top secret file”), let alone my book, published by HarperCollins in 2006.

I suspect, however, that the proposed idea of a Yuri Andropov good-will tour to America in August-September 1983 literally went up-in-smoke over Soviet territory on September 1, 1983—blown up with KAL 007.

Thus, what happened with KAL 007 was not only symbolic of Soviet brutality and of Andropov’s disregard for human life, but of the late Senator Kennedy’s tragic misjudgment. And I think that Democrats from Kennedy’s own party will agree with me that it was such consistently poor judgment that plagued the late senator throughout his life and political career. It was a quality that, I believe, prevented Edward Kennedy from ever rising to the office of his late presidential brother.

Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. His books include The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan’s Top Hand and The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.

Let’s immediately dispatch the moralistic protestations of liberal-progressives that any degree of rough interrogation of terrorists, even to save thousands of lives from planned attacks, is unconscionable. Liberal-progressives grow weak-kneed contemplating the confinement and interrogation of a few hundred terrorist thugs, while aggressively murdering millions of babies.

President Obama supports the slaughter without judicial due process of babies via abortion, which is reminiscent of the an earlier pagan worship of the god Molech, requiring the sacrifice of infants. At the same time, the President’s fellow liberal-progressives hold street demonstrations and candle-light vigils to protest execution of vile murderers and rapists and to protest incarceration of criminals. These are pagan rituals oozing from the gospel of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who believed that private property was the root of all evil and, in particular, the cause of crime and wars.

So-called abortion rights have always been a big rallying point among liberal-progressive-socialists. Support for abortion is, on the flip side, support for sexual promiscuity, called free love in earlier generations. Abortion and sexual promiscuity are viewed as social weapons to destroy the Judeo-Christian moral foundations of our constitutional government, opening the way for full socialization of the economy.

A society that looks to government for all its daily needs and is educated to moral relativity is a society with no way to restrain the enlargement of tyrannical ambition.

Today’s howl against rough interrogation methods used to obtain vital information from Al Queda terrorists similarly arises from the religion of socialism (which, however, obviously didn’t deter liberal-progressive-socialists like Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and Adolph Hitler). Liberal-progressive-socialists in the United States, in fact, clamorously supported the murderous actions of Lenin and Stalin all through the 1920s and 1930s. Among them were Soviet-supporting Communist Party USA screenwriters like Dalton Trumbo, who is the subject of a current adulatory retrospective on Public Television. See The Friends of Dalton Trumbo on the Commentary website.

Liberal-progressives regard rough interrogation of Al Queda terrorists with horror, because they see those terrorists as victims of capitalism, who were deprived of their fair share of earth’s wealth by capitalist greed. As academics following 9/11 told us, the structure of our constitutional government prevented social justice, in this country and elsewhere. 9/11 was what we deserved. We therefore have no warrant for Gitmo detention or CIA interrogation methods.

President Obama’s plans to subject CIA agents and ultimately Vice President Cheney and President Bush to criminal prosecution reflects both that Rousseauian distaste for private property rights and the socialist faith that a one-world government will harmonize all of the world’s diverse peoples and transform them into homogenous, benevolent, happy campers.

Even the arch-liberal Washington Post has published a story wondering, by implication, whether where President Obama lost his marbles: How a Detainee Became An Asset.

Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776
http://www.thomasbrewton.com/

Email comments to viewfrom1776@thomasbrewton.com

The current, unelected encumbent is Quentin Bryce, a pleasant lady with inpeccable Feminist credentials who smiles a lot in public, for a handsome stipend.

Prior to her exalted position she was the Discrimination Commisioner given to railing against men gathering together and excluding women from talk of the finer points of car engines, beer labels and Labour Party political chicanery.

Never having encountered a glass-ceiling in her life, she made it her life’s mission to make sure every other woman reported finding one. The ‘Men’s Club’, being the manufacturer of glass and ceilings, was a favoured target of her wrath, along with insistence that chaps clean toilets and pick up socks.

Now, in a massive display of hypocricy, the explanations for which will no doubt be forthcoming and rival the next Harry Potter book, she has joined a  Power-Women-only club.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25996025-5006785,00.html

Quentin Bryce joins Lyceum Club in Melbourne

GOVERNOR-GENERAL Quentin Bryce, a former sex discrimination commissioner, has joined an exclusive women-only club in Melbourne at a time when the legality of single-sex clubs in Victoria is under review.

Ms Bryce’s decision to accept honorary membership of the Lyceum Club coincides with a Victorian parliamentary review of whether such single-sex clubs deserve to remain exempt from the state’s equal opportunity laws, The Weekend Australian reports.

The review follows recent controversy over Melbourne’s single-sex clubs, with the city’s exclusive men-only institutions such as the Melbourne Club and the Athenaeum Club being denounced as anachronistic by Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls.

Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick, who holds the position Ms Bryce occupied in the early 1990s, has also weighed into the debate, declaring it is “not smart” for any institution that claims to reflect a city’s elite to lock out half of the population.

A spokeswoman for Ms Bryce yesterday defended her decision to join the Lyceum Club.

“The Governor-General has no issue with men or women-only clubs or organisations,” the spokeswoman said.

“She is patron of numerous organisations specifically for women, such as the CWA, the Girls Brigade, Business and Professional Women Australia and the National Rural Women’s Coalition.”

The spokeswoman declined to comment on the “political” issue of the parliamentary review of single-sex clubs in Victoria except to note that such clubs were legal under equal opportunity laws.

Lyceum Club president Annie James said it was open to members to “invite people who are like-minded and can contribute to what the club stands for and can enjoy what the club offers”.

The century-old Lyceum Club has almost 1200 members and is aimed at women “who are interested in the arts, literature, sciences and social concerns”.

The Lyceum’s August newsletter boasted about its glamour recruit.

“I am very pleased to announce that the Governor-General, Her Excellency Ms Quentin Bryce, has accepted honorary membership of our Club,” Ms James wrote.

“Hopefully she will be able to take advantage of our membership occasionally and see what treasures hide in Ridgway Place (the club’s headquarters).”

In the next sentence, Ms James talks about the club’s fight to defend its right to remain a single-sex institution under the exemptions to the Equal Opportunity Act.

The governor-general has traditionally been granted honorary membership of men’s clubs such as the Athenaeum, however Ms Bryce has been shunned by such clubs because she is a woman.

Melbourne’s men-only clubs have been criticised in recent months by Ms Gillard, who has taunted them for not accepting Ms Bryce as a member.

Read more on this story at The Weekend Australian.

Today’s schools present political propaganda films like Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, “skeptics” are described as evil beings out to destroy the earth, and students are routinely punished for questioning global warming orthodoxy – whichever version of it is currently in the hands of their teachers. Tens of billions of dollars have been spent on fake science, scientists and bureaucrats have been punished for questioning it, and media moguls have delighted in hyping it. It’s yet another in a continuously growing list of case studies in Big Lie politics.

The good news is that surveys have shown a strong trend toward public understanding that climate change is not controlled by human activity (two-thirds); although more rapidly among voters generally than in what Rasmussen describes as the Political Class. A majority believes that the media over-hypes problems related to climate change and even more are unwilling to support higher taxes and utility costs in response to fear tactics. About half the public attributes climate change to specific natural causes. (A higher number did not attribute global warming to human activity: Some respondents weren’t sure or believed the specific cause was not among those offered in the survey (7%).)

We cannot however, simply bask in the wisdom of the elders; awaiting the release of children from the indoctrination pits for deprogramming. Forty percent of U.S. voters still think that global warming is a very serious problem. Only 42% understand that the “historic” climate change bill that recently passed the House will hurt the U.S. economy. Moreover, Rasmussen’s surveys show alignment between views expressed by the Political Class and their supporters, Democratic Party voters (who still seem to think that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant along with dihydrogen monoxide). The strongest movement toward reality is among Republicans. One might argue cause and effect in this relationship either way, but I believe the evidence more likely indicates polarized following than an upswing in independent study and critical thinking.

As recently as a year ago, statistics on public beliefs about global warming were reversed. About half the public believed human activity had been the primary cause of global warming, while only a third believed that climate change is a natural phenomenon. Even the improved statistics are not a glowing demonstration of human intelligence, but back then half the public believed that nature is controlled by government policy. This is surely a gleaming demonstration of human stupidity. We must at once understand all of the evil political movements of history, the plague of human prejudice, long-standing geopolitical conflict, the effective demise of the American Bill of Rights, among other things. A population can be led, no matter how outrageous the claims being made to lead them. In the midst of the global warming hoax, we have seen incontrovertible evidence of the ease with which at least some followers are driven to fanaticism in support of a purely manipulative cause.

If I may hazard a small number of sweeping statements about the desires of the vast majority of humans throughout the world; we want to live in peace, support our basic needs, enjoy freedom, and avoid constant manipulation and theft by those seeking power. I must mourn the fact that on the whole, we humans do not appear smart enough to just do it.

Roger F. Gay developed an expert understanding of Big Lie politics while analyzing “deadbeat dad” propaganda in the 1990s, which was part of a political movement that ultimately brought the legal destruction of marriage and effectively ended individual rights in the United States.

The original 1951 version is regarded as one of the best sci-fi movies ever made – a classic. That explains why the remake did better at the box office in 2008 than Assignment and Kronos combined (besides the fact that neither of the other two movies played in theaters last year). In the original movie, an alien with advanced technology arrived in a flying saucer with an ultimate message of peace. Their interest did not lie in the internal affairs of earth. They were concerned that conflict and destructive technology would eventually spread to effect them, because earthlings had powerful weapons and were on the verge of mastering space flight. A demonstration of the alien’s power came in the form of stopping all electrical and mechanical power on earth for half an hour – without effecting critical operations such as hospital intensive care wards, airplanes in flight, etc.

Reviewers of the remake had a list of complaints. The one that calls for a sequel is the destruction of the story – and not in a good way. Unless you’re a brain-washed greenie, the story line in the remake makes little sense. But I will try to summarize, being as open-minded as possible in an effort to make sense of it. The alien claims his race has prior claim on the earth. It’s some kind of nature reserve – a large park. Things were fine until uppity humans started building things and making sophisticated use of energy. The things humans do for their own survival – like constructing homes and heating them – growing and cooking food and all that – have made the place less than pristine. So, I’m sure you’ll understand (apparently), he decided to kill all humans. In the end, he decided not to – because, we’re sort of an interesting biology experiment or something. Anyway, we apologize, claiming that survival of our species was just a big mistake, and promise not to do it again. So, he just turned off all the power on his way out – sending modern people back into a prehistoric existence. Anyone who can survive like rats and spiders – ok. That’s the deal.

If this isn’t a problem for SG-1, what is? Star Gate or not, humans need to find a way to battle this new foe. The comparison isn’t superficial either. The alien did present a rather god-like aire; easily inheriting the role of the Goa’uld. The first thing we need to do is get the power back on. Since the aliens are not all-seeing gods, it will take many years for them to realize it was done. Then we need technology to begin the fight. Perhaps discovery of some alien communication device, left by another race, will bring an ally into the battle. Such arrogant jerks must have other enemies in the universe.

For me, the need for this sequel has a lot to do with preserving the memory of the original film, stolen for this sham of a remake. Some good must ultimately come of it. And in my opinion, the timing for the type of sequel I’m suggesting couldn’t be better. It would be a reflection on the same battle presently taking place in the real world. Human survival verses a bunch of arrogant jerks who want to force the masses into a stone-age existence with the hope of expanding their options for pleasant vacation spots.

Clearly, he is aware of the governmental power he has the potential to accrue with the passage of this single atrocious new entitlement. His lust for that power is evident in the ferocity with which he is striving to ramrod his plan through the congress and onto America. The stakes are far too great for him to do any less. Ultimately, the zeal with which he is pressing forward should be the greatest indication to Americans of the long-term perils that await them if he succeeds.

While it may seem odd to draw comparisons between the healthcare “debate” and the recent uprisings in Iran, certain disturbing parallels indeed exist. America and the world witness the tragedy of an oppressed people yearning to be free, and the manner in which the Iranian government is scrambling to regain its iron-fisted control of the situation. Central to this effort is their disinformation campaign. And while nobody in our country is being slaughtered over health care controversies, the situation is rife with ominous signs of a government/media propaganda blitz that rivals anything ever concocted by Tass or Pravda.

Furthermore, though the violence in Iran is not likely to be recounted in our communities, particularly with respect to medical care, ominous patterns of governmental coercion, and suppression of all opposition are already beginning to unfold here. And if the poisoned seeds of impending tyranny are any indication, it is chilling to ponder the bitter fruit that they may bear if not immediately checked.

It is not necessary to delve into ideological parallels between Obama and the ruthless Iranian leadership. Clearly, his Cairo speech revealed an appalling willingness to laud the Islamic world in a manner that he never proffers on behalf of America and the rest of Western Civilization. Anyone who doubts this need only to contrast that speech against the venom and anti-American hatred of the “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright, under whose spiritual leadership Obama willingly sat for more than two decades.

Still, with respect to healthcare, the underlying ideology is a secondary issue. It makes no difference why Obama and his kind are so intent on lowering the quality of American healthcare to levels reflective of nightmarish and dysfunctional Euro-socialist states. Their willingness to employ fraud and overreaches of power speaks volumes in itself. The results of this approach are entirely predictable. Any program that is implemented through such thuggish tactics cannot possibly redound to the benefit of America’s greatness or the former freedoms enjoyed by its people.

Pivotal to the onset of unrest among Iranian citizens was the obvious tampering of election results, ensuring the reelection of Islamist puppet Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. On the Iranian street, it was a given that Ahmadinejad’s rival, Mir Hossein Mousavi, was far more popular. Yet the “election” results painted a completely different picture, and predictably, one that the “religious” autocracy had intended from the beginning.

Of course nothing like that could happen here in America, or could it? On June 20, just in time for Obama’s big healthcare propaganda blitz, an “independent” CBS News/New York Times poll was released which claims that an amazing 72% of Americans are in support of putting their medical care under the complete control of the government. Apparently, the monstrosity of a socialist bureaucracy enjoys even more popularity on mainstreet than Ahmadinejad does in Tehran.

However, on closer examination, it turns out that, by a two to one margin, participants chosen for the poll were Obama supporters. By resorting to such absurdly skewed “sampling” pollsters can easily manufacture “overwhelming” public support or opposition on any topic they choose. Thus has CBS/New York Times revealed its willingness to sway public opinion by generating the illusion of political momentum.

Equally significant is that, in this role, CBS/New York Times is clearly disseminating misinformation in concert with the agenda of Obama and the Democrats. These formerly respectable establishments of the press have abdicated their time-honored role of protecting liberty and national integrity by keeping the public informed. Instead, they have assumed the dark mantle of demagogues and propagandists for the state. Joseph Goebbels would be proud.

Much worse is yet to come. At least CBS/New York Times still felt compelled to do their dirty deed under the guise of an objective poll. In comparison, the actions of ABC “News” vastly eclipse any previous sellout of the public trust by the press. Not content to merely parrot the Obama/Democrat party line, on Wednesday June 24, ABC News conducted a government “healthcare” infomercial from inside the White House. Comically denying any partiality, this broadcast was clearly crafted to advance Obama’s socialist cause, denying any opposing viewpoint from being presented, even during paid commercials.

In a sad post-mortem on the demise of the American Republic, CBS News/New York Times, along with ABC News, would not be memorialized as principled martyrs who lost a valiant fight to keep spreading truth among the people of the country. Rather, descending to the point of becoming ideological brothels from which any “informational” service can be purchased for the right price, these once great institutions willingly abandoned their rightful purpose, and now publicly strut their wares for the right bidder.

Despite all of this, the path to a takeover of the medical system is far from certain. Obama’s own desperation, revealed in such antics as the ABC News publicity stunt, stand as evidence that huge obstacles remain before Americans will consign their physical well being to the insipient madness of liberal bureaucracies. In response, Obama has been driven to mimic the tactics of those Iranian Ayatollahs who feel their grip on power slipping away. While insisting that the plan is a “done deal,” he demeans any who oppose it as “not logical.” In doing so, he demeans himself and the office he holds.

Next week, this country will be celebrating the two hundred and thirty third anniversary of its founding. Those courageous individuals who crafted and signed the Declaration of Independence birthed a nation on principles so wise and noble that it has since risen to the pinnacle of civilization. But if such ideals are abandoned, it cannot exist forever on the mere momentum of its glorious founding.

It seems wholly unlikely that Americans may ever face the prospect of blood running in the streets of their cities. But the specter of a government run healthcare system, and the sinister manner in which it is being advanced, represent a dangerous departure from the nation’s former greatness.

Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming. He has been active in local and state politics for many years and is a managing partner in Best American Buy (www.bestamericanbuy.com), an e-commerce business that markets products exclusively made in America. His contact information and archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com