Our own Political Commentator weighs in on the Russia Today Television show…

by The Political Commentator via Death By A Thousand Paper Cuts

After weeks of delay, the U.N. Security Council authorized the use of force in Libya against Muammar Gaddafi!

Using the analogy of a warehouse fire which is in no way trying to trivialize the situation, it’s almost as if the inferno in the picture above had been raging for days. Only now, when the building had already been reduced to a shell, was the fire department called in.

There is still much debate in this country (Let allah Sort It Out: US Should Stay Out of Libya) and around the world over whether there should be any outside intervention in Libya to help one extremist group (Libyan rebels) defeat another (Gaddafi).

However, if a decision by the U.N. Security Council to authorize the use of force in Libya to “protect” civilians and prevent the massacre of those who opposed Gaddafi was on the table, why delay it until the point was possibly already moot?

“… U.S. officials said military action was preferable out of fear that, should Col. Gadhafi remain in power, he would slaughter those who had turned against him and perhaps return to supporting international terrorism…” (WSJ)

While the outcome of a coalition use of force in Libya is unknown, Gaddafi has had weeks to put down the rebels attempt to take him out and weeks to kill civilians.

Is this just one more example of the U.N. getting to the party just a little bit too late?

Some of the main points in the Resolution (Guardian)

* The resolution expresses the UN’s “grave concern at the deteriorating situation, the escalation of violence, and the heavy civilian casualties”, condemns “the gross and systematic violation of human rights, including arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, torture and summary executions” and says the attacks against civilians “may amount to crimes against humanity” and pose a “threat to international peace and security”.

* A no-fly zone is “an important element for the protection of civilians as well as the safety of the delivery of humanitarian assistance and a decisive step for the cessation of hostilities in Libya”.

* It “demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians” and “that the Libyan authorities comply with their obligations under international law … and take all measures to protect civilians and meet their basic needs, and to ensure the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance”.

* It authorises UN member states “to take all necessary measures [notwithstanding the previous arms embargo] to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory”.

* It requests the co-operation of the Arab League member states in the previous measure.

* It decides to “establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians”, exempting humanitarian flights, and authorises member states and Arab League nations “acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights”.

Crossposted At Death By A Thousand Paper Cuts by The Political Commentator

The Al Jazeera Children’s Channel is coming to a neighborhood near you?

That’s the current plan! Sometime in 2012 Al Jazeera hopes to launch an English-Language children’s channel to penetrate this vast market in North America (H/T BNI).

For the liberals (very much including Jews) and the intellectual elites who considered it a must to get Obama into the White House, it will no doubt be considered chic and progressive to have their children watch the AJCC.

My advice would be to watch it along with them.

For the cynics out there who believe that there may be an ulterior motive for the producers beyond pure entertainment, one has to wonder what subliminal message the programming will be trying to send.

Watch these two videos.

The first video might actually be something that would air on AJCC, aimed at the older children’s demographic. It shows life in Gaza with a message of a society just trying to live their daily lives peacefully and happy, interrupted periodically by bombings that originate from _______. Fill in the blank. Subliminal message?

The second video, more direct, is not something you will likely see on Al Jazeera Children’s Television but in this clip there is no mistaking the message.

One subtle, one direct with the same basic message! It is Israel and the Jews who are the enemy.

By Daniel Liemux, via Bookworm Room:

Is our President a EUrolander wannabee? Yes.

I can’t tell you how many times I have heard my fellow Americans spout utter nonsense about EUroland.

Hey, they may have visited there and after visiting all the tourist spots and wining and dining in the best tourist restaurants afforded by American salaries and sabbaticals, they come home to proclaim that: “wow”, the food sure was great; the beer and wine were so much better; the museums were so cerebral; the architecture was really, really cool, and the public transportation so much more convenient than back home. And, get this, they have “free” healthcare and “free” retirement and “free” college education…why, EUrolanders must be living in paradise, so why can’t we be like them?

But, hey, what do I know? I just spent all my formative years, communicate with my family there and travel back regularly. No matter: it is so written in the Lefty Booboisie’s Temple of Orthodoxy that we must be more like EUrope, so any information to the contrary cannot be so and must be discounted. All reeeeasonable people know that EUrope is soooo much ahead of us in social justice. Que?

Of course, these fatuous fops of the Leftwing (I say “leftwing” because conservatives tend to be far more America-centric) booboisie never really lived the EUro experience. I maintain, based on experience, that you need to live in a country at least two years as an ordinary citizen to begin to look under the surface and understand it. A tourist’s, academic’s or exchange student’s view of Europe just will not suffice. Try explaining this to the American booboisie, convinced that the grass really is greener in the rest of the world, and you might as well talk to a brick.

( Read the rest here)

by Elwood “Sandy” Sanders at VA Right

Edmond, OK is a epicenter of the anti-ICLEI fight!

It started in December when city leaders scheduled a “Sustainability Forum”; the intent to was implement their pro-ICLEI plans without opposition.  Thanks to patriots and liberty activists, about 200 citizens came to the meeting.  They were determined to fight sustainability and expose ICLEI:

Forum participants were asked to form discussion groups to share ideas regarding water conservation, greenspace parks and energy efficient buildings to save money. City staff would then take those recommendations to implement in a grass roots community plan, Entz said.

“We’re telling you we don’t want to do that. We want to talk about sustainability — its history — where it comes from,” Edmond resident Robert Semands said amid widespread applause.

The city community development director, Shannon Entz, tried to move the meeting back to sustainability but was not able to prevail.  Anti-ICLEI flyers were distributed; all but one of the the speakers asked the city to withdraw from ICLEI.

That one exception came in the form of Benton Howell, a member of a local group called “Sustainable Edmond.”  He used his time at the microphone to extol the virtues of ICLEI’s preferred methods of sustainability, to promote the theory of “global warming”, and to suggest various (some credible) conservation methods for residents’ consideration.

The entreaties were on deaf ears; the usual excuses were rather given out:

“We don’t even know what you’re talking about with Agenda 21,” Entz said. “This isn’t part of our conversation at all. It’s absolutely not. We’re not part of that; we’re not interested in that.”

Semands said the language of sustainability comes from Agenda 21 which is a U.N. agenda.

“Edmond did not sign off with any international agenda,” former Mayor Dan O’Neil said.

Yes, you did, Mayor O’Neil!

( read the rest here)

Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democrat primary season asked the question:

“What if the phone rings at 3 a.m. in the White House — who will be ready to answer the call?”

If the first half of the Obama administration has taught us anything, it certainly wasn’t him!

Remember this ad?

It\’s 3:00 AM at the White House when the phone rings…

Now think about who we have answering the phone at 3:00 AM and ask yourself if you ever thought you would have actually been wishing for it to be Hillary Clinton!

Here is our decisive, world respected leader in action (Cartoon thanks to BlogsLucianneLoves)

By The Political Commentator, posted at GopUsa:

They both are masters of Rant: Hollyweird’s Charlie Sheen and Libya’s Moammar Gaddafi in a quote throwdown quiz. Who said it? How many can you get?

Given the lunacy of each it may not be as easy as it seems!

Listening to a speech given by Gaddafi is an exercise in trying to translate the rantings of a lunatic. Charlie Sheen on the other hand isn’t all that much better. This $2 MM an episode product of Hollywood fantasy life said the following:
That Alcoholics Anonymous is a “bootleg cult.”

On marriage that “Like in baseball, ‘the score board doesn’t lie” and on the media.

That “… they lay down with their ugly wives in front of their ugly children and just look at their loser lives and then they look at me …”

Who said it, Sheen or Gaddafi (courtesy of The Stir)

1.) Who said it?

We won’t lose victory from these greasy rats and cats … They should be given a lesson and stop taking drugs. They’re not good for you, for your heart.

2.) Who said it?

Unarmed incidents in Waco were dealt with by force … The Davidian cults in Waco were dealt with by armed vehicles.

3.) Who said it?

You can kill me, but you do not have the right to judge me.

4.) Who said it?

Anyone who undermines the constitution shall be put to death.

5.) Who said it?

I’m an F-18, bro. And I will destroy you in the air. I will deploy my ordinance to the ground.

6.) Who said it?

There must be a world revolution which puts an end to all materialistic conditions hindering woman from performing her natural role in life and driving her to carry out man’s duties in order to be equal in rights.

7.) Who said it?

If you’re part of my family, I will love you violently. If you infiltrate and try to hurt my family, I will murder you violently.

8.) Who said it?

You have absolute total resolve about your decisions if you love with violence and you hate with violence.

For the answers, go here

by The Political Commentator, posted at Death By A Thousand Paper Cuts.

They both are masters of Rant: Hollyweird’s Charlie Sheen and Libya’s Moammar Gaddafi in a quote throwdown quiz. Who said it? How many can you get?

Given the lunacy of each it may not be as easy as it seems!

Listening to a speech given by Gaddafi is an exercise in trying to translate the rantings of a lunatic. Charlie Sheen on the other hand isn’t all that much better. This $2 MM an episode product of Hollywood fantasy life said the following:
That Alcoholics Anonymous is a “bootleg cult.”

On marriage that “Like in baseball, ‘the score board doesn’t lie” and on the media.

That “… they lay down with their ugly wives in front of their ugly children and just look at their loser lives and then they look at me …”

Who said it, Sheen or Gaddafi (courtesy of The Stir)

1.) Who said it?

We won’t lose victory from these greasy rats and cats … They should be given a lesson and stop taking drugs. They’re not good for you, for your heart.

2.) Who said it?

Unarmed incidents in Waco were dealt with by force … The Davidian cults in Waco were dealt with by armed vehicles.

3.) Who said it?

You can kill me, but you do not have the right to judge me.

4.) Who said it?

Anyone who undermines the constitution shall be put to death.

5.) Who said it?

I’m an F-18, bro. And I will destroy you in the air. I will deploy my ordinance to the ground.

6.) Who said it?

There must be a world revolution which puts an end to all materialistic conditions hindering woman from performing her natural role in life and driving her to carry out man’s duties in order to be equal in rights.

7.) Who said it?

If you’re part of my family, I will love you violently. If you infiltrate and try to hurt my family, I will murder you violently.

8.) Who said it?

You have absolute total resolve about your decisions if you love with violence and you hate with violence.

For the answers, go here

by The Political Commentator, posted at Death By A Thousand Paper Cuts.

By Rob Miller via Big Peace

The United States has a unique and brilliant opportunity to entirely change our feckless image in the Middle East at one swoop – and get rid of a dangerous enemy to the US at the same time.

In view of accounts of Khaddaffi using helicopter gunships and even jet fighters against his own people, Libya’s Deputy Ambassador at the UN Ibrahim Dabbashi begged the Western powers to help the Libyan opposition by enforcing a no fly zone over the country.

It’s an absolutely splendid idea.

No only would it keep Khaddaffi from using his air force to brutalize his own people, but it would prevent him from escaping justice (assuming he hasn’t already) and from receiving foreign mercenaries and supplies.

But most importantly, it would show the Libyan people and the entire Arab world that the United States is on the side of freedom, something that goes entirely against years of propaganda they’ve been fed.

The fact that it would spell a nasty end to Khaddaffi is another upside. There is little downside risk, and we also have three aircraft carriers in range of Libya at this time.

(read the rest here)

By Felix via Colossus of Rhodey

According to the Wilmington News Journal, “a group of ministers wants to make unannounced visits to Wilmington’s public schools to make sure students are getting the education they need to avoid lives of crime.”

Members of Interdenominational Ministers Action Council said they will be speaking to principals in the coming weeks to develop plans that would give them access to classrooms so they can monitor teachers, administrators and overall school performance.

“We can’t interrupt. We can’t go in there and teach the lesson,” said the Rev. Christopher T. Curry, chair of the council’s education unit. “But we come in unannounced, we sit, we listen. We watch how the classroom discipline is, how the instructors are motivating our young people …

“If we see that it is not happening, we certainly would want to have this conversation with the principals who are involved. But if there is a rejection at that point, then we need to talk to the Department of Education.”

Thankfully, the state teachers union is against this silly idea. Unfortunately, the state secretary of education, Dr. Lillian Lowery, doesn’t see a problem with it: “It sounds right on,” Lowery said. “These are good people with good intentions.”

As you might expect (because, after all, it’s not like you would the News Journal to actually focus on this aspect), many of the commenters to the article think the idea is ludicrous — and think instead these ministers should make unannounced visits to the homes of these children to monitor how their parents are parenting:

– Or maybe these Ministers can “sit” in the houses these students come from and observe the root of their violent and defiant nature. Then they can see for themselves that schools are not the reason for street violence, nor will schools be the end to street violence.

– Question: Are they also going to monitor the homes of the children in their ‘adopted’ schools?

– Since it appears to be a well-known fact that many of the problems at school are as a result of lack of parenting at home, why aren’t these ministers going to the heart of the problem? Perhaps conducting ‘parenting classes’ at their places of worship. Perhaps offering things to encourage parents to take an interest in their kids. Perhaps sharing with their communities the fact that out-of-wedlock children are not as likely to succeed as those from two-parent families.

– I want to know what the Ministers are going to do with the parents that are not sending their kids to school. The problem is not the school. It’s the parents that are not raising their kids.

– Instead of walking into classrooms, why don’t they walk into peoples homes and make sure they are being good parents.

I was wondering what precisely these ministers would be looking for in terms of what is motivating children and in terms of discipline. And did these ministers wonder what sort of artificial effect their mere presence would have on a classroom during their visit? In other words, kids tend to behave better when they see other “official” adults in a classroom. Do these ministers have degrees in the subject of the classroom they’ll be visiting? Are they familiar with the teaching methods for that subject? Are they familiar with what the state test requires for that subject? Are they aware of how/what disciplinary measures are permitted for the school and/or district?

If, as I suspect, the answer to most or all of these questions is “no,” then these ministers have no business “reporting” on anything from a classroom to a principal … or anyone else. Personally, I don’t have an issue with them visiting classrooms to make generalized observations — as a public institution any member of the public should be so permitted (of course, with the usual school/child protection measures in place, i.e. administration chaperones, etc.) — but the moment any sense of “officiality” about their observations becomes apparent, teachers (and their appropriate representatives) should speak up and have this practice cease.

Read the rest here