Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

We are experiencing technical problems with our Facebook page.  We've now learned that these problems are across the internet.  Facebook introduced technical changes Tuesday night, and with those changes came some serious bugs that are affecting the ability of many websites, including our own, to place posts on a Facebook page.  We're assured that Facebook is working on the problem.  I don't know if the guy portrayed in the film, "The Social Network," about the birth of Facebook, is involved in fixing this.  If he is, and messes up, he should give back the movie money. 

We welcome the new conservative website ClearRight, edited by John McDaniel, who has made substantial design and editorial contributions to Urgent Agenda.  Check out the new site here.

MARCH 10, 2011

AND NOW BIG OIL – AT 9:05 P.M. ET:  There was violence in Saudi Arabia, with fears (or hopes) for more tomorrow.  From WaPo:

DAMMAM, SAUDI ARABIA - Three people were injured when police opened fire during a protest in eastern Saudi Arabia on Thursday, according to a witness and a Saudi official.

The witness, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals by authorities, said police at first fired over protesters' heads but then began shooting directly at them during a march in central Qatif, a predominantly Shiite town in oil-rich Eastern Province.

An Interior Ministry spokesman said police fired over the heads of protesters after demonstrators attacked them, the Reuters news agency reported. He did not say how the injuries were caused but said one of those hurt was a policeman.

At the time of the shooting, "the police were maybe 50 meters away" from the protesters, who were calling for the release of prisoners, the witness said. It was not immediately clear whether the bullets were live or rubber.

"The guy, he goes talking only, and directly the police shot at him by gun, and all the people started running," the witness said.

And...

Larger protests are planned for Friday across Saudi Arabia. Demonstrators are seeking reforms that include a say in government, better economic opportunities and, in the Shiite-heavy eastern area, an end to what protesters call systematic discrimination by the Sunni monarchy.

Shiites are a minority in Saudi Arabia, making up 10 to 15 percent of the population.

COMMENT:  Should Saudi Arabia descend into an Egyptian-style revolt, and I think the odds are still against it, the disruption to the world's oil supply could be extreme.  Even President Obama might notice it. 

We've now had violence in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Jordan, Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi Arabia.  There are, of course, no guarantees here.  All could be quiet in a month, with little change in government policies or social conditions.  But eventually, people in the Arab world will realize that their destiny doesn't lie with corrupt totalitarians.  Nor does it lie with a weak United States.

Obama came to office promising a more modest American foreign policy.  He might examine the different between modesty and humiliation.  He has given us a return to the indecision and flabbiness of the late 1970s.  He cannot point to a single foreign-policy success on his watch.  Maybe, in a strange way, that's the way he wants it, given his contempt for the American people and their values.

March 10, 2011      Permalink

RAS LANUF, Libya —Forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi retook this strategic refinery town after an assault by land, air and sea Thursday, opposition leaders and fighters said, an onslaught that sent scores of rebels fleeing along a coastal road and underlined a decisive shift in momentum in an uprising that has shaken the Libyan leader’s four decades of rule.

In testimony before a Senate committee today, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper suggested that Qaddafi would win.  The White House reprimanded Clapper, but he was speaking the truth.  Unless there is outside intervention, Qaddafi's forces will probably prevail.

The fighting was a stark illustration of the asymmetry of the conflict, pitting protesters-turned-rebels against a military with far superior arms and organization and a willingness to prosecute a vicious counterattack against its own people.

As we reported earlier, the rebels did gain some ground diplomatically today when France extended recognition to a fledgling rebel government.  But that is paper recognition.  It won't change the military situation.

We thought, in this crisis, that Hillary Clinton might push for a firmer American response, and would seek an American leadership role.  On the contrary, she has acted the good soldier, making it plain that America wanted others to lead in a a reaction to the Libyan uprising.  How sad.  The world used to look to us for leadership.  And the world, or much of it, applauded the election of Barack Obama.  But "leadership" and "Obama" don't fit well together.

Fouad Ajami of Johns Hopkins, one of the wisest observers of the Mideast, said a few days ago that the United States would pay a bitter price for its inaction during the Libyan crisis.  We seem willing to let NATO squabble over what to do, when every hour is precious.  I fear Ajami will be right.

March 10, 2011      Permalink

ANOTHER TROUBLING SIGN FROM EGYPT – AT 8:18 P.M. ET:  Which way the Egyptian revolution?  That is the question.  Some of the recent answers, such as sectarian clashes in Cairo, have been troubling.  Now we have this, from Reuters:

CAIRO - Egypt has released two prisoners who were jailed for involvement in the 1981 assassination of a former Egyptian president, Anwar Sadat, al-Jazeera television reported on Thursday.

"The Egyptian authorities have released Abboud el-Zomor and Tarek el-Zomor who were accused in the case of Sadat's assasination," al-Jazeera said.

Former Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, in power from 1970, was shot during a military parade by Khaled el-Islambuli, a member of an Islamist group, after Sadat became the first Arab leader to sign a peace treaty with Israel in 1979.

Tarek and Abboud el-Zommor had been imprisoned for participating in the assassination plot.

COMMENT:  Why now?  What's the hurry?  What signal is being sent?  This reminds us of the release of the Lockerbie bomber from a Scottish jail, on corrupt "compassionate" grounds. 

The focus has been off Egypt, but we should realize that there are dangerous forces at work in that country, including forces aligned with Iran. 

I suspect we'll be caught by surprise again.  Why change things?

March 10, 2011      Permalink

WHAT A GEM! – AT 11:35 A.M. ET:  How often have you read a first-class, stimulating column by a 103-year-old? 

Jacques Barzun, formerly provost at Columbia University, and still fighting at 103, writes a fine piece for the Wall Street Journal, urging the return of ROTC to Columbia.  (If the link turns up a partial column, blocked by the WSJ's subscription requirement, simply Google the title.  You'll get the whole thing, as I did.)  Here are some quotes, from a guy who actually can write...and probably remembers World War I:

In 1969, spurred by antiwar student riots, the university cancelled its Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program, which had its roots in the Columbia Midshipmen's School that trained over 23,000 naval officers in World War II. By the 1990s, after the fervor around the Vietnam War had subsided, university officials justified keeping ROTC off campus because of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

With Congress having repealed that edict last year, Columbia faculty have raised new arguments against ROTC. Some faculty members have recently circulated a petition that the military should remain banned because it continues to be a "discriminatory institution" on the basis of "many reasons from physical disability to age." The basketball team discriminates too.

The petition also vaguely warns that a few students wearing uniforms around campus would be a harbinger of "militarization." They ignore the Eisenhower Leadership Development Program, a joint endeavor with West Point that sends dozens of commissioned and uniformed officers each year to Columbia's sacrosanct campus. They also ignore Columbia's law and medical schools, which commission students directly into the Armed Forces Judge Advocate General's Corps as well as medical residencies, and count among their faculties several active-duty military officers.

That's an example of superb, clear, direct writing.  Indeed, Barzun once wrote a manual for writers called "Simple and Direct."  I still use it.

Read the rest of the piece.  It's a pleasure, and a powerful argument to bring ROTC back to a campus celebrated in Herman Wouk's "The Caine Mutiny" as a training ground for Navy officers, but which has gone off the tracks in recent decades, the better to pander to the political left.  Barzun concludes:

Columbia's president and trustees must act to restore the university's long-estranged relationship with the armed forces.

Yes, indeed.  It's too bad Columbia still needs lectures from a man who's 103, but it does.

March 10, 2011      Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 9:41 A.M. ET: 

RIYADH, March 9 (Reuters) - A senior Saudi prince questioned the need for a ban on women driving on Wednesday and said lifting it would be a quick first step to reduce the Islamic kingdom's dependence on millions of foreign workers.  The Gulf Arab state is a monarchy ruled by the al-Saud family in alliance with clerics from the strict Wahhabi school of Islam. Women must be covered from head to toe in public and are not allowed to drive.

Women drivers, what a concept!  Does this mean that women will soon be allowed to have opinions?  Watch TV?  Read?

March 10, 2011       Permalink

DID WE EVER THINK WE'D SEE THE DAY? – AT 9:21 A.M. ET:  Do you recall our image of France when George W. Bush was president and Jacques Chirac was president of the French republic?  Remember (cheese-eating surrender monkeys" and "freedom fries."

My, how things have changed.  Did we ever think we'd see the day when France would lead, and America would be left in the dust?  This relates to the post just below.  France has taken the lead on Libya.  From The New York Times:

PARIS — Moving ahead of its allies, France on Thursday became the first country to recognize Libya’s rebel leadership in the eastern city of Benghazi and said it would soon exchange ambassadors with the insurgents.

The move was a victory for the Libyan National Council in its quest for recognition and a setback for Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi who has been seeking whatever international support he can as NATO members in Brussels began a debate about the possible imposition of a no-flight zone over Libya.

The French announcement came as loyalist forces in Libya claimed new successes against the rebels west of the capital in the town of Zawiyah, while, to the east, loyalist forces renewed ferocious assaults on the key oil town of Ras Lanuf.

President Nicolas Sarkozy met in Paris on Thursday with Mahmoud Jibril and Ali Al-Esawi, representatives of the Libyan National Council that was set up after the uprising in Libya erupted in February. He was the first head of state to meet with insurgent leaders.

COMMENT:  Look, we can't know whether this was premature or not, but real leaders seize the moment.  They force history, they don't stand beside it.

It is perfectly obvious that no one, except maybe the teenagers of Europe, really cares about Barack Obama's vision any longer.  The fact that France, a country we used to ridicule, is out in front of us is humiliating.  And it comes at the same time that some members of the president's own party, such as Senators Dianne Feinstein and Joe Manchin, are publicly questioning Obama's domestic leadership as well.

Obama isn't only Jimmy Carter.  He's Jimmy Carter lite, and I didn't think there was anyone lighter than Carter.  But we learn every day, don't we?

March 10, 2011     Permalink

THIS IS WHAT WE'VE COME TO – AT 8:39 A.M. ET:  We once had Ronald Reagan as president.  He told Gorbachev to "tear down this wall."  We once had George W. Bush as president.  He made clear to enemies of the United States precisely what would happen to them.  Now we have someone else, as the Washington Post tells us:

President Obama is content to let other nations publicly lead the search for solutions to the Libyan conflict, his advisers say, a stance that reflects the more humble tone he has sought to bring to U.S. foreign policy but one that also opens him to criticism that he is a weak leader.

The latter is correct.  There's nothing humble about him.

The tactic is anathema to many conservatives and worries some liberal interventionists, who believe that only overt American authority can assemble an effective opposition to brutal authoritarian governments such as that of Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi.

Although Obama sees advantages in keeping Washington in the background, especially in a region where the United States is held in such low regard, he has exposed himself to Republican charges that he is absent at a time of crisis. Conservatives say his one-of-the-team approach could also signal a decline in American fortitude after nearly a decade of war.

It signals a decline in leftist fortitude, not that there was much there to start with.

Since the uprising began, Obama has devoted just one set of public remarks solely to the situation in Libya, where fighting has reached a harsh stalemate. European nations have taken the lead in drafting a no-fly zone resolution, and Obama has yet to say whether he favors one. He followed France in calling for Gaddafi's ouster.

COMMENT:  How pathetic we've become under this president.  And what is the left exercised about today?  Why, they're upset about Rep. Peter King's congressional probe into radicalization of American Muslims.  I guarantee that if some liberal announced hearings into the radicalization of Christians, the left would be cheering.

March 10, 2011        Permalink

A TALE OF NUMBERS – AT 8:23 A.M. ET:  I'm confused.  Please unconfuse me.  Isn't the Obama administration supposedly fighting for the average family?  Maybe I got that wrong.

From Reuters:

(Reuters) - U.S. drivers will pay another 10 cents a gallon for gasoline before the latest jump in wholesale costs is fully passed on at the pump, and yearly motor fuel costs will rise 28 percent from last year, the Energy Department said on Wednesday.

The average U.S. household will spend about $700 more for gasoline in 2011 than it spent last year, bringing total motor fuel expenses up 28 percent to $3,235, based on an annual pump price of $3.61 a gallon, the department's Energy Information Administration said.

From the Boston Herald:

More than a dozen WGBH honchos at PBS’ taxpayer-subsidized flagship station are raking in upwards of $200,000 a year while toiling in the lap of a luxurious $85 million multimedia palace dubbed the “Taj Mahal” that boasts a 200-seat amphitheater, state-of-the-art recording studio and Hamburg-Steinway grand piano.

The Herald’s review of the nonprofit producer behind such PBS stalwarts as “Frontline” and “Nova” comes on the heels of yesterday’s sudden ouster of National Public Radio’s boss following a viral video that showed another NPR executive calling Tea Party Republicans racist. The furor is fueling a new push to end taxpayer subsidies for public television and radio.

The freewheeling spending at WGBH — which produces one third of all PBS programming — has put the station in the crosshairs of congressional Republicans looking to cut off federal funding of Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which totaled $430 million this year.

Those Republican barbarians.   Don't they understand the ways of Boston?  I guess they're still clinging to their guns and their religion.

You know, pretty soon Americans are going to wake up and realize how little the average American means to this White House and its congressional allies.  After all, darlings, how many of those little people come to Aspen to attend meetings on climate change?

Yuch.

March 10, 2011     Permalink

MARCH 9,  2011

NATIONAL PUBLIC RIDICULOUSNESS – AT 7:40 P.M. ET:  Vivian Schiller, CEO of National Public Radio, has resigned.  The resignation, which many sources say was encouraged by NPR's board, comes a day after a secretly made tape was released on which a high NPR official, now himself resigned, made disparaging remarks about Republicans, Tea Party members, and, obliquely, Jews. 

And this comes only months after Juan Williams was fired from NPR on the basis of trumped-up charges of violating NPR's rules.  The real reason was that he appears on Fox.  And I suspect that there was annoyance that Williams, an African-American, doesn't parrot the liberal line. 

NPR and its partner in crime, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, are facing a public-relations crisis just as their funding is being considered in Congress.  Republicans are determined to defund these budget drainers.

When public television first got started, almost half a century ago, we only had three major television networks.  An argument could be made for an "educational" TV system that couldn't raise funds through advertising, and which broadcast "high-quality" programs.

Today, though, with cable and satellite systems in abundance, not to mention DVDs available in our mailboxes through Netflix, the argument for public subsidies of broadcast operations seems pretty weak.  Shows like "Sesame Street" can easily find corporate backing.  As for National Public Radio, I can't see why they should not have to compete in the marketplace of ideas, like everyone else.  They put on some pretty good programs, and, if enough listeners agree, funds can be found.

I say defund over a period of five years to give these institutions time to adjust.  Their leftist bias has alienated them from millions of Americans.  They have lost our confidence and respect.  And with all that's available to us, their programming is no longer that special.

March 9, 2011      Permalink 

TRAGEDY IN LIBYA – AT 7:16 P.M. ET:  While our dynamic president contemplates the philosophical nature of the world situation, and consults various authorities, Libya is becoming a bloody mess.  The government forces are striking back, and the battle now seems to be tipping in their favor.

RAS LANUF, Libya — Forces loyal to the Libyan leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, attacked rebel fighters on the outskirts of this strategic refinery town, provoking a response that included the firing of missile fusillades and rocket propelled grenades, in perhapsthe fiercest engagement yet between the budding opposition army and the government during the three-week old conflict.

Backed by their heavy weaponry the rebels managed to advance on foot for a couple of miles to the west, witnesses said, until they were frozen by mortar fire and heavy machine guns and forced to retreat in trucks. At least five soldiers died in the fighting.

In the western half of the country, elite government troops continued to pound the besieged, rebel-held city of Zawiyah , only 30 miles from Colonel Qaddafi’s stronghold, the capital city of Tripoli.

Across the country from each other, in fights of vastly different complexions, Ras Lanuf and Zawiyah have become proving grounds in Libya’s emerging civil war. In the east, on a battlefield of desert, dunes and scrub, the rebel force has matured and, improbably, retained control of the town for more than week. But under steady bombardment by government jets and kept at bay by superior artillery, the rebels have not been able to advance towards Tripoli, the colonel’s stronghold.

A broadcast report said that all the talk about outside nations imposing a no-fly zone has actually given impetus to the Qaddafi loyalists.  They want to get in as much aerial bombing as possible before such a zone is established, if it ever is.

We look awfully weak right now, and other nations in the Mideast are undoubtedly noticing.  Obama has demanded that Qaddafi leave office, but has done absolutely nothing to back up the demand.  NATO is going to meet on the Libyan crisis.  However, it's widely believed that NATO will take no action without UN approval, and UN approval is virtually impossible to get, as China and Russia would oppose any Security Council resolution.

As Oliver Hardy of Laurel & Hardy used to say, this is a fine mess.

March 9, 2011      Permalink

WHERE OBAMA STANDS – AT 9:43 A.M. ET:  According to Gallup, President Obama is slipping in the polls again.  From Andrew Malcolm at the L.A. Times's Top of the Ticket blog:

According to the latest Gallup numbers, Obama's weekly job approval number was 46% through Sunday.

That's the lowest it's been since mid-December, when Republican "hostage-takers" forced the
Democrat to accept an extension of the Bush tax cuts that Obama now sees as a positive sign of bipartisan cooperation, not to mention job growth.

The current approval is even lower than the 47% Obama had after his murky State of the Union address that atypically provided no noticeable poll bounce.

He had been up at the 50% level into January, his first time up there since May. But then slid again to hover around 48% until the newest decline.

And...

79% of Democrats approve of Obama's job now. However, that's down from 84% in late January. His approval among independents dipped from 47% to 43%.

The Democrat's approval among Republicans, which couldn't conceivably get any worse, did anyway: Down another notch from 15% to 14%.

COMMENT:  Caution:  These are not terrible figures and we shouldn't be popping the corks just yet.  Still, an approval number of 43% among independents is nothing for the White House to brag about.

One of the things that's hard to measure in these polls is the issue of enthusiasm, or electricity.  Obama was elected in 2008 in part because his base was sizzling hot for him.  This was "the man."  Not since Republicans embraced Ronald Reagan has a base been as solidly behind a candidate.

That electricity has lost some voltage.  If it gets any worse, Obama may be running on the amount of juice used to power a smoke detector.  Some Dems have lost faith in him, as noted in the post just below.  The nation as a whole no longer sees him as unique.  His racial "first" is, by now, ancient history.  I would suspect that much of his "approval" number is soft approval. 

But Republicans haven't named their candidate.  Even if Obama's approval stays below 50%, he can still win, if the GOP nominates a clunker.  I recall the 1964 election, when President Lyndon Johnson won a landslide victory, even though it was hard to find anyone who liked Johnson.  But he was running against Barry Goldwater, who scared people.  The Dems convinced America that Barry would launch the missiles, and that did much to give Johnson a solid victory. 

And recall that Nixon, never loved, sometimes loathed, won two presidential elections, the second against George McGovern, who also scared people.  Just as Americans thought Barry would launch the missiles, Americans believed George would scrap the missiles.  Just as scary.

The GOP's choice of candidate will determine who wins the election.  The field is plentiful but not deep, respectable but not loved.  We need passion in a party that regards passion as sinful. 

March 9, 2011       Permalink

EVEN THE DEMS ARE WHISPERING – AT 8:28 A.M. ET:  About President Obama's lack of leadership.  From the first day, Obama never seemed to like the job.  He just wanted to have it.  Good food.  Great concerts at the White House.  Terrific private jet.  But the work load.  Jeez, who needs that?

Now even Democrats are starting to buzz about Mr. Obama's indifference, even on budget matters.  From the Washington Examiner:

With no real compromise in sight on a 2011 budget, lawmakers are growing frustrated with President Obama, saying he failed to take a leadership role to help resolve the months-long fiscal stalemate.

"The president ought to play a much greater role," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., following a closed-door meeting of the Democratic caucus Tuesday that centered on the budget. "I think the president doesn't want to be engaged in this kind of fight, and it's not right. He has to step up."

Involved?  Is that in the Constitution?  Where does it say "involved"?

The Senate was scheduled to hold test votes by early Wednesday on two competing measures that would fund the remaining seven months of the fiscal year, but neither bill was expected to garner the 60 votes needed to pass.

"It's back to the negotiating table," said Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn.

Feinstein isn't the only one complaining:

Feinstein's comments followed a floor speech by freshman Sen. Joe Manchin, a moderate Democrat from West Virginia, in which Manchin questioned the wisdom of holding votes on the two doomed spending proposals and who criticized President Obama's lack of involvement in the budget standoff.

"Why are we doing all this when the most powerful person in these negotiations -- our president -- has failed to lead this debate or offer a serious proposal for spending and cuts that he would be willing to fight for?" asked Manchin, who is up for re-election in 2012 and is considered politically vulnerable.

Remember that two years ago Obama was being presented to the American people as a demigod, who would solve all our problems with a wave of the hand.  Now he won't even wave the hand.  A wink, maybe.  But no hand.

And get this:

Obama last week tapped Vice President Biden to head bipartisan budget talks. Biden showed up in the Senate for an hourlong meeting and then departed for a weeklong overseas trip.

"I don't know of anything that came out of Biden's visit," Feinstein said.

Another frustrated Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, said his party is not even discussing a compromise plan.

"There was no discussion about a path [to compromise] and I'm not sure there is a path," Nelson said.

COMMENT:  The bloom is definitely off Obama's rose.  Add to this his failure to lead during the revolts in the Mideast, his offhand treatment of the Australian prime minister when she visited earlier this week, and we have a picture of a president whose record may have as many blank spots as his life story.

But don't despair, Barack.  Katie Couric will save you in 2012.

March 9, 2011      Permalink

AND NOW THE REAL PROBLEMS BEGIN – AT 8:14 A.M. ET:  Many reporters covering the Egyptian revolt, especially the worthies from The New York Times, acted as if the whole thing were a high-school musical.  Hey, look at those common folk out there.  Let's have a song.

Then we learned of the horrific attack on CBS correspondent Lara Logan, beaten and sexually assaulted by a mob of protesters who surrounded her yelling "Jew, Jew, Jew!"  (She is not Jewish.)  Of course, that story faded rather quickly.

Now, another horrible incident in the "new" Egypt.  I guess Christian pilgrims won't be traveling to Egypt anytime soon.  From Reuters, via The Jerusalem Post: 

CAIRO - Thirteen people were killed in violence between Christians and Muslims in Cairo
on Tuesday night, the state news agency reported on Wednesday.

The agency quoted a senior health ministry official as saying 110 people were wounded in the violence.

The violence was triggered by a Christian protest over an arson attack on a church in Helwan south of Cairo.

Christians protesting over the attack on the church had blocked a main highway south of Cairo and violence started after Muslims who wanted to pass through clashed with the protesters, a security source said.

Petrol bombs and rocks were thrown. At least one of the dead Christians had been struck in the back by a bullet, but it was unclear who had fired it. The army had fired into the air to disperse protesters.

Coptic Christians make up about 10 percent of Egypt's population of 80 million.

Tensions between the communities which appeared to evaporate during the mass uprising against President Hosni Mubarak have resurfaced in recent days, posing a challenge for the country's interim military rulers.

COMMENT:  Let's see how much coverage this will get in the mainstream media.  Do you think NPR will cover it in depth?  We wait for some career-minded reporter to find a link between Coptic Christians and the Tea Party.  Don't laugh.

March 9, 2011      Permalink

INCREDIBLE – AT 7:57 A.M. ET:  Brought to you first this morning as still another reminder of the vast corruption at the UN.  From Fox:

A watchdog group is asking the U.N. to immediately remove a Libyan envoy from her post as an investigator on human rights violations by mercenaries, saying that as a mouthpiece for a regime that’s “deploying hired guns to massacre its own people” it's “outrageous” to have her in that position.

Najat Al-Hajjaji has been one of five members of “The Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the rights of peoples to self-determination” since its inception in 2005.

Among other things, the group was established to monitor mercenaries and mercenary-related activities around the world, study their impact on human rights, create proposals to further the protection of human rights against threats posed by mercenaries and draft international principles to encourage respect for human rights by companies offering mercenary services, according to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights website.

But U.N. Watch, an organization that monitors the performance of the United Nations, says Al-Hajjaji should be the “last person” charged with any of those duties – especially now.

“At a time when [Libyan leader Muammar] Qaddafi is using mercenaries to kill his own people, it is outrageous that one of his long-time representatives would sit on the world’s highest human rights body as a supposed defender of human rights -- and, of all things, as a defender of victims of mercenaries,” U.N. Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer told FoxNews.com.

COMMENT:  And yet, we were recently lectured to by our UN ambassador, Susan Rice, about how much the United States needs the UN.  And we're told that President Barack (just call me Jimmah) Obama is reluctant to take any action without UN approval. 

It's bad enough to have the insane run loose.  To put our future in their hands makes us just as insane.

March 9,  2011     Permalink