Saturday, June 23, 2012
Although this subject is of a topical nature ie; our Coalition Forces involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, it does not feature very highly on most Westerners radar. Given that Australia is also a signatory to the Rules of Warfare, as laid down by the Geneva Convention, it should be incumbent on all who wish to serve in the military to make themselves aware of the further restrictions, under Rules of Engagement, which have been placed onto all military personnel who undertake combat duties in current and future roles that requires the presence of our soldiers in foreign lands.
Rules of Engagement are now considered to be an integral part of operations in foreign lands where the Coalition military is required to carry out its function while the normal lives of the occupied civilian population can be maintained with minimum interference. In other words, Rules of Engagement have been designed to keep the civilian casualty list down to foster local good will which also placates the sensibilities of the politicians and the left wing hand wringers back home. While the doctrine of Rules of Engagement has been successful in keeping civilian collateral damage to a minimum thereby limiting political fallout and bad press, it has allowed the enemy to take up some very disturbing practices against coalition forces involved in eradicating them from the landscape.
The Daily Telegraph Editorial, September 28, 2010, highlighted the often very difficult circumstances that coalition soldiers find themselves in whenever the Taliban decide to use women and children as human shields, while fully cognizant that our highly trained and restrained by rules soldiers will not shoot back, even when shot at by these completely amoral Muslim guerilla fanatics. Those who have heard about the 2010 charging of three Australian soldiers by the Australian Army, who were involved in a firefight sometime during 2009, would also be aware that the incident so described saw the deaths of 5 Afghani children. The children had been holed up in a house with a Taliban fanatic who decided to fire upon advancing Australian troops from within the house with no apparent regard at all for the lives of the children he was hiding behind. And while the complete 'picture' of what actually occurred during that incident was not immediately available to those of us with an interest in our soldiers welfare, it should be noted that soon after being charged, two of the soldiers involved spoke out by issuing statements that defended their actions.
It must be emphasized here to those who do not comprehend what Coalition forces Rules of Engagement cover, and what actions may occur before our troops are permitted to return fire, even while being shot at, that when soldiers are limited in the actions that they may take when coming under fire, and remember that these are real bullets that are fired at them, it increases the risk of them being killed or very badly wounded, while the enemy who is doing the shooting and hoping to kill them, is not restricted by any rules which may hinder his actions. In short, adding Rules of Engagement onto Rules of War and expecting our soldiers to comply with them is adding to their already high stress levels, and adds further dangers which imperil all coalition personnel while it contributes to an imbalance of military tactics which favors the enemy who Coalition soldiers are employed to eliminate.
Here are two examples of Rules of Engagement:
If having been fired upon by a shooter who then drops his weapon to his side as soon as he comes under notice from coalition forces, he should no longer be considered an immediate threat and is not to be fired upon, even if he decamps to another location where it is likely he will take up another position to resume firing.
If troops come under fire from a dwelling place which could be considered to have women and children present they are to avoid returning fire and deploy to another safer area.
It's no wonder then that an Army lawyer, a Brigadier Prosecutor, got to rub her hands together at what she perceived was her first real case of substance involving three Australian soldiers who she charged with murder soon after that 2009 incident. Thankfully, and as cooler heads prevailed by applying some common sense, as of this time, those three soldiers have now been cleared of any wrongdoing. This after nearly two years of being forced to live in limbo because some Army lawyer decided to try and make a name for herself!
Rules of engagement have been written by politicians, lawyers and military people who will never visit, let alone take part in a war zone and in all probability, like that Army lawyer, have never been in a combat situation and will never be required to shoot back in self defence. The Rules of Engagement are not only absurd they are immoral, because those rules force the combat soldier to give away part of his own right of self defence to the benefit of his enemy. And those who should know better than to impose such restrictive rules on our fighting forces have forgotten or just plainly ignore, that our soldiers are in those places they are in to protect the basic freedoms of those who enact the very laws that the soldier now finds he is restricted by.
It's an absurd situation and it needs to be changed!
Sunday, June 17, 2012
I have written previously on why the West must divorce itself from the United Nations, a world body that has proved itself incapable of solving any of the Worlds ongoing problems. It is now a dictatorial and tyrannical organization, its policies now largely over riding the laws of our own sovereign states. This article, although mentioning the ANZAC nations only and concentrating on dysfunctional government brought about through U.N. policy, will, I hope, reinforce with the reader from which ever freedom loving nation he/she may dwell in, that the U.N. has now gone well beyond its use by date and must be defunded and dissolved.
The current Australian and New Zealand systems of government has failed us. Multicultural, Politically Correct policies in line with Human Rights legislation forced upon both nations by successive governments since the 1970's, without due process of referenda, has systematically destroyed much of our basic freedoms. The common law right to freedom of expression has now been hijacked by the Leftist ideologues who consider free speech may only be tolerated when it is confined to their own narrow, but politically correct rules. Due to this intolerance of opposing points of view by government and semi-government agencies, we now find ourselves no longer living in fully democratic societies. We are no longer able to fully express ourselves without fear or favor because we are now forced to dwell under 'soft totalitarian principles' whereby any form of dissention from the Politically Correct is now met with hysterical name tagging, such as racist, homophobic etc. or worse. Pseudo-justice through Human Rights commissions and under the fascist banner of Anti-Discrimination legislation is now meted out to those who would expose the charade of Multiculturalism that we are now forced to live under. Anti-Discrimination laws, laws enforced by agencies which are non-judicial, unelected and unrepresentative of Western cultural values that were once regarded as norms, are permitted to by- pass the Australian Constitution and the New Zealand Bill of Rights which were originally put in place by enlightened people to protect us from this kind of tyranny. What was once taken for granted by the ANZAC nations as a surety for a free and happy society has over the decades been steadily eroded. During the past forty years, and through stealth legislation, this act of treachery by our elected officials has largely gone unnoticed by the citizenry, until now.
The Australian Constitution and the New Zealand Bill of Rights once safeguarded our systems of democracy, whereby, any variation to those charters as required by elected governments must be decided through referenda by the people. Since the late 1970's all governments have seen fit to sidestep those very laws designed to protect us while dismantling policies and implementing others, which if put to the people at the time would have been politically defeated!
Governments have been able to do this very effectively by signing onto the United Nations policies for Human Rights. This has permitted our elected and non-elected officials to implement policies which are not endorsed by our standing charters. These policies, under multicultural ideology, are now ruining once successful nations through the adoption of legislation that stealthily discriminates against white society in general by elevating imported cultures to a higher level under minority status. And these policies are being enforced illegally!
We are no longer true sovereign nations able to determine our place in the world by our own hand because we have become signatories to United Nations policies. These are policies that have been generated by an organisation that is not a democratically elected body, is not run by elected officials, and is completely unaccountable for its actions!
This slavish adherence, by both sides of politics to an unelected world organization and would be world governing body, has caused the major political parties of both nations to become so ideologically identical, that it is now only through trivial and minor differences that the voter is given a choice. The main political parties are now for big government, unchecked immigration, extended welfare and the destruction of our manufacturing and agricultural base through globalization and environmental issues.
Our elected and non-elected officials have been actively dismantling the very system of government that following the carnage of World War Two, had seen both countries become world leaders in agriculture and industry. Australia once had its own electrical and white goods manufacturing base. Now Australia no longer produces its own steel, televisions, radio's, washers, refrigerators, freezers etc. Where both nations once had full employment we are now paying out billions of dollars yearly to those who are unable to work due to 'economic downturns' or worse, do not wish to work and are classed as a protected species!
Small business, farmers and the middle class, the backbone of all Western nations, are now constantly under attack by governments through a system of taxation that one may only describe as oppressive! Due to ever expanding government, which also now employs hundreds of thousands of extra bureaucrats, there has been spawned many departments and agencies which require more of our tax dollars to fund. We now find ourselves having to pay an extra burden for this overblown system of government through a system of taxation where some taxes are raised on a tax. The Australian Goods and Services Tax is a prime example of this tax on a tax system.
No Government should ever be permitted to become so large that in order for it to survive it imposes tax after tax on its citizens. The best government is small government. If successive governments had abided by the very documents which were written to limit the growth of government and government's interference in ordinary citizen's lives, we would not be in the fiscal and self -identity crisis that we now find ourselves in. In short, governments are no longer serving our best interest and as a matter of course, actively and blatantly engage in self promotion campaigns as the ideal government, while using our tax dollars to do so. Government has become so large that it has to keep inventing more effective means of extracting that extra dollar from the taxpayer. While tax revenue is seen by some as 'legal theft' perpetrated on us by the state, it is generally undisputed that revenue collecting has now become the main earner for government. Some of the methods employed to force citizens to pay up, even those who use their earnings to employ thousands of workers, would be termed a criminal enterprise if not legally sanctioned by the state. That term is called extortion and extortion is a criminal act! Yet we now have the scenario whereby governments extort tax from their citizens through an extortionate act. Pay up or go to jail is blatant extortion, but it is legally sanctioned extortion by the state!
Also, the liberalist stupidity of forcing those with the most to pay for those with the least, only forces those with the most to seek other means, and often 'illegal' means, of preserving what they have rightly earned for themselves. Is it right that because you occupy a position in life that earns you well above a notional average wage everything you earn over a notional sum requires you to pay half of your earnings or more, in tax to benefit those who choose not to work?
Government is out of control and fast becoming unmanageable and is running out of other people's money. We need to fix it and fix it quickly before the system collapses in upon itself. But how do we repair an out of control broken down system?
A start would be to divorce ourselves from the U.N. and its radical and nation destroying policies. By doing this simple act we can then begin to dismantle the very system that has enabled a few elitists to hijack our government so as to further their own illogical ideals that is detrimental to, and freedom limiting, for the rest of us.
And so that this treachery could never be repeated, a stronger worded and less ambiguous Constitution and Bill of Rights, similar to the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, and heavy on individual inalienable rights, not Human Rights, must be initiated with a view to be determined through referendum rather than by our own elected officials, who quite frankly, can no longer be trusted to provide intelligent output in such an important exercise!
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
For some time now a handful of ex-police officers, like Tim Priest who was a Detective Sergeant in the NSW Police Force, have been writing and lecturing to any one who wishes to listen on the rise of Middle Eastern Crime (MEC) in this country.
Most 'aware' officers working in and around Sydney during the mid to late 90's became familiar with the type of crime that Middle Eastern gangs were starting to concentrate on such as vehicle theft, armed robbery and smash and grab raids. Any police force is only as good as the information its intelligence services can gather on organized crime or criminals in general. The downside of course, when collating reliable information for which police act on, is the amount of time taken to gather that information.
While there was an awareness at senior police level, of the rise of crime related incidents involving middle eastern gangs (Lebanese Muslim) before the Royal Commission of 1996/97 was convened, it was the advent of that Commission that put the investigation of these gangs onto the back burner. Senior police decided that until the fallout from the Commission had been fully assessed nothing further was to be done.
This action on the part of senior police was a huge mistake, as the squad that would have been tasked with combating MEC was disbanded on the recommendation of Justice Wood, who headed the Commission. This recommendation by Wood has since, had far reaching consequences for the performance of the NSW Police. The loss of this squad very effectively nobbled any investigative knowledge that the police had at this time on criminals of all 'colors'. This ill thought out action of dismantling the state's foremost crime fighting unit gave rise to MEC throughout Sydney and wherever these gangs chose to commit crimes, or just for the fun of it, generally harass the non-Muslim population.
During the latter part of the 1990's a tactic of the MEC gangs was to taunt and intimidate lone police officers, usually Highway Patrol officers who normally work as 'Alpha' units (Alone). It was not uncommon to be working a shift and have to respond to an 'officer backup' call, where earlier, a Highway Patrol officer may have pulled over a lone driver for a minor traffic offence, only to find within minutes that he/she would be surrounded by several vehicles carrying groups of young middle eastern men, readily identifying themselves as 'Lebs' who would begin to hurl abusive and offensive remarks aimed at that officer in order to intimidate them into retreating.
While police at that time had no real power to move groups of persons on who were deemed to be causing trouble, and the younger police, some fresh out of the College of Knowledge, would stand around and be intimidated by these would be thugs, this author's favorite trick was to retrieve the Defect Notice book, or the Traffic infringement Notice book from the police vehicle, and begin defecting the trouble makers cars, or issuing them with traffic infringement notices depending on offences at the time. This action usually had the desired effect and the trouble makers would soon disperse leaving the Highway Patrol officer to do his job.
Another tactic that the MEC gangs used was breaking into police vehicles while the officers were attending to 'jobs' away from the vehicle. Police equipment stolen over several thefts included, body armor, hand held radios, batons, and even a Glock 9mm pistol from a detectives car. Some officers had shirts stolen from their clothes line while some female officers were deliberately targeted and followed home by one or two of these criminals who did not bother to hide the fact from the wary and often intimidated officer. To the author's knowledge, none of the items stolen has ever been recovered, and there have been several incidents of crimes committed by offenders identifying themselves as 'police officers' invariably described by the victims of those crimes as males of middle eastern appearance.
During mid 1999 a McDonalds Restaurant located in Southern Sydney came under siege by a group of young Arabic speaking men who, just prior to closing time, entered the restaurant and began to intimidate the restaurant's last minute diners by pushing and shoving them or by knocking their food onto the floor. When staff tried to intervene, the self- identified 'Lebs' began to pelt them with the diners discarded food and other loose and handy items which forced the staff, mostly female, to retreat into a back room and call police. Meanwhile the aggressive Muslims set about trashing the restaurant doing hundreds of dollars worth of damage.
A large contingent of police arrived, including the Dog Squad, who set about arresting those offenders that still remained on the premises. Several scuffles broke out between police and Muslims and several officers suffered minor injuries. Those that were arrested were conveyed back to Sutherland Police station and charged with numerous offences. You may be thinking, that's great they got the bad guys! But wait, there's more!
Following the Wood Royal Commission the then NSW Labor Government (socialist) put in place a very complex and intrusive complaint system within the NSW Police. In short, any one could call in anonymously and complain about a police officer. All complaints had to be acted on by a Duty Officer and let me add here, that the Duty Officer position was so new at this time, that some of these officers weren't even aware of their responsibilities. Even complaints from an offender recently arrested and still in police custody had to be dealt with. This most ridiculous system led to a very dangerous situation following the siege at McDonalds, and to wit:
While Sutherland police were busily processing the offending Muslims the station came under a barrage of phone calls from family members of those being charged. As anyone knows who has dealt with these people, they know how to 'utilize' any system to their advantage. Complaints of police mistreatment at the hands of the arresting officers were so numerous that calls had to be diverted to other stations. But to really underscore this silly complaint system some of the Muslim family members began to call the emergency number '000' which then effectively tied up Southern Sydney's Emergency Network for more than two hours. Any REAL emergency calls that were lucky enough to get through, had to be dealt with by either mobile phone or portable radio on back channel. It was just plain luck that no one lost their life waiting for an ambulance.
But, to really add insult to injury to a police officers job, on their day in Court the counsel for the offending Muslims accused the arresting officers of police brutality against his clients citing one offender who had allegedly been bitten by the police dog. The offenders now became the victims as the sitting Magistrate dismissed the police case against them ordering an investigation into police conduct at the McDonalds incident. This spineless keeper of our laws refused to even read the police FACTS sheet or witness/victims statements. One can only imagine the dismay of those police officers who, having sworn to uphold the law and protect the people and their property in the State of New South Wales, and had done so on the night in question, were now being singled out for investigation which could lead to possible charges. Robin Williams couldn't have written a better comedy!
The NSW Police Association (Police Union) now became involved in this matter and vowed to fight the Magistrates decision all the way to the Supreme Court. The Secretary of the Police Association promised industrial action if any of the officers involved in the McDonalds incident were to face charges. After an Internal Affairs investigation all police involved in this now farcical stand off between the Police Force, the Judiciary and government were cleared of any wrongdoing.
Although that silly complaint system soon after was modified to exclude anonymous complaints, which now has to be made in person, in this authors opinion, it was not modified enough!
In 2000, an unprecedented act of intimidation was committed by a member of a MEC gang who shot nine rounds from a handgun, thought to be a police issue Glock 9mm, into Lakemba police station which narrowly missed the station officer and two other officers near him. The person thought to be responsible for that incident fled the country to Lebanon on his dual citizenship passport when he believed that police were closing in on him. However, he was soon arrested by authorities over there for another unrelated matter, and was until recently, serving time in that country's prison system. He has been extradited back to Australia and is currently serving a seven year jail sentence which some would say is not long enough.
In 2002, a series of rapes were perpetrated on several young women in the Sydney area. Police soon picked up on the 'modus operandi' and as with most crimes of this nature there is a common thread which links them all together. These rapes were being committed by members of a gang of young Muslim men (Skaf brothers and friends) who would pack rape and taunt their victims and force them into degrading acts whilst uttering racial slurs, such as 'Aussie Pig'. The offenders readily identified themselves to the victims as Lebanese. In fact, they were proud of it! All members of this gang have now been locked up and are serving very lengthy prison sentences. The presiding judge at the trial of these scum was moved to remark when sentencing the leader of the gang, Bilal Skaf, to 55 years jail that was later on appeal reduced to 35 years, that; "Young Muslim men are a blight on our society." Again, some would say that even the original sentence as handed down was not long enough!
In December, 2005, following many years of intimidation, taunts and some brutal assaults by young Muslim men aimed at young native Australian men and women, including Lifeguards - whose only crime was to enjoy themselves on a warm sunny day as countless generations have done before them at the beach - a crowd of local young people gathered at Cronulla Beach in Sydney's south east, to protest this recurrent problem and voice their concern to the authorities.
Unfortunately, some people began to consume alcoholic beverages and began to take their frustrations out on anyone who looked to be Lebanese. While the author does not personally condone this type of protest and subsequent behaviour, it has to be understood, that this problem had been ongoing for years and regardless of the protestors concerns, the authorities, including the police, and for years, did absolutely nothing about it.
Some hotheads in the large crowd assembled on that day hurled empty beer bottles and other handy weapons at police and ambulance officers out of sheer frustration and attacked several – again, self-identified young Lebanese males who had dared to show up on the day. While this was occurring in Cronulla, another group of young men were being primed at their local Mosque in Lakemba for what would turn out to be retaliation raids, almost an act of war, and not protests as most civilized peoples would offer up, against those who happened to live in the suburbs of Cronulla, Maroubra, and surrounding areas, and generally had played no part in the original riot.
Over the next three nights, people living in those areas were the victims of, or witness to, some of the most violent and destructive actions by any group of individuals that has been witnessed to in this country since the Second World War.
The police and the authorities to their everlasting shame stood back and let it happen! As an ex-cop and a proud Australian, this author has never felt so ashamed as he did at that time. One young male nearly lost his life and was left with a large knife embedded in his back while trying to defend two females from these gutless monsters. A father of three young children was beaten senseless with a baseball bat and now has brain damage, just because he was putting out his garbage for collection and chose to answer yes to the question; "Are you an Aussie?" before being assaulted. There was thousands of dollars worth of damage done to motor vehicles and other personal and public property. Then these Muslim thugs just melted back into their own community and have never been brought to justice! While the media and the authorities have named and shamed those young Australian men who were caught up in the so called Cronulla Riot, not one Lebanese Muslim has been dealt with who was involved in the payback raids, which for sheer violence and brutality, went far beyond that which had originally occurred on the actual riot day. This is the society that we now live in where individuals have more rights than society in general and minorities like the Lebanese Muslims are protected and can do no wrong according to our governments.
The MEC gangs of today are involved in every kind of crime imaginable. In truth, they are over represented in crime statistics and in the jails. The crimes they are involved in cost this state and this nation, billions of dollars annually and it is only recently that a dedicated squad has been put in place to combat them. Young Muslim men are notorious for creating incidents against non-Muslim men and women who, on reacting to taunts from the Muslim, suddenly find themselves confronting several armed and very aggressive males. Several young Australian men have been murdered simply because they have reacted to insults aimed at them by young Muslim males. Off duty police have been assaulted and even murdered simply because they felt it their duty to intervene in a crime in progress that they inadvertently stumbled upon and the perpertrators happened to be Lebanese Muslim. Never before in our history have we been witness to the viciousness and wanton violence that the young Muslim is prepared to deal out to unsuspecting Australians, regardless of age or sex.
We are now witness to the future of this country unless we can halt all Muslim immigration, and we need to do this now. Very rarely does a day go past where some crime has occurred that doesn't involve men of middle eastern appearance. There are now areas in Sydney and Melbourne that are no go areas for the native Australian who are now very thin on the ground in those parts, most having been intimidated into moving away from the areas now occupied by the Muslim.
Is this what we want for our children?
Sunday, June 10, 2012
I originally wrote this article to salve my mind from the morbid stupidity that so called Human Rights people advocate as good policy in line with their utopian ideals on how we should all be, not how life really is, and for good effort or money, can never be changed.
Original article starts here:
I read an article by Graeme Innes, Disability and Race Discrimination Commissioner with the Australian Human Rights Commission, listed in the comments section of The Daily Telegraph, June 18, 2010, titled 'opening a door on the bleak truth of homelessness'. I printed it off as it got me to thinking along the lines of what has human rights got to do with homelessness?
Mr. Innes' article was, to my mind at least, intended to expose the existence of the homeless in our society and the need to do something about this very troubling issue. While his article quoted figures of homeless, (105,000) which I would certainly challenge on the grounds that it would be next to impossible to estimate numbers with any certainty, and to all intents would in truth, be just a guess, there was a notable lack of information which any balanced article should convey to the reader, as to why he believed that in this day and age, there should be so many of our citizens living on the street.
My thoughts were then cast back to my days as a NSW policeman who came into contact with many of our homeless as part of my duties as some homeless people have a tendency to commit petty crimes. Some would say a majority of homeless are mentally ill and on the streets due to the closure by uncaring governments of the very facilities, which until the mid 1970's used to provide for them - there are many issues as to why anyone of sound mind would find themselves living 'rough' and while not all that are unfortunate enough to find themselves in this position turn to crime, many are victims of domestic violence, or for personal reasons, feel they are no longer part of a family and choose to leave a secure home for a life of 'adventure' on the streets. Many of those I spoke with were young teenagers from single parent families, usually an uncaring mother, who felt more at home with other 'street kids'. In short, the reasons for anyone to be on the street are many and varied and cannot be pigeon holed into a nice neat little package that any government agency can correct or alleviate.
Mr. Innes in his article failed to be honest with the reader in that he sidestepped the issues which have led those who are homeless into their present circumstances.
One of the biggest issues concerning homelessness would have to be the 'designed' break down of the family unit that has been relentlessly pursued by those thinkers who are averse to personal binding contracts, such as marriage, an institution which is one of the cornerstones of our culture. Personal responsibility that the marriage vow instills in those of us who choose to raise a family has been so watered down through easily obtained divorce procedures and individual rights, that it is now easier to just walk away from a marriage rather than work at the relationship. My wife and I have been married thirty two years this year, and while it has not been all beer and skittles, we chose out of commitment to each other to work at our relationship. That is why our marriage has stood the test of time. Many choose not to work at the relationship and take the easy option. The fallout from these broken families is what we are witness to on the streets today.
Mr. Innes' silence on the 'broken marriage' syndrome and mental health issues proves to me that his appreciation of the causes of homelessness is naïve at best. Had he been honest with himself and his readers, he would have provided some of the causes of homelessness that have originated from bad decisions within government and the act of governments over reaching into family matters that have caused the greatest explosion of homelessness. Then again, maybe he also realizes that if he admitted to the reader that government is the major contributor of homelessness he would then have to admit that his article really had no basis, and was in fact disingenuous, written only so that he could justify his position as a Human Rights Commissioner!
So please tell us all Mr. Innes: What has Human Rights, or your position as a Human Rights commissioner, got to do with homelessness?
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
government organisation designed to thwart future aggressive nations from instigating actions that could lead to another world war. In this regard, the League of Nations came into being and while it initially had some success in restricting arms build up, by the mid 1930's it was obvious to most military observers and any politicians of note, that the League was an abject failure, in that it could not enforce its own recommendations against nations involved in re-armament. Nations such as Japan, Italy and Germany simply snubbed their noses at the League while continuing to pursue aggressive military policies.
After World War Two the Allies acknowledged that the League of Nations had to be bolstered with more 'teeth' and a wider capability through enforceable laws to 'oversee' the pacification of those nations that persisted in aggressive policies. The Soviet Union had at this time become a recognized world power and it was also hoped that by keeping nations such as Russia 'inside the tent' dialogue could prevail first with military action considered as a last resort.
In October 1945, the United Nations came into being with the League of Nations dissolving itself in early 1946.
While the concept of a world governing body is a sound principle, in reality it is an unworkable arrangement, and one which has proven impossible to operate as it was intended due to a number of factors - while it is not the intention of this author to provide examples of botched U.N. operations, those interested in looking into the many examples available could probably start with the genocide that was allowed to occur in Rwanda – and anyone familiar with human behaviour can appreciate that there are many personality types, cultures and religions that make up the human family. The U.N. concept that all cultures aspire to the same ideals so therefore will obey the same laws is flawed, in that this concept does not recognize the many variables that are so very apparent which even 'Blind Freddy' could identify. This disregard for the obvious to pursue the idealistic should sound a warning to the observer as to the mindset that now inhabits the U.N. To disregard the variables such as religion and the method of government which has a profound effect on a culture, and for a western nation to be equated with that of an Arab nation for instance, is simply ludicrous and a blatantly dishonest concept. This is the crux of the dysfunctional system that is now the United Nations, an organisation that is causing its own increasing irrelevancy and march to tyranny, because it now disregards its founding principles and continues to exercise political and racial distinctions, which in today's politically correct atmosphere, western nations should be considering the U.N. as a racist and bigoted organization, but alas, it is never taken to task by any nation.
Indeed, over the past few years we have been able to witness at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, two very appalling rants from Iran's Ahmadinejad and Libya's Gaddafi, two murderous leaders from Islamic nations recognized as supporting terrorist organizations, but given the status of presenting speeches at the United Nations!
What has happened at the United Nations that would cause an organization which was formed to curtail any form of aggression amongst nations to permit two terrorist leaders to present their twisted logic and derision of the west in general, that if held in a public park would have seen them arrested as promoting 'incitement to hatred and racial violence?'
The United Nations is an organisation run by unelected officials who, unlike our own politicians, are not held accountable for their actions, and in this arrangement may be seen the main contributing problem for why the U.N. is now the dysfunctional organisation that it is today. Ex-politicians are normally given posts at the U.N. and as a result of this higher 'goal of office' as Australia's previous prime minister is now working toward, the organization has become highly politicized. Anyone recognizing the dysfunction that occurs within government and major political parties can also appreciate the same process which has occurred at the U.N. The politicization process has also facilitated the U.N. into being hijacked by those Islamic countries that provide 'black gold' to many European and other oil-reliant nations. This 'oil hegemony' has permitted those Islamic nations who posses it to dominate parts of the U.N. structure allowing them to extract concessions through extortion that has turned the U.N. into a toothless tiger that is now more concerned with keeping the oil flowing into those oil-reliant nations, than in maintaining the rights and privileges of sovereign and democratic nations, such as Israel.
During the 1970's the UN, in a perverted political move, welcomed into its chamber the terrorist leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), Yasser Arafat, and recognized the cause of the 'Palestinian People' in seeking a state in the Holy Land. The PLO had become a leading terrorist organization during the mid 1960's by hijacking passenger aircraft and slaughtering Jews in order to force their issues onto the world stage. In this regard they were highly successful which also showed up the complacency and sheer cowardice of those nations willing to give up their moral obligations for the black gold that the Arabs provided. And to their everlasting shame, France and Germany were the leading players in this regard.
While many westerners still believe the U.N. to be an organization which protects the rights of individual nations around the globe, the reality is the complete opposite. Western nations are all signatories to the U.N. Charter of Human Rights and have through bypassing their individual Bills of Rights, or Constitutions, implemented Human Rights Commissions, which if studied minutely by anyone with a modicum of economic knowledge, would guarantee concerns about such a commissions fiscal viability, let alone the fact that all these commissions are illegal in every sense of the word.
Those who still see the U.N. as a protective body do not realize that the U.N. Human Rights policies have only been adopted and adhered to by mostly western nations. The rest of the world only pays lip service to these policies. One only needs to look at the Human Trafficking currently occurring in Indonesia, and other places, to realize this fact.
The U.N. promotes mass immigration from third world nations into mainly western nations under 'refugee' status and 'suggests' numbers to be taken in. Those who choose to join the queue of immigration as a 'refugee' are encouraged by the pot of gold at the end of their destination (western nations) to pass through several other countries which have similar cultures en-route. They are in effect 'economic refugees' and no longer fit the standard U.N. description of a refugee.
Those who cannot see the ongoing colonization of their nations by people from cultures who despise the western lifestyle and have no intention of assimilating are, in my opinion, also part of this problem, and unwittingly, or more disturbingly, are willingly encouraging the destruction of our western cultures through some misplaced western 'white guilt', that has been encouraged to be thrown around our educational systems for the past fifty odd years.
It is time that this nation and all western nations that value their sovereignty and freedom to withdraw their financial and legal support to the United Nations which has become a farcical and dysfunctional organization more intent in pursuing political favors and a global agenda of governance, than in providing a safe and productive world in which we may all dwell with a concrete guarantee of peace. The U.N. now caters to despots and dictators who strut the world stage espousing their brand of socialism mixed with their perverted logic. Time to call a spade a spade and go back to protecting our own borders and manufacturing industries, which have been devastated by government actions designed to alleviate third world suffering. (Please read the LIMA Declaration) Instead we now find our middle classes becoming the new poor of the world through increased taxation by governments more concerned with supplying money to the U.N. and supporting U.N. policies than in being fiscally and nationally responsible to their own citizens. It's time to say goodbye to the United Nations!