International Affairs: February 2009 Archives
A month ago President Obama lifted restrictions on taxpayer money paying for abortions, and now Congressional Democrats are upping the ante: let's pay to force abortions on unwilling women!
Congressional Democrats have unveiled their new omnibus spending bill that will fund federal government programs through the Autumn months. The measure, H.R. 1105, contains language that would restore the money President Bush withheld from the UNFPA because of its abortion activities.Sending taxpayer dollars to the United Nations Population Fund, UNFPA, has been controversial because the group both advocates for abortion and has been involved in China's population control program.
Several investigations have shown the UNFPA to work hand-in-hand with the family planning officials in China that enforce its coercive one-child policy with forced abortions and sterilizations as well as other human rights abuses. ...
The omnibus bill adds language that makes it so the president or his administration is not required to sign off on the funding and make sure the UNFPA is not violating the Kemp-Kasten law which forbids funding groups involved in forced abortions.
The term "forced abortion" is subtly disingenuous, of course, because abortion is always a forcible act committed against the primary victim: the baby. But maybe the idea that even the mother isn't willing will propel various women's rights groups into action? (*Holds breath*)
(HT: Gateway Pundit.)
Apparently the idea I mentioned last week about a financial terrorist attack on September 11th, 2008 is not viewed very credibly, and there's finally some solid information on its pedigree. Seems like there's a variant Kanjorski meme that's also not likely to be true. Whew!
The giveaway should have been the massive conspiracy that would have been required to keep news of such attacks quiet.
Charles Krauthammer has written a brutal take-down of President Obama's apologetic stance towards Muslims.
Every new president flatters himself that he, kinder and gentler, is beginning the world anew. Yet, when Barack Obama in his inaugural address reached out to Muslims by saying "to the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect," his formulation was needlessly defensive and apologetic.Is it "new" to acknowledge Muslim interests and show respect to the Muslim world? Obama doesn't just think so, he said so again to millions in his al-Arabiya interview, insisting on the need to "restore" the "same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago."
Astonishing. In these most recent 20 years — the alleged winter of our disrespect of the Islamic world — America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for them. It engaged in five military campaigns, every one of which involved — and resulted in — the liberation of a Muslim people: Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.
The two Balkan interventions — as well as the failed 1992-93 Somalia intervention to feed starving African Muslims (43 Americans were killed) — were humanitarian exercises of the highest order, there being no significant U.S. strategic interest at stake. In these 20 years, this nation has done more for suffering and oppressed Muslims than any nation, Muslim or non-Muslim, anywhere on Earth. Why are we apologizing?
Maybe there's some "failure to communicate" that has prevented the world's Muslims from appreciating our sacrifice on their behalf, but I doubt it. I think the root of the problem is that the Muslim world is weak, and Islam hates weakness. Self-loathing drives the radical Islamofascists to bite the hand that feeds their civilization.
America has nothing to apologize for with regards to our treatment of the Muslim world. We haven't done everything perfectly, but we've done a lot better and a lot more than any other nation. Muslim dead-enders will never accept this, which is why they're fighting to the death and trying to take out as many of us as possible in the process.
