First the UN thing (which is simply INSANE):
The United States must do more to heal the wounds of indigenous peoples caused by more than a century of oppression, including restoring control over lands Native Americans consider to be sacred, according to a U.N. human rights investigator.
James Anaya, the U.N. special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, just completed a 12-day visit to the United States where he met with representatives of indigenous peoples in the District of Columbia, Arizona, Alaska, Oregon, Washington State, South Dakota, and Oklahoma. He also met with U.S. government officials.
“I have heard stories that make evident the profound hurt that indigenous peoples continue to feel because of the history of oppression they have faced,” Anaya said in a statement issued by the U.N. human rights office in Geneva Friday.
That oppression, he said, has included the seizure of lands and resources, the removal of children from their families and communities, the loss of languages, violation of treaties, and brutality, all grounded in racial discrimination.
Anaya welcomed the U.S. decision to endorse the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2010 and other steps the government has taken, but said more was needed.
Keep in mind just which nations have served on this “Human Rights” body for the most liberal and most radically secular humanist organization ever to curse the world (that’s right; even worse than the Democrat Party!): a study concludes that, “According to the assessment given above, the most repressive regimes in the world currently enjoy a highly inflated rate of representation on the Human Rights Commission.”
“The U.N. Human Rights Council has once again proved itself outside the evolution and progress of history,” another article denouncing the terrorist-rogue regime members of this “human rights council” pointed out.
“Human rights” is a cynical meme for the worst people on earth to “fundamentally transform” the world around them.
For the record, the US Supreme Court ruled many years ago that the seizure of the land upon which Mt. Rushmore was built was in fact illegal. And the United States government has been compensating the Indian tribes for that land ever since. And frankly, that’s the best any nation can ever be expected to do.
How about this alternative solution: if you are not a 100 percent pure-blooded Native American Indian, you must leave the North American Continent for good. Because your ancestors stole the land, pure and simple. And none of this “I’m one-half Cherokee” crap; because the other half of your ancestors are guilty of the same crime the rest of us are, and you’ve got to pay for the crimes of your ancestors same as the rest of us. Same thing all over the world: if you are not a full-blooded aborigine, you must move; you must leave your land because your ancestors stole it from somebody else and you’ve got to pay for the sins of the past.
Let’s have nearly the entire human race climb aboard space ships and blast off, destination unknown, to (hopefully) find a living space that we don’t have to take from some poor sentient or even non-sentient species.
You start to see what a joke this crap becomes. Particularly when you understand additionally that this is nothing more than liberals – the most intolerant people who ever lived – imposing their “new morality” upon all of history.
But that’s liberalism, and liberalism equals insanity.
Now, Barack Obama would ordinarily be all for this. But take a look at Mt. Rushmore and you might see the rub:
Following his interview with 60 minutes last week, President Obama is now under fire from the right for comments he made implicitly suggesting that he was the fourth-best president in American history. “I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president with the possible exceptions of Johnson, FDR and Lincoln,” he said.
So take a look at Mt. Rushmore as Obama sees it –
– and you understand the problem.
Unless Obama believes that the Indians, in their appreciation of his wonderfulness, would recreate Mt Rushmore with Obama’s image on it. Then we’re in trouble.
Well, the wonders of liberalism never cease:
Attorney In hijab Defends Call For Other Women At 9/11 Hearing To Wear ‘Appropriate’ Clothing
The defense attorney who wore a traditional Islamic outfit during the rowdy arraignment of the accused Sept. 11 terrorists is defending her courtroom appeal that other women in the room wear more “appropriate” clothing to the proceedings — out of respect for her client’s Muslim beliefs.
Cheryl Bormann, counsel for defendant Walid bin Attash, attended the arraignment Saturday dressed in a hijab, apparently because her client insisted on it. She further requested that the court order other women to follow that example so that the defendants do not have to avert their eyes “for fear of committing a sin under their faith.”
At a press conference Sunday at Guantanamo Bay, Bormann said she dresses in a hijab at “all times” when she meets with her client “out of respect” for his beliefs. Asked why she requested other women do the same, Bormann said, “When you’re on trial for your life, you need to be focused.”
Bormann, who is not Muslim, claimed the issue came up several years ago, when a paralegal wore “very short skirts” and it became a distraction for the defendants. She said that on Saturday, “somebody” was also dressed “in a way that was not in keeping with my client’s religious beliefs.”
I suppose if Cheryl Bormann were representing Ferengi terrorists, she would insist that all women simply go nude altogether in the courtroom. That’s the very least decent women can do to show proper respect.
I also find it odd how these terrorists were able to remain “focused” while they were going to strip clubs as they plotted to destroy America.
It doesn’t matter that the mass murder of 3,000 innocent Americans was itself the most profound act of cultural intolerance imaginable. Liberals don’t think that way.
Liberals are so “open-minded” their brains have fallen out and splattered all over the place. That, combined with their utterly hypocritical intolerance for anything and anybody they truly disagree with (try to imagine liberals actually bending over backwards for evangelical Christians for a har-har) and you see the problem with these people.