Friday, February 27, 2009

Why do we even participate in the United Nations?

The United Nations is proposing a binding declaration on "religous blasphemy."

They want member nations to make it illegal to criticize or negatively portray the religous beliefs of others. Any guesses as which religion they have in mind?

Take a look at this Lou Dobbs segment.

Why we don't just tell the UN to find another host nation, I don't know.


Anonymous said...

Okay, Rob, you're demonstrating why it's hard to take "conservatives" seriously.

You're proposing punishing the U.N. because there's a proposal you don't like.

Should we kick states out of the Union when bad laws are proposed in their legislatures?

Rob Kremer said...

No, Pal, I am proposing that maybe we ought not be a member of an organization that passes a resolution that requires our country to pass a law that is blatantly unconstitutional.

Anonymous said...

Your post said this was a proposal. It looks like it's actually a non-binding resolution that passed.

It still does seem like you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Rob Kremer said...

The non-binding resolution has already passed. They are proposing a binding resolution that may be voted on in March.

Anonymous said...

Leave it to the libs to advocate and defend more restrictions on our civil rights.

They should be ashamed.

Anonymous said...

On the plus side, this would allow the jailing of most members of the Democrat Party.

Anonymous said...

Rob, get your stories straight.

Your post of 1:37 implies that the U.N. had already passed a resolution that requires certain behavior. But the resolution that passed only recommends certain behavior.

The resolution is a bad idea, but you can't ignore that Muslims have good reason to feel under attack--two of their countries have been invaded by the U.S. in the last 8 years.

You have a radio show on a station with a syndicated host, Michael Savadinijad, who advocates dropping an atomic bomb on a random Middle-Eastern city.

Do you think that would be tolerated if he were advocating dropping an atomic bomb on a random European city? A random Israeli city?

Me said...

anon 12:54

What's with you libs anyway?

Are you so stupid that you can't grasp that Kremer wasn't reacting to this subject in isolation?

How can yo be so stupid as to ask,

"You're proposing punishing the U.N. because there's a proposal you don't like?"

as if this one proposal is the only Anti-US stunt the UN as embarked upon.

Typical liberal.

I see that stupidity over and over again on topic after topic.

No context, no history, no totality of the matter, just this stupid contention that the conservsative's criticism is based on one relatively insignificant component.

How easy that makes it to then
question the rationality of the crticism when you've reduced to being based upon so little.

What a complete jerk.

Anonymous said...


Did you complain about this unconstitutional legislation:

Or do you only complain when it's other faiths that are being promoted or protected?

Rob Kremer said...

Anon 1:18

While I think the legislation you linked to is stupid and unnecessary, there is a big difference between that and what the UN is trying to mandate to its member nations.

The "anti-blasphemy" law it proposes puts criminal penalties on speech. There is a world of difference between that and a resolution recognizing the importance of a religion.

You can see the difference, right?

Anonymous said...


Yes, I see the difference.

I also understand that the U.S. has, in the past, prosecuted people for speech and association, mostly people on the left, and those on the right have mostly been silent when that's happened, and some contemporary "conservatives" have said that what happened during the McCarthy era is a good thing.

My point isn't that what's proposed by the U.N. is a good thing, because it isn't.

My point is to look at the bigger picture. It's reasonable for Muslims to feel under attack. This is a bad solution, so lets talk about some better solutions.

It's also true that those on the right tend to be very selective in their outrage about infringement on speech.

Me said...

"It's also true that those on the right tend to be very selective in their outrage about infringement on speech."

Oh BS. That's a stunt of the left who would silence many on the right in a heart beat.
All in the interest of fairness and equality.
As long as th left gets to decide what fair and eqaul are.

Like Chavez or Castro has shown.

Anonymous said...


And how about the people silenced by death squads in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, all with the enthusiastic support of the right in the U.S.

Anonymous said...


Have you ever listened to Lars Larson? Have you ever tried to present a reasoned argument against Lars' position?

Let me tell you, he'll talk over you, then kill your call when you try to interrupt his interruption.

No, the right is not at all about allowing opposing views to be heard.

If you want to hear a debate with both sides heard, listen to Ed Schultz or Thom Hartmann.

Me said...

anon 555

You're misrepresenting talk radio.

I am very familliar with and more of an authority on Lars, Schults and Hartmann than you likely are.

Lars always offers naysayers to call and often engages opposing callers. Sure he talks a lot but lengthy calls are often from the oppostion.

Schultz and Hartman rarely have a genuine opposing caller and they certainly don't do so more than Lars.
Stop making things up.

As for silencing oppostion.
You must not pay attention.

The left whallows in the idea of shutting up Ruch et al.
Instead you're dragging some nonsense about
"all with the enthusiastic support of the right"

The left desires to shut up the voters as well by disallowing the initiative petition process.

Your totalitarian tendencies are forever revealing themselves.

I also listen to Mike Malloy, Randi Rhodes, Rachael, Maddow, Sam Cedar, and Ring of Fire with RFK Jr.
Talk about one sided.

There is no right wing talk radio that comes even close to some of these.

I am Coyote said...

anon moonbat,
Did you really say this with a straight face?
It's also true that those on the right tend to be very selective in their outrage about infringement on speech.

That is just a completely inaccurate statement.

Oh and then your example of speech "infringement" is a talk radio program?

Really? That's it?

Will you let me come over to your house and proclaim my political views? Surely you would not infringe on my speech rights. (eyes rolling)

Anonymous said...


I used to listen to Lars, but on a regular basis he would spout things as fact that I could find disproving evidence within 5 minutes, and station management showed no interest in holding Lars accountable for his fantasms.

I've also called into his show, but gave up because he would regularly interrupt me in the middle of sentences, often with bogus "information" he was using against my verifiable facts.

Lars is extremely rude on his show, and, frankly, at some point his rudeness makes his show unlistenable.

By the way, I find Randi Rhodes unlistrnable when she has callers for the same reason.

By the way, it's "Sam Seder", not Cedar"

I am Coyote said...

I too find Lars rude and unlistenable.

However it is his show and we are all free to listen or not to listen.

The liberals in charge of policy, however, are dangerous in that they are not afraid to actually create policy that infringes on our individual liberties.

After all you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.

Anonymous said...


Gee, I'm not aware that it was liberals who wrote and pushed through the USA Patriot Act, that authorizes secret snooping on U.S. Citizens, with no recourse.

Your analogy about inviting you to my house is flawed. Lars actually invites peoiple to call in, and encourages those with differing views to call.

Also, he's using public airwaves, and he should have the guts to take it when someone calls him on his disinformation.

Anonymous said...

From an AP story today:

The Obama administration threw open the curtain on years of Bush-era secrets Monday, revealing anti-terror memos that claimed exceptional search-and-seizure powers and divulging that the CIA destroyed nearly 100 videotapes of interrogations and other treatment of terror suspects.

The Justice Department released nine legal opinions showing that, following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration determined that certain constitutional rights would not apply during the coming fight. Within two weeks, government lawyers were already discussing ways to wiretap U.S. conversations without warrants.

So much for those freedom-loving Republicans.

Anonymous said...


An AP story about discussions.

Wiretapping foreigner conversations to the US never bothered me in the slightest.

Stop embellishing and dramatizing.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:55,

You're ignoring the first paragraph. You know, the one about memos that claimed certain powers, and destruction of evidence.

From what I've seen, Republicans believe people should have the freedom to be just like they are.

Tell me, how many prominent Republicans spoke out against the Supreme Court decision in Bowers v. Hardwick? After the decision, how many Republicans urged Georgia to repeal the law banning homosexual sex?

That's not about acceptance, that's about people being sent to jail for being gay.

Name three prominent Republicans who spoke out against the decision, or for Georgia repealing their law.

Anonymous said...

Oh, here's another lovely memo from the "freedom-loving" Bush administration:

"First Amendment speech and press rights may also be supordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully."

Anonymous said...


Why do you people think you should be looked at as anything but the melodramatic nit wits you are?

You get all wound up in your imaginary world and churn out one ridiculous thing after another.

Free speech? Press rights? What about them?

Have they gone somewhere?

As for gays going to jail for being gay?


Anonymous said...

Ever hear of Brandon Mayfield? Arrested for "living while Muslim".

Folks on the right were cheerleading the taking away of Constitutional rights for 8 years.

Now that the other side is in charge you've suddenly discovered that civil liberties matter.

Anonymous said...

Folks on the right were cheerleading the taking away of Constitutional rights for 8 years.

Any links substantiating that hyperbole?

Surely there are several posts on this blog alone. After all that fits perfectly with leftwing stereotyping.

Anonymous said...


Let me be clear, you're an idiot.

You haven't a clue what the Mayfield case involved, there was no taking away of constitutional rights to be cheered and the only thing we're discovering with liberals running everything is they are doing as many liberal things as possible.
All of which involve expanding the dysfunctinal BIG government nanny state that has been wrecking our country for decades.

You're just too stupid to see any of it.

Anonymous said...

Let's see, there's Rob's words at the top of his blog, about Portland being "occupied territory", which implies there's a war to be waged against people with different views, and those people don't belong here.

It's funny, so-called free-marketers don't take it so well when the free market of ideas decides against them.

And you're not aware of all the people on the right who have supported the "USA Patriot Act"?

Libertarians used to ally themselves with conservatives, but since conservativism has become the ideology of Big Brother, libertarians have started to distance themselves. Here's a post on the libertarian Lew Rockwell site:

Anonymous said...

The FBI fabricated evidence presented to a judge in the Mayfield case. He was held without charge. He was held under a false name.

He's lucky he's someone with connections--his case may have turned out much differently if he'd been poor.

It's astonishing that "conservatives" favor things like holding people without charges. Conservatives talk about limiting government power, but when it comes to it's harshest powers, they tend to favor them unquestioningly.

Rob Kremer said...

Anon 1500:

That's quite a stretch, saying the analogy I use at the top of my blog is evidence that we are "waging a war" on people whose views are different.

Is debating views with those opposed to you the same thing as engaging in a war? If so, then aren't you doing the same thing by arguing a point here?

Anonymous said...

No, Rob, it's not a stretch at all--you're using the language of warfare, not the language of political debate.

It also shows that you don't see other views, especially when they prevail, as legitimate, since you don't see them as winners of the political process, but as "occupiers".
The funny thing is, it looks like you're not even a Portland native--I see you went to high school in West Linn. And, at some point, I'll wager that your family lived on the East Coast.

By the way, I am a portland native, not an East Coast transplant.

Me said...


You side is far worse. Yo not only don;lt see the other side but you make it up as best fits your need to contrast your ludicrous agendas against a boogieman alternative.

That's how you operate.

Here you are even being dopey about it.

Anonymous said...

Yeah we don't need no stinkin' out of staters.