It’s Official: Genocidal Sudan Running Uncontested for U.N. Human Rights Council Seat.

Why is Canada a member of this organization, an organization that is quite happy to have inmates running the asylum? 

The Geneva-based human rights group UN Watch condemned the candidacy of Omar Al-Bashir’s Sudanese regime, despite the International Criminal Court warrant for his arrest on charges of genocide, for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council, as just now confirmed by a United Nations website.

In July, UN Watch had called on U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the EU’s Catherine Ashton to denounce and fight against Sudan’s then-reported candidacy.

“Regrettably, no responses were received,” said Neuer. “It’s still not too late, however, and we continue to urge them to speak out for basic morality and common sense at the United Nations.”

UN Watch already heads an international campaign of MPs and human rights groups opposing the candidacies of Venezuela and Pakistan. Last month, the U.S. failed to get the council to pass a condemnation of what it said was a Syrian candidacy for 2014.

The U.N.’s African group of states agreed behind closed doors to endorse the candidacies of Ethiopia, Gabon, Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone and Sudan. Because Africa has arranged for five countries to run for the same amount of allotted seats, Sudan’s election is virtually assured.

“Technically,” said Neuer, “Sudan must still receive an absolute majority of 97 affirmative country votes in the U.N. General Assembly’s November election for new human rights council members. However, in the history of these ballots, names presented on a closed slate have never been rejected. It’s just the way U.N. ambassadors like to work. Shockingly, the fact is that Sudan’s election is now a virtual certainty.”

Neuer said that UN rights chief Navi Pillay, who hails from South Africa, could make a big difference by speaking out. “We need her to be the moral voice here, to urge other African countries to put their names forward, and to call for unequivocal opposition to Sudan’s scandalous bid. Her role is crucial.”

“Just a year after the human rights council sought to exorcise the ghosts of its past by suspending Col. Muammar Qaddafi’s Libya — which infamously chaired the body in 2003, and was reelected a member in 2010 — it is now set to replace him with a tyrant wanted for genocide by the International Criminal Court. For how long must we have the inmates running the asylum?”

“The U.N. and the cause of human rights will be severely damaged if and when Al-Bashir’s Sudanese regime wins a seat,” said Neuer. “The U.N. should recall that the reputation of the old human rights commission never recovered it made Libya its chair in 2003.”

UN Watch also called on the U.S. and the EU to lead a vigorous campaign to defeat Sudan’s candidacy, and to ensure there will be competition on the African slate of candidates.

“Last year, the democracies fought a successful campaign to defeat Syria, by persuading other countries to compete. Yet they said and did absolutely nothing in 2010 on Libya — perhaps due to lucrative oil and business deals — and Qaddafi won by a landslide. It’s vital this year that the US and the EU announce early that they are opposed to having the oppressive Sudanese regime of Al-Bashir Assad judging the world on human rights,” said Neuer.

Do you remember that thing about how the banks wouldn’t lend to blacks and Hispanics because they were racists? And do you remember how they passed the Community Reinvestment Act so that banks were forced to reduce down payments practically to zero and lend to a lot of people they knew were bad credit risks? And do you remember how Wall Street bundled all these risky subprime mortgages and sold them to investors around the world so that when it became clear that those people weren’t going to be able to pay their mortgages banks everywhere were left holding the bag and all five of the Wall Street investment houses either went under or had to be bailed out by the federal government?

And do you remember how, when it was all over, liberals said it was actually the banks’ fault for “deceiving” all those people into thinking they could afford to buy homes and that the banks should be punished for it and some of those people be allowed to keep their homes anyway? And do you remember how all this cost the government close to a trillion dollars and put the whole economy in a hole that we really haven’t begun to dig ourselves out of yet?

Well, get ready because the whole thing is about to happen again.

Yes, believe it or not, the federal government is now starting another initiative to force banks to lend to low-credit-rated blacks and Hispanics — not just anybody but specifically blacks and Hispanics — and is threatening — and already imposing — huge punitive fines if they don’t. Moreover, this time they’re going even further. They’re going to take over the credit rating agencies and force them to change their standards to accommodate blacks and Hispanics so that nobody will have any idea who is a bad credit risk and who is not. 

…..read more HERE

Because most Western governments are insolvent, fiscal policy is dead. They maxed out their taxing power a long time ago and have been borrowing ever since. When it comes to the economy, governments are a spent force.

This has put central banks in charge, and they basically do one thing only: they print money. If all you have is hammer, everything looks like a nail, so central banks naturally think the world’s problem is a lack of money, which they are busily solving.

The problem is, a lack of money is not the problem, it’s solvency, and part of the reason for that is too much money, or rather, too much credit.

….read the whole article HERE 

(hat tip to Kate McMillan of  Canada’s very popular blog Small Dead Animals for both the Great article and title)