Will U.S. Let U.N. Rename NFL Team?





Photo Credit: Keith Allison (Creative Commons)

Among those whose lives are ruled by the irrational demands of political correctness, the past several months have been dominated by one fabricated outrage in particular. Many leftists have exerted considerable time and effort in an as-yet futile effort to convince Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder to change the name of the legendary NFL team.

By trotting out a few select Native Americans willing to testify that the name offends them, the PC police are hoping to pressure the team to embrace a different moniker. With little success on the domestic front, one of the most prominent opponents of the Redskins name recently announced he will be meeting with the United Nations’ human rights assistant secretary-general in an apparent attempt to further intimidate Snyder.

Oneida Indian tribe lieader Ray Halbritter announced he will sit down with the representative at the U.N.’s Manhattan headquarters.

While limited protests of the Redskins – along with countless other mascots along the way – have cropped up in previous years, this ongoing effort to force a name change is taking the fight to a new level of absurdity. For the vast majority of Americans, the name, which has been used for decades, is not only inoffensive but actually celebrates the strength and dedication of Native Americans.

As Snyder himself has long maintained, the name was chosen as “a badge of honor,” not as a slight against any nationality or race. Even many Indian leaders, including Navajo Code Talkers Association Vice President Roy Hawthorne, believe the team reflects a uniquely patriotic sentiment.

“My opinion,” Hawthorne said late last year, “is that’s a name that not only the team should keep; but that’s a name that’s American.”

Any amount of evidence to the contrary, however, will be insufficient to convince those who thrive on issuing accusations of bigotry and racism. Considering the left’s overwhelming proclivity towards allowing the U.N. to influence domestic policy, it might be just a matter of time before the Redskins find themselves facing a foe more dangerous than any gridiron rival.

–B. Christopher Agee

Have an idea for a story? Email us at tips@westernjournalism.com

Photo Credit: Keith Allison (Creative Commons)





The Super Bowl And Sex Trafficking





Photo credit: MTAPhotos (Creative Commons)

On February 2 of this year, thousands will gather at Met Life Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J. to watch the Seattle Seahawks battle the Denver Broncos in Super Bowl XLVIII. As the athletes take the field and the fans cheer, they will be oblivious to the tragedy unfolding around them in dark hotel rooms across East Rutherford.

Sex trafficking has become a stealth parasite that attaches itself to major sporting events, taking advantage of a large number of fans and the demand for illicit sex. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott echoed the stunning revelation, gripping so many with his statement about the 2011 Super Bowl in Dallas: “It’s commonly known as the single largest human trafficking incident in the United States.”

Dallas police and federal authorities arrested 133 minors for prostitution during the 2011 Super Bowl; and according to Forbes Magazine, 10,000 prostitutes were transported to Miami for the Super Bowl in 2010.

A United States Department of Justice investigation from January 2008 to June 2010 discovered that 40 percent of human trafficking incidents involve child prostitution or the sexual exploitation of a child. UNICEF estimates there are nearly 2 million children in the commercial sex trade, and major sporting events have become a nexus for sexual predators and a haven for sex trafficking.

January is “National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month”; and according to the U.S. State Department, social scientists estimate there are 27 million victims of human trafficking in the world today. The United Nations reports that human trafficking is a $32 billion industry across the world and that people are being trafficked from 127 countries to be exploited in 137 countries, affecting every continent and every economy.

The State Department estimates also suggest that the majority of trafficking victims are women and girls, and that trafficking victims are subjected to both sex and labor trafficking. Recent data has also brought to light a previously hidden trend that a significant percentage of trafficking victims are men and boys.

UNICEF reports that victims of sex trafficking are subjected to conditions that include high numbers of clients and violent or unprotected sex. They are also subjected to poor hygiene and forced drug use that includes reusing needles, and sex trafficking is a “hotbed” for sexually transmitted infections.

In the United States, human trafficking is a $9.5 billion industry according to the United Nations. The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that 17,500 people are trafficked into the United States each year. A total of 300,000 children in this country are at risk of being trafficked sexually right now.

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children reports that the average age of a sex trafficked child in the United States is 13-14 years old, and the average pimp controls 4-6 children and makes $150,000-$200,000 per year from each child. The anti-trafficking organization The Polaris Project estimates that victims of sex trafficking are forced to have sex 20-48 times a day.

In a study done by officials in Los Angeles, 59 percent of juveniles who were arrested for prostitution were previously in the foster care system. In 2013 during “Operation Cross Country,” the FBI rescued 105 children being forcibly exploited for sex and arrested 150 pimps. The youngest victim was just nine years old.

To bring an end to the scourge of sex trafficking requires that we all work together and join in the fight to rescue victims, many of whom are innocent children. The primary tool in that fight is education, and organizations like the Polaris Project; Jada Pinkett Smith’s organization, Don’t Sell Bodies; the McCain Institute, named after Senator John McCain of Arizona; Arrow Child and Family Ministries in Texas (www.arrow.org/mrc/Overview.html); and the Joyful Heart Foundation are both educating the public and rescuing victims of sex trafficking.

The NFL has also joined the fight by supporting tougher anti-trafficking laws and working with organizations to educate and empower the public. We can all be a force for change, and visit the websites of the organizations mentioned above to learn the signs of human trafficking.

With just one phone call to the human trafficking hotline at 1-866-347-2423 (toll free), each of us could help save a human life and bring us that much closer to a victory over human trafficking.

Photo credit: MTAPhotos (Creative Commons)





Lies My President Told Me





Photo credit: SAINT_727 (Creative Commons)“Under my plan, if you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your healthcare plan, you’ll be able to keep your healthcare plan. Period. Nothing changes, except your health insurance costs will go down.”

It was just a couple of renegade IRS agents in Cincinnati. Benghazi was a spontaneous protest that got out of control in direct response to an inflammatory video posted on the internet. During September 2012, our rebounding economy created an astonishing 873,000 jobs. And on and on.

If we have learned anything about President Obama and his administration, it is that they are compulsive, practiced prevaricators – determined to advance their agenda of “fundamentally transforming” America and imposing greater government control over our lives, living standards, and pursuit of happiness. When caught, they dissemble, say they were “not informed directly,” issue false apologies, or fire back with “What difference, at this point, does it make anyway?!?”

Keep all this in mind when the President and other Washington politicos bring up “dangerous manmade global warming,” insist that we slash fossil fuel use, and tell us we need to give poor countries billions of dollars a year to compensate them for “losses and damages” they incurred due to warming we caused.

When they claim “97% of scientists say the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it,” remember: This is based on 75 of 77 “climate scientists” who were selected from a 2010 survey (that went to 10,257 scientists). 700 climate scientists31,000 American scientists and 48% of US meteorologists say there is no evidence that humans are causing dangerous warming or climate change.

Moreover, “contributing to” is meaningless. Is it a 1, 5, 20, or 90% contribution? Is it local or global? Do scientists know enough to separate human factors from the numerous, powerful, interrelated solar, cosmic, oceanic, terrestrial, and other forces that have repeatedly caused minor to major climate changes, climate cycles, and weather events throughout human and geologic history? At this point, they do not.

When the President says “carbon pollution in our atmosphere has increased dramatically,” remember: It’s not “carbon” (soot) – it’s carbon dioxide. It’s not “pollution” – it’s the plant-fertilizing gas that makes all life on Earth possible. Increased “dramatically” means rising from 330 ppm (0.030% of the atmosphere) in 1975, when scientists were concerned about global cooling, to about 400 ppm (0.040%) today.

(Oxygen represents 21% of atmospheric gases (210,000 ppm). Argon is 0.93% (9,300 ppm). About 90% of the “greenhouse effect” is from water vapor. And roughly 95% of the annual addition to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels is from volcanoes, subsea vents, and other natural sources.)

Over the past 16 years, while CO2 levels continued to increase “dramatically,” average planetary temperatures did not budge. The eight years since a Category 3 hurricane made landfall in the United States is the longest such period since 1900, or even the 1860s. Even with the recent Midwestern and East Coast twisters, US tornado frequency remains close to a record low. Is that due to CO2 emissions?

There is one point on which the President is correct. In 2008, he said “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow.” And indeed, they are now rising at a mere seven inches per century.

All of this should fascinate the scholar and climate realist that lurks inside each of us. But what should concern us is the pernicious effects that the constant barrage of “manmade climate change” hype and headlines is having on public policies, taxpayer and consumer expenditures, and our daily lives.

Like threads in a tapestry, “dangerous manmade climate change” is intertwined with anti-hydrocarbon, imminent resource depletion, renewable energy, sustainable development, and wealth redistribution theses and ideologies. They are used to concoct and justify energy and economic policies, ranging from delays and bans on oil and gas leasing and drilling, to the war on coal mining and use, and diehard opposition to hydraulic fracturing and the Keystone XL pipeline.

They promote spending $22 billion just in federal money during FY-2014 on climate change studies; costly solar projects of every description; wind turbines that blight scenic vistas and slaughter millions of birds and bats annually, while wind energy developers are exempted from endangered species and other environmental laws that apply to all other industries; and ethanol programs that require millions of acres of farmland and vast quantities of water, fertilizer, pesticides, and fossil fuel energy to produce a gasoline additive that reduces mileage, harms engines, drives up food prices … and increases CO2 emissions.

The policies pummel jobs, families, and entire communities around coal mines and coal-fired factories and electrical generating plants, impairing the health and welfare of millions. Being unemployed – or holding multiple lower-paying part-time jobs – means greater stress; reduced nutrition; sleep deprivation; family discord; higher incidences of depression; greater alcohol, drug, spousal and child abuse; higher suicide rates; and lower life expectancies. It means every life allegedly saved by anti-fossil fuel regulations is offset by lives lost or shortened because of those rules.

The policies, laws, and regulations affect everything we make, grow, ship, eat, drive, and do – 100% of our energy based economy, not just one-sixth under ObamaCare – and put legislators, bureaucrats, activists, and courts in ever-increasing control over our lives, livelihoods, liberties, living standards, and life spans.

Even worse, it’s all for nothing – even if carbon dioxide plays a bigger role in climate change than many scientists believe it does. Germany is relying increasingly on coal for power generation. Australia has junked its cap-tax-and-trade program. Britain is reexamining its commitment to CO2 reduction. China and India are building new coal-fueled power plants every week, and neither they nor any of the real “developing countries” are required to commit to “binding targets” for lower carbon dioxide emissions.

Under agreements signed at the just-concluded UN climate conference in Warsaw, 130 developing nations must merely make “contributions” toward lower emissions, and only when they are “ready to do so.”

But then international climate programs were never really about preventing climate change. As IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer has admitted, they are about “how we redistribute the world’s wealth.” First, tens of billions continue flowing annually to IPCC scientists and bureaucrats and renewable energy programs. Then we start talking about real money.

Now that the IPCC, President Obama, and hordes of other climate alarmists have convinced so many people that climate change is “real,” it’s “happening now,” and humans are “contributing to” myriad disasters on an “unprecedented” scale – the Group of 130 expects the FRCs (Formerly Rich Countries) to pay up.

China, India, island nations and poor countries demand “compensation,” “adaptation,” and “mitigation” money, to pay for “losses and damages” from rising seas and more frequent, more intense storms and droughts – which they say are happening already, and which they blame on industrialized nations that helped raise CO2 levels from 280 ppm at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution to 400 ppm today.

They want $50 billion immediately, followed by $100 billion to $400 billion per year, plus free transfers of our best energy, pollution control, and industrial technologies. It’s too late to prevent, mitigate, or adapt to climate change, they say. You “rich countries” need to start paying for the damage you are causing.

20% of the EU budget will now go toward CO2 emission reductions and helping poor countries adapt to climate change: €180 billion ($245 billion) by 2020. What the United States will have to pay in “compensation” and under ClimateCare schemes being hatched at EPA, DOI, and Energy headquarters is yet to be determined. But the payments will be substantial, even crippling.

We are caught in a climate trap of our own (bureaucrats and politicians) making. How will we get out?

______________

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

 

Photo credit: SAINT_727 (Creative Commons)





U.N. To Seek Control Of The Internet

United Nations logo SC U.N. to Seek Control of the Internet

Next week the United Nations’ International Telecommunications Union will meet in Dubai to figure out how to control the Internet. Representatives from 193 nations will attend the nearly two week long meeting, according to news reports.

“Next week the ITU holds a negotiating conference in Dubai, and past months have brought many leaks of proposals for a new treaty. U.S. congressional resolutions and much of the commentary, including in this column, have focused on proposals by authoritarian governments to censor the Internet. Just as objectionable are proposals that ignore how the Internet works, threatening its smooth and open operations,” reports the Wall Street Journal.

“Having the Internet rewired by bureaucrats would be like handing a Stradivarius to a gorilla. The Internet is made up of 40,000 networks that interconnect among 425,000 global routes, cheaply and efficiently delivering messages and other digital content among more than two billion people around the world, with some 500,000 new users a day. …

“Proposals for the new ITU treaty run to more than 200 pages. One idea is to apply the ITU’s long-distance telephone rules to the Internet by creating a ‘sender-party-pays’ rule. International phone calls include a fee from the originating country to the local phone company at the receiving end. Under a sender-pays approach, U.S.-based websites would pay a local network for each visitor from overseas, effectively taxing firms such as Google and Facebook. The idea is technically impractical because unlike phone networks, the Internet doesn’t recognize national borders. But authoritarians are pushing the tax, hoping their citizens will be cut off from U.S. websites that decide foreign visitors are too expensive to serve.”

Read More at The Weekly Standard . By Daniel Halper.

Related posts:

  1. Will The UN Regulate The Internet? WASHINGTON – Secret negotiations involving dozens of countries preparing for…
  2. U.N. Plotting Takeover Of Internet The United Nations is about to discuss whether it should…

U.N. Plotting Takeover Of Internet

United Nations logo SC U.N. Plotting Takeover Of Internet

The United Nations is about to discuss whether it should have the power to regulate the Internet.

Next month, the 12th World Conference on International Telecommunications, or WCIT-12, will be held in Dubai. At the meeting, the 193 member countries of the U.N.’s International Telecommunications Union, or ITU, will consider renegotiating a fairly obscure treaty known as the International Telecommunication Regulations, or ITRs.

The 24-year-old agreement delineates much of the ITU’s rule-making authority over telecommunications.

The hope of several countries is that they can expand the ITU’s jurisdiction to the Internet, replacing the current governing system with one that is controlled by a U.N. bureaucracy.

The member nations will also consider an “Internet tax” designed to collect money from more affluent nations and redistribute it to poorer nations to improve their Internet infrastructure. ITRs do not currently include regulation of the Internet within their jurisdiction, since they have not been revised since the beginning of the Internet communications era.

Read More at WND . By Steve Elwart.

Related posts:

  1. Will The UN Regulate The Internet? WASHINGTON – Secret negotiations involving dozens of countries preparing for…
  2. White House Considers Executive Order, Leaves Internet Takeover A Possibility The White House has left open the possibility of enacting…