A while back I remember the Dems were enflamed over the fact that Bush was appointing a guy to represent America in the UN who had previously publicly stated he didn't believe the UN existed.

I thought the appointing was appropriate because the best thing we could do was put someone who criticized the UN, since I also agreed it seemingly didn't exist.

In recent days, however, I quickly realized my view was wrong...

You see, one of the key things that made me want to criticize the UN was the repeated appointing of a Sudan leader to the Human Rights board. You see, ethnic cleansing has been happening in the Sudan for many years, but apparently this doesn't qualify as a human right violation. The only country who doesn't vote to allow them in is the US, as our leader always abstains. In that way, the human rights violator is elected in unanimously. Apparently the rest of the world sees this form of a blatant human rights violation as being anything but, because I guess those who are being cleansed aren't considered human...

But in recent days, I've seems something I've never thought I'd see. That is, hypocrisy that is so blatant, it's hard to believe it's really happening. You see, I'm of course referring to the Israel/Hezbollah conflict.

Israel is being identified by the word as performing genocide, because they are attacking an Arab country. The fact that Hezbollah has been launching an average of 90 missiles a month for the last several years (imagine 1000 missiles a year being launched into Texas by Mexico). This blatant racial attack is apparently praised by the UN, including a direct praise of Kofi Anon. Israel finally lashes back against the very organization performing these missile launches, designed to target ONLY civilians, and some how this retaliative attack against the very people who have been launching these missiles is an ethnic cleansing ritual. Apparently the UN believes Israel should target Japan to try to stop the Hezbollah missile launches & Hezbollah abductions.

And, yes, the through shows through very close to home, as media reports still show. People killed in Lebanon are labeled innocent civilians, while people killed in Israel are labeled 'people'. Apparently nobody is innocent in Israel, and every last person living in Lebanon is innocent. If a Lebanese man were to walk into a kindergarten in Israel, use a machine gun and kill a thousand 2 to 6 year olds, apparently those children would no be innocent at all. But the guy who machine gunned down all those children, he is definitely innocent. How could someone who killed that many non-humans be labeled as anything but? He was doing the world a favor, after all. But if a building collapses 6 hours after a bombing done by Israel (how long does it take to get out of a building anyway?), and some children die, why that's a crime against humanity. Even though that building collapsed under mysterious circumstances. And even though there were various targets that would be considered valid in any type of war surrounding the area.

But of course, we have other things as well. A UN peacekeeper in Lebanon, in an area being attacked by Israel, sends out an email before being killed clearly stating that Israel had every reason to target them because several Hezbollah thugs were surrounding the peacekeepers essentially using them has a human shield. Clearly stating Israel had every reason to attack the area. What does UN then say? The email sent by this guy who knew he was about to die is a lie. The guy getting killed had no idea what he's talking about, and the UN leaders in their nice air condition offices, thousands of miles away, apparently do. You would think the UN would take the word of their very own peacekeepers. But, hey, if they state Israel has a valid reason for doing what they did, the peacekeepers obviously have no idea what they are talking about. Obviously they didn't get the memo stating citizens of the nation of Israel were not classified as human, therefore the attack couldn't be valid. Of course I think there are several other countries who haven't gotten that memo either. Why doesn't the UN get off their asses and at least send it out. Because then maybe we can all be on the same page...

But the bottom line is that, yes, the UN does exist. Unfortunately it would seemingly be better for the world if they didn't at this point. There is no room to joke any more. The UN has seemingly unilaterally identified certain groups as not qualifying for a label of 'human'. Certain groups of people have zero right to exist, and if those groups try to defend them selves, it's they who are violating human rights because they do not qualify as human. This is just a sad world we live in. A world where blatant terrorist groups are allowed to operate, and are praised for doing so. And a world where dogs have more of a right to live than certain ethnic groups...

I was reading an article and fell upon this link.

Apparently in Montana, it's illegal to do anything about a police officer who is actively violating the law, as long as the officer is in uniform.

So apparently if you're in Montana and you come across a police officer who is in uniform and is beating a 4 year old into a coma with a night stick, it's illegal for you to do anything about it...

This would never happen you say? Okay, how about a more realistic example (which apparently has at least occured once). If a police officer wants to search your home, but doesn't have a warrant or justified cause, telling him he cannot search your home is a direct violation of this law. It's an illegal search, but he is in uniform and performing on duty, so it's a crime to not give him permission (because you would be interfering with his illegal request)...

Nice...