Oh what a tangled web we weave... This story continues to develop. Here is the latest:
BREAKING NEWS: Paul Volcker, the man charged with the task of investigating the UN oil-for-food scandal, has by his association with the Montreal-based Power Corporation, a potential conflict of interest as chief scandal investigator. Volcker has held a seat on Power Corporation’s international advisory board. Wealthy Canadian businessman and Power Corporation founder, Paul Desmarais Sr. is a major shareholder and director in TotalFinaElf, the largest oil corporation in France, which has held tens of billions of dollars in contracts with the deposed regime of Saddam Hussein. France has been identified as one of the chief partners-in-corruption in the scandal. Annan, the secretary general can hardly expect the outside world to have any confidence in Volcker as a credible independent investigator. Why should anyone concerned about the billions of dollars that ended in the private bank accounts of Saddam Hussein take his investigations seriously?
Last April, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan authorized Volcker to investigate the oil-for-food program.Former American fugitive Marc Rich was a middleman for several of Iraq's suspect oil deals in February 2001, just one month after his pardon from President Clinton, according to oil industry shipping records. And a U.S. criminal investigation is looking into whether Rich, as well as several other prominent oil traders, made illegal payments to Iraq in order to obtain the lucrative oil contracts. A U.S. criminal investigation is looking into whether Rich, as well as several other prominent oil traders, made illegal payments to Iraq in order to obtain the lucrative oil contracts. The U.N. oil-for-food corruption scandal only continues to grow. We will keep you up to date!
Sen. Norm Coleman is saying that U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan should step down because "the most extensive fraud in the history of the U.N. occurred on his watch. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, as long as Mr. Annan remains in charge, the world will never be able to learn the full extent of the bribes, kickbacks and under-the-table payments that took place under the U.N.'s collective nose. Mr. Annan was at the helm of the U.N. for all but a few days of the oil-for-food program, and he must, therefore, be held accountable for the U.N.'s utter failure to detect or stop Saddam's abuses"
The humanitarian oil-for-food program, which began in 1996, allowed Iraq to trade oil for food, medicine and other necessities. Two weeks ago, Coleman's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said it had uncovered evidence that Saddam Hussein's government raised more than $21.3 billion in illegal revenue by subverting U.N. sanctions against Iraq, including the oil-for-food program.
So why is does this guy still have his job? Because the members of the board, Security Council members China, Russia and France, have all benefited from Saddam being in power. THEY WERE ALSO AGAINST ANY MILITARY ACTION BY THE U.S. IN IRAQ. It's easy to see why. It meant the loss of millions of illegal dollars to them. SO our troops are fighting and being killed for the greed of these countries.
It was also discovered that the son of the secretary general, Kofi Annan, worked for a company being investigated in the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal for four years longer than he first admitted. The oil-for-food scheme allowed Iraq, which was under UN sanctions, to export limited quantities of oil in return for food and medicine. It later emerged that Saddam Hussein diverted billions of dollars from the scheme to bribe officials.
It is my opinion that the entire U.N. is corrupted and can not be trusted with having our security or the best interests of any country in mind. They have therefore rendered themselves irrelevant and need to be dismantled. We can not continue to submit to a governing body who will base decisions and the will of the highest bidder.
I've always had my doubts when it comes to the UN. It's the whole "one world government" idea that scares me. The bible even warns us about it. You can not take countries with different cultures, values, religions and priorities and expect them all to just get along under the UN banner. Toss a bit of corruption into the mix and you have a dangerous situation. The recent revelations that have come to light only are astounding. From the corrupt oil for food program to the illegal sale of arms to Iraq. The only reason we know about any of this is because President Bush did what nobody thought he would do, he went into Iraq without UN approval to enforce UN declarations . So now we know the security of the US was being sold through the UN to the highest bidder what do we do? An organization has surfaced with a suggestion. Take the US out of the UN and hang an eviction notice on the front door of the UN. The are launching a TV campaign to push the idea. Maybe we could get Donald Trump to fire Kofi Annan on live TV. You can see the ad here.
Do you think the UN should be forced out of the US?
2 comments:
Cindrew:
WOW! You asked allot of things there. I will try to answer the all and keep it a short as I can. (This will also be posted on my blog @ www.powerblog.blogspot.com)
Let's start with separation of church of state. I know this will shock you because we often hear the “separation of church of state” argument but the fact is THERE IS NO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. The words: "separation", "church", and "state" do not even appear in the first amendment. The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. Jefferson made it clear in his letter that the separation was to be that government would not ESTABLISH a national religion OR DICTATE to men how to worship God. It did not separate God from government. Jefferson's letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken simply affirmed first amendment rights.
The people that came to America did not want freedom FROM religion, but freedom OF religion. Our founding fathers were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation. Our courts, laws, societal standards, right down to our public assistance programs all have biblical roots. They believed that God's ways were much higher than Man's ways and held firmly that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used the Bible as the source to form our government.
That does not mean you have to be Christian to be American. However, to say Biblical principles should not be allowed in government and school is to either be ignorant of the historic intent of the founding fathers, or blatantly bigoted against Christianity. The two primary places where morality is taught are the family and the church. When they fail and we cease to allow the church to influence the state, it destroys our foundation of righteousness and justice. It is absolutely necessary for the church to influence the state in virtue because without virtue our government will crumble -- the representatives will look after their own good instead of the common good.
The Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians. We can go back in history and look at what the founding fathers wrote to know where they were getting their ideas. The source most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for 34% of all citations. Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the Bible to form their conclusions. That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were based on the Bible. The founding fathers took ideas from the Bible and incorporated them into our government. Isaiah 33:22 says, "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king..." The founding fathers took this scripture and made three major branches in our government: judicial, legislative, and executive. The point here is we have all been lied to by Christian bigots for years and we believed them!
You mentioned Henry VIII seeking divorce and stated, "He was the government". Isn't it interesting that although this guy was a King he still looked to the church for approval? If God created marriage, then maybe we should turn to the church for approval of marriage and divorce including gay marriage. However, any church that stands on the word of God would never allow it. Here is why...
You are incorrect in saying homosexuality is not mentioned in the NT. If you are going to toss aside the entire Old Testament the say goodbye the 10 commandments which are the basis for any civil society. But for the sake of argument let's only use New Testament. Go to 1 Corithians 6:9-10:"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." Now the bible clearly states that ALL sex outside of marriage is sin. So a man and women unmarried and having sex are commiting equal sin as two men. But notice the word EFFEMINATE. What does that mean to you? Now consider "abusers of themselves with mankind" We are told in the chapter that he who sins sexually sins against his own body, or ABUSES HIMSELF. Every mention of marriage in the NT refers to a wife as "she" and husband as "he". Not to mention natural law of reproduction. Any pure homosexually society is doomed to extinction.
How is gay marriage detrimental to others? The consequences of legalizing homosexual marriage will be disastrous to the American public in general. Studies on homosexual relationships have demonstrated that these relationships are often volatile, short-lived, and non-monogamous. The breaking down of traditional marriage and family structure has dire consequences on the youth. Morals and biblical principles become something that can be negotiated and changed over time. It forces some of us to accept something that goes against our religious beliefs. And where do we draw the line? Should 3 people marry, can a child marry and adult, should marriage include pets? I know it sound crazy, but if we base it on just "LOVE" we open the door to all of it!
You asked what makes my wife worthy marriage and not a man. My wife is a gift from God. I would not defile that gift by going against his word. Read Ephesians 5: "husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church for we are members of his body. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."
As for tolerance, right now, today, WE ALL HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS. A gay person can marry, just not a person of the same sex. It is not illegal to be gay. By changing the definition of marriage, it changes the bond my wife and I agree to and entered and ignores God's design.
You said God only asks two things of us. Well I beg to differ. He asks thousands of things. Speak the truth, expose sin, pray, repent, study his word, follow his commandments, spread the gospel, I could go on and on. By speaking the truth in love we are in fact loving one another. Wrong is wrong. You might not like it or even agree but it is out of love that I will call you on it.
Last thing.... killing and war in Iraq. Although war and killing are horrible things, there are times when it is reasonable to fight. There are many examples in the bible: God commanded Israel to destroy evil nations, and he rebuked them for their acquiescence when he ordered their defeat. (Joshua 10; etc.) Those who cried "peace, peace" were false prophets. (Ezekiel 13:16; etc.)
In God's perfect world, the wolf will lie down with the lamb, but only after the earth is cleansed of evil (Isaiah 11:6; 2:4) Until then, the Bible says, wars are inevitable (Ecclesiastes 3:8; Matthew 24:6). You can argue the justification issue all you want but in general peace is often the RESULT of war, not the lack of war.
I hope I've answered all your questions.
Your on the right track about the UN and its corruption. However,it is politically impractical to disban the UN at this time. I would suggest that the US take the stand that as long as the UN has so much "oil for food" money they don't need ours. The congress should put a "stop payment" on any check made out to the UN until they get their act together; which of course they never will and we can save billions of tax payer dollars.
Good blog. Someone must have brought you up right.
Big Jim
Post a Comment