Well, this is a lovely idea.  Maybe when we aren't facing down Islamic terrorism, growing Communism, and the reign of a socialist president.  This is not going to end well for us. 

New UN resolution aims at nuclear-free world
By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer Edith M. Lederer, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 1 min ago
<!-- end .byline -->

UNITED NATIONS – With President Barack Obama presiding over a historic session, the U.N. Security Council unanimously approved a U.S.-sponsored resolution Thursday committing all nations to work for a nuclear weapons-free world.

Russia, China and developing nations supported the measure, giving it global clout and strong political backing.

The resolution calls for stepped up efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, promote disarmament and "reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism." It calls for better security for nuclear weapons materials and underscores the Security Council's intention to take action if such material or nuclear weapons get into the hands of terrorists.

The resolution consolidated many elements previously endorsed individually in the Security Council or other international forums. But bringing them together in a single document, voted on by global leaders, should add political momentum to efforts to achieve these goals, particularly at important conferences next year on nuclear security and on strengthening the Nonproliferation Treaty.

It was only the fifth time the Security Council met at summit level since the U.N. was founded in 1945 and 14 of the 15 chairs around the council's horseshoe-shaped table were filled by presidents and prime ministers. Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's name was on the U.N.-circulated list as attending but he was a no-show. Libya's U.N. ambassador spoke for his country.

The U.S. holds the rotating council presidency this month and Obama was the first American president to preside over a Security Council summit, gaveling the meeting into session and announcing that "the draft resolution has been adopted unanimously."

"The historic resolution we just adopted enshrines our shared commitment to a goal of a world without nuclear weapons," Obama said immediately after the vote. "And it brings Security Council agreement on a broad framework for action to reduce nuclear dangers as we work toward that goal."

Just one nuclear weapon set off in a major city — "be it New York or Moscow, Tokyo or Beijing, London or Paris" — could kill hundreds of thousands of people and cause major destruction, Obama said.

The council endorsed a global effort to "lock down all vulnerable nuclear materials within four years" and the president announced that the United States will host an April summit to advance compliance and assist all nations in achieving the goal.

The resolution does not mention any country by name but it reaffirms previous Security Council resolutions that imposed sanctions on Iran and North Korea for their nuclear activities. It does not call for any new sanctions.

The resolution "expresses particular concern at the current major challenges to the nonproliferation regime that the Security Council has acted upon."

"This is not about singling out an individual nation," Obama said. "International law is not an empty promise, and treaties must be enforced."

But Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy all identified North Korea, which has tested nuclear weapons, and Iran, suspected of harboring weapon plans, as obstacles to a safer world.

Sarkozy sharply criticized both countries for ignoring Security Council resolutions calling on them to cease such activities.

"We may all be threatened one day by a neighbor, by a neighbor endowing itself" with nuclear weapons, he said.

"What I believe is that if we have the courage to affirm and impose sanctions on those who violate resolutions of the Security Council we will be lending credibility to our commitment to a world with fewer nuclear weapons and ultimately with no nuclear weapons," Sarkozy said.

The British leader called on the council to consider "far tougher sanctions" against Iran.

Iran's U.N. Mission issued a statement calling allegations about its nuclear program "totally untrue and without any foundation," insisting it is pursuing nuclear power as an alternative source of energy "to supply its booming population and rapid development."

Iran called French claims "preposterous" and accused Britain of "deliberately and cynically" ignoring its legal commitments to take practical steps to eliminate nuclear weapons but did not mention the United States by name.

Diplomats from Iran are scheduled to hold talks on Oct. 1 with the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany.

The Iranian statement reiterates the country's "readiness to engage in serious and constructive negotiations with interested parties, based on respect, justice, rights of nations and collective commitments, aimed at reaching a framework for cooperative relationships." But it said that to achieve success in future negotiations the six countries should abandon "futile and illegal demands of the past years" that include suspending Iran's enrichment program.

Obama said the resolution reflects the nuclear agenda he outlined in his April speech in Prague when he declared his commitment to "a world without nuclear weapons."

The president called in that speech for the slashing of U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, adoption of the treaty banning all nuclear tests, an international fuel bank to better safeguard nuclear material, and negotiations on a new treaty that "verifiably" ends the production of fissile materials for atomic weapons.

He also strongly backed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, or NPT, which requires signatory nations not to pursue nuclear weapons in exchange for a commitment by the five nuclear powers to move toward nuclear disarmament. States without nuclear weapons are guaranteed access to peaceful nuclear technology for electricity generation.

All those measures are included in the draft resolution.

The resolution suggests that the Security Council consider taking firmer actions in the case of a country withdrawing from the NPT — as North Korea did — and stresses that countries that pull out are responsible for all violations before withdrawal.

Iran in its statement reaffirmed its commitment to the NPT, saying it takes its responsibilities under the treaty "seriously."

In its opening paragraph, the resolution reaffirms the council's commitment "to seek a safer world for all and to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons."

Obama warned Thursday against violations of the NPT saying, "We must demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that treaties will be enforced."

But global differences remain.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said that "our main shared goal is to untie the problem knots" among nations seeking nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament.

"This is complicated since the level of mistrust among nations remains too high, but it must be done," he said.

Chinese President Hu Jintao focused on a late addition to Thursday's resolution: a call for all nuclear-weapon states to commit to "no first use" of those weapons, and to not using them against non-nuclear states. China has long proclaimed such a policy, which the U.S. has never embraced.

"All nuclear-weapon states should make an unequivocal commitment of unconditionally not using or threatening to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states," Hu said.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon saluted the national leaders for joining in the unprecedented Security Council summit on nuclear arms.

"This is a historic moment, a moment offering a fresh start toward a new future," he said.

Among the invited guests were U.N. nuclear chief Mohamed ElBaradei, former U.S. Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, former U.S. Defense Secretary William Perry, media mogul Ted Turner, former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn and Queen Noor of Jordan — all campaigners against nuclear weapons.

Nunn, a Georgia Democrat who heads the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a Washington-based group designed to fight the global spread of nuclear materials, said the most important thing about the resolution "is the high-level visibility that will be taking place ... with world leaders gathering to remind both themselves and the world that we are at a nuclear tipping point."

As Obama left the Security Council chamber, he told the Associated Press: "It was an excellent day."

___

Associated Press Writers John Heilprin and Charles Hanley contributed to this report from the United Nations.

(Otherwise known as: My Allegiance To My Country Is Not Determined By My Faith)

 

I recently participated in a Poll regarding the Pledge of Allegiance in our schools. I voted to keep it in and commented, "I'd like to go back to the 1923 version. Either way, we need it. Too many anti-American sentiments being taught in America."

 

Most of the arguments I read there and elsewhere since the Pledge and the whole "Under God" on money and in public venues debate started is the inclusion of "Under God" in the Pledge. Apparently, you are either for or against those words, and both sides feel that if you do not agree with their point of view, you are not a true American.

 

Well, that kind of mindset always sets me off. It's the arrogance of anyone with the nerve to tell an American citizen they do not belong here or they do not love this country just because their faith or political view is different. It is that blind egotism making each of us turn our backs on each other due to a difference of opinion while completely ignoring what such self-importance is doing to our once great nation.

 

I can't help but pull out my soap box and rip everyone a new one when I see MY country losing to the vanity of its people as though it means nothing more than a trophy on a debater's shelf.

 

Let's clarify just what the Pledge of Allegiance is, where it's been, and what it has done, is doing, and will do for our country.

 

The original words to the Pledge of Allegiance were published on September 8, 1892, in a Boston-based youth magazine called "The Youth's Companion." It was 22 words long and credit has been given to one of two men in charge of the paper: Francis Bellamy and James Upham. They were both education-oriented men, who were involved in the Columbus Day celebrations involving the 44 states.

 

On Columbus Day, October 12, 1892, celebrating the 400th anniversary of Columbus' discovery of America, more than 12 million school children across our nation recited the words in their classrooms for the first time.

 

We were finally recovering from the Civil War, begun 30 years prior, and people from all over the world were flooding our shores for the promise of a better way of life, freedoms unseen in their countries of origin, and opportunities they never before dreamed were possible. After almost half a million immigrants passed through our borders the previous year, Ellis Island opened as a federal receiving station on January 1st of 1892.

 

We were, indeed, swiftly becoming a melting pot of cultures, customs, beliefs, talents, languages, colors, and imports. It was quite clear that these immigrants sought this new world for a reason, and not one complained when asked to pledge their allegiance to this country at the time of receivership or at the time this small devotion was recited throughout US schools.

 

That first pledge, the 1892 version, simply read:

 

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all."

 

During the first National Flag Conference in Washington, D.C., on June 14, 1923, attendees expressed concern over the vague "my Flag" reference in regards to the increasing number of immigrants from various nations. To clarify in minds and hearts, "my Flag" was changed to "the Flag of the United States."

 

This would be considered the 1923 version:

 

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all."

 

At the 1924 National Flag Conference, it was lengthened with "of America":

 

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all."

 

The Pledge was finally made official on June 22, 1942, when the United States Congress included the Pledge to the Flag in the United States Flag Code (Title 36). It was the first Official sanction given to the words that had been recited each day by children for almost fifty years.

 

One year after receiving this official sanction, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to recite the Pledge as part of their daily routine. In 1945, the official title became "The Pledge of Allegiance."

 

On Flag Day, June 14, 1954, due to growing fears of Communism, Dwight D. Eisenhower approved the words "under God," stating:

 

"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

 

Thus, creating the 1954 version and the one we know today:

 

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all."

 

Personally, I do not care for the "under God" addition. It was thrown in during a time of fear and a reaction that was quite hypocritical. Forcing one's religion upon another is precisely what Communism is about, and precisely why our forefathers fought so hard to give us the freedoms we have today.

 

This country was founded on the ideal that all men have the right to live free. "Give me liberty or give me death" were not lightly chosen words. They were spoken by a man who would rather die fighting for his right to follow his path rather than that of any dictator.

 

It is an unjust thing to force anyone to pledge their allegiance to a god that is not theirs, then call them anti-American for not doing so. This is NOT what our forefathers wanted. It is NOT what our ancestors shed blood for in the American Revolution.

 

I am Pagan. I believe in something more than just Science, though I believe in Science because to not do so would be quite ignorant. My belief, however, is my own. It is not secluded to one small corner of thinking. It is not imprisoned by mankind's limited understanding of all that exists around us. It is my path I am entitled to as a human being and as a citizen of the United States of America. No one has the right to take that away from me. No one has the right to tell me I am unAmerican simply for not pledging my blood oath to their idea of a God.

 

I would not ever want to be in this predicament were it Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein in the White House. When we choose to mandate God as a prerequisite for allegiance to our country, we permit any fanatically religious sect to take up ownership of what God that may be.

 

This country is and always has been made up of every religion known to mankind, including those loyal to Science alone. Before religion became an excuse to fight each other, there never was a question of a person's allegiance to the United States of America, and there was never an idea of dissension.

 

Loyalty to a higher power and loyalty to this country do not go hand-in-hand. It was never meant to do so and it is fool-hearty to believe it ever would.

 

There are thousands of brave men and women dying and shedding blood for this country on the battlefields of every war who are Jewish, Pagan, Atheist, Agnostic, and otherwise non-Christian. There have been plenty of Christian deserters, who chose to save their own ass and high tail it to Canada. It would not be fair to say Christians are anti-American, just as it is not fair to say such about non-Christians.

 

As for keeping the Pledge in schools, well, it was officially declared no school child would ever be forced to say the Pledge. That should go without argument. From my point of view, however, children should feel honored to say the Pledge, but they are now being forced to view it as a chore, and a bad one at that.

 

While we fight about words that have no authority over our love of country, our children are being taught the Pledge of Allegiance is a bad thing. And they're believing it. Is it any wonder? Where are we when they learn these things? Where are we, the adults who know better, when our children are being taught in grade schools, high schools, and universities anti-American sentiments left and right? And now these children have grown into adults and are raising their kids to feel the same. Whose fault is that? We dropped the ball and now we are suffering for it.

 

I don't care what your feelings about the war are, or what you think of Glen Beck or MSNBC, Obama or Bush. There is a serious lack of American History going on in schools right now, and the thanks for that is this division between us exacerbated by pride and the inability to admit when we make mistakes so we can fix what we fuck up before it destroys us all together.

 

In grade school, I told my history teacher that Andrew Jackson was a jerk who unjustly slaughtered American Indians. I received an F for the entire week for spreading such "filth" about "an American hero." In 11th grade American History, I said the same and presented an in-depth project on the Cherokee Trail of Tears. I received and A+ and a letter of gratitude from the Cherokee Tribal Nation Committee, of which my teacher's grandfather was a member.

 

Time Magazine hails Che Guevara as one of the top 100 Heroes of all time. Is it any wonder college kids wear this marxist mass murderer's image with pride, while bitching about US military actions?

 

This is what we are doing to ourselves when we lie and keep those lies alive just to save face. I think it's about time we get over ourselves and start telling the truth, no matter how painful, and start accepting our differences once again so we can heal our broken country and fight those factions secretly tearing away at us from within.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUybMMYmpxo