United Nations B/S

[American_Jihad]

US Should Not Only Defund UN But Withdraw From It
Let’s take our $3 billion and go.
December 26, 2016
Daniel Greenfield

The United States pays 22% of the total UN budget. What we get for our $3 billion a year is a corrupt organization whose dysfunctional and hostile agencies are united in opposing us around the world.

The United Nations does only two things consistently and effectively: waste money and bash Israel. Sometimes it manages to do both at the same time.

After an extended, and no doubt costly, visit to the region, the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women blamed Muslim men beating their wives on Israeli settlements.

No wonder the UN Security Council just condemned them. Who wouldn’t rightfully be upset that Jews living in Jerusalem somehow causes poor Mohammed to batter his wife?

The Jewish State is the UN’s scapegoat for anything and everything. The Palestinian Authority blamed Israel at the UN for Global Warming. WHO denounced Israel for violating “health rights.” And even when Muslim terrorists stab Israelis, it’s still Israel’s fault.

The latest anti-Israel vote at the UN has led to calls to defund the corrupt organization which, even when it isn’t actively trying to hurt us or our allies, is making the world worse every which way it can.

Just this summer the UN admitted that it had spread cholera that killed tens of thousands in Haiti. Sexual abuse allegations against its staffers were up 25% last year. In the spring, the UN admitted that peacekeepers from three countries had raped over 100 girls in only one African country. That’s not the kind of international cooperation that any of the organization’s founders had in mind.

Here’s what we get for our $3 billion.

UNRWA schools are turning out students who want to fight for ISIS. The UN’s email system has been used to distribute child pornography. UN staff members have smuggled drugs, attacked each other with knives and pool cues, not to mention a tractor. This month the UN marked Anti-Corruption Day despite refusing to fight its own corruption. The former President of the UN General Assembly was arrested on bribery charges last year. He had also headed UNICEF’s executive board. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is battling accusations of bribery.

...

US Should Not Only Defund UN But Withdraw From It

 

[Skull Pilot]

"Luddite" here might just be the most uninformed person on the web.

DARPA created the internet with tax payer dollars, why would ANYONE want to give away control of it?

They never gave away control
The government could pull the plug on the internet any time it wants

 

[saveliberty]

Stop paying first, if that doesn't wake them up in a year or two. Walk.

 

[American_Jihad]

The UN Is Beyond Reform
D.C. isn’t the only swamp our new president needs to drain.
January 10, 2017
Bruce Thornton

President-elect Donald Trump has promised to get tough with the UN, a corrupt, bloated bureaucracy that for seven decades has existed to provide cushy jobs for international deadbeats, and to promote the interests of tyrannical regimes and anti-American pygmy states. Recognizing the UN’s failures and corruption, some commentators are calling for targeted reductions of the estimated $8-10 billion a year we spend on the UN and its 15 affiliated organizations, thus prodding Turtle Bay to reform. But the better argument is to withdraw completely. Changing the shade of lipstick on this multinational pig is not going to keep it from acting like a pig.

Indeed, “reforming” the UN is a mantra politicians periodically repeat in order to avoid doing what’s necessary to make significant changes. Remember the old UN Human Rights Commission? It was completely ineffective because it regularly seated some of the world’s worst human rights violators, including China, Zimbabwe, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Algeria, Syria, Libya, Uganda and Vietnam. At the same time, as stalwart UN critic Ann Bayefsky wrote in 2002, “Commission members seek to avoid directly criticizing states with human rights problems, frequently by focusing on Israel, a state that, according to analysis of summary records, has for over 30 years occupied 15 percent of commission time and has been the subject of a third of country-specific resolutions.” To add insult to the injury, that same year the Commission passed a resolution giving the Palestinian Arabs the de facto “legitimate right” to use terrorism against Israel.

The serial ignoring of Sudan’s responsibility for the human rights disaster unfolding in Darfur, and the election of Sudan to the Commission finally put an end to the UNHRC, which was replaced in 2006 with the “reformed” UN Human Rights Council. After ten years it’s obvious that the change was cosmetic, as the Council has repeated the same sins of its predecessor. It continues to seat members from nations like current members China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela, all notorious for violating human rights. And it continues its chronic demonization of Israel, which it has condemned five times more than any other country. Nor is this vicious bigotry confined to the Council: last March, the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) condemned only one nation, Israel, for violating women’s rights.

So much for “reform.”

This gross hypocrisy and serial failure should not be surprising. Like all multinational institutions, the UN exists to serve the interests of its members, no matter how corrupt or brutal they are. Moreover, the UN’s foundational ideal––that it would resolve conflict through diplomacy, promote democracy, and foster human rights––assumed that the whole world was sincerely interested in these Western goods. More important, it also ignored the necessity for lethal violence to back up its lofty principles and punish the violators of them. Indeed, without a means of enforcing its ideals, the UN has ended up serving as an instrument of illiberal and totalitarian states for furthering their interests and supporting their aggression against their enemies and often their own citizens.

The idealists behind the creation of the UN can’t say they weren’t warned. The sorry history of the League of Nations should have been a deterrent. The League failed to stop the interwar aggression of Italy and Japan, and Germany’s serial violations of the Versailles Treaty, all of which culminated in the carnage of World War II.

In fact, the League was only three years old when its weakness and fecklessness were exposed. In 1923 Mussolini used the murder of some Italian diplomats in Greece as a pretext for advancing his designs on Albania by taking over the Greek island of Corfu. His fleet sailed into the harbor and bombarded a fortress, killing 15 refugees. Greece went to the League for justice.

...

Perhaps it’s time to recognize that idealistic internationalism has failed, and that we can advance our interests and protect our security by relying on our own political order of electoral audit, free and open debate, and ballot-box accountability, and by making alliances with those nations that serve our interests rather than, like most of the UN member states, actively subvert them. D.C. isn’t the only swamp our new president needs to drain.

The UN Is Beyond Reform

 

[American_Jihad]

Ambassador Samantha Power’s Swan Song at the United Nations
Eight years of fawning over the UN are coming to the end.
January 16, 2017
Joseph Klein

Samantha Power held her farewell press conference as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations on January 13th. She used the press conference to follow up on the themes she had previously laid out in her detailed cabinet exit memo and in her remarks at the Security Council’s January 10th open debate on the maintenance of international peace and security.

Ambassador Power trumpeted her view of the importance of the United Nations in addressing global crises and the Obama administration’s purported accomplishments in taking the lead, as she put it in her exit memo, to “leverage UN capabilities in service of international security, making the United States safer and stronger.” In a veiled warning to the incoming Trump administration and to a Congress increasingly disenchanted with the United Nations, Ambassador Power claimed that cutting U.S. funding to the United Nations would be "extremely detrimental" to U.S. interests

Ms. Power acknowledged certain flaws at the UN such as its bloated bureaucracy and gridlock among member states on major issues such as the Syrian conflict. However, she studiously avoided any mention of the corruption scandals that have continued to rock the UN system and its lack of transparency. She also omitted mention of the cholera epidemic introduced by UN peacekeepers, which has killed nearly 10,000 people and for which the UN refused to accept responsibility for several years. Most importantly, Ambassador Power glossed over the incontrovertible fact that the world has become a much more dangerous place during the eight years of the Obama administration and its outsized reliance on the UN. More nations, including our own, are under the constant threat of jihadist terrorism than ever before. Failed states have increased in number, serving as sanctuaries for jihadists. The aggressive Russian bear is resurgent. Iran has become a stronger hegemonic power in the Middle East that continues to fund and arm terrorists, collaborate with North Korea and test missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons.

The Obama administration has led from behind, while unduly relying on the UN in the naïve belief that it can serve as an effective instrument for protecting and maintaining international peace and security. “The United States needs the UN," Ambassador Power said. Despite paying lip service to the principle of national sovereignty, the Obama administration has shown willingness on too many occasions to allow the UN to set “international” law and norms on a range of issues. In President Obama’s own words during his final address as president to the UN General Assembly, he has no problem “giving up some freedom of action” and accepting “constraints” in “binding ourselves to the international rules.”

The results of Obama’s wholehearted embrace of the UN has included a small arms treaty that potentially jeopardizes Americans’ Second Amendment protections, the Paris agreement on climate change that can seriously disrupt America’s economically vital energy sector, and the disastrous nuclear deal with Iran, all without proper consent by the United States Senate pursuant to its constitutional treaty approval authority. The Obama administration relinquished control of the U.S. created Internet to a global governance mechanism under UN auspices. The Obama administration encouraged the UN to expand its leadership role in handling the refugee crisis, concurring in UN bureaucrats’ endorsement of more open borders and securing commitments for the admission of many more refugees and migrants. At her press conference, Ambassador Power lauded the UN refugee summit chaired by President Obama last fall, which was used “to double the number of resettlement or legal avenues of admission slots available in the world, including, of course, by increasing our own numbers.”

Ambassador Power did note what she considers to be one of the UN Security Council’s primary shortcomings - the failure, as she explained to reporters, to “use our words more precisely and pinpoint responsibility” where it belongs for violence that violates the principles of the UN Charter. She decried the Security Council’s propensity to engage instead in “obfuscations” and “euphemisms.” She told reporters that “when euphemisms are brought to bear, that can really diminish the cost that a country or an actor pays for violating international norms on which all of us depend.” In her previous remarks to the Security Council on January 10th, Ambassador Power griped that “We use the phrase ‘all parties’ when we actually mean one party.”

Sadly, however, the Obama administration has itself been guilty of engaging in the same kinds of obfuscations and euphemisms that Samantha Power has complained about. For example, repeated use of phrases like “violent extremism” to describe jihadist terrorism obscures the Islamist ideological source of the terrorism.

Moreover, worse than simply failing to “pinpoint responsibility” is placing blame on the wrong party. The Obama administration did just that when it abstained on the infamous Security Council Resolution 2334, allowing it to pass. This anti-Israeli resolution was “precise” only when it wrongly blamed Israel for the failure to reach a two-state solution. The resolution outrageously declared that “the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.” When it came to the resolution’s call to prevent “acts of terror” and “to refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric,” the resolution referred elliptically to “both parties.” It did not “pinpoint responsibility” precisely where it belonged – on Palestinian terrorists and the Palestinian leaders who incite and glorify them.

Ambassador Power has denied that the Obama administration had anything to do with the drafting of Resolution 2334. She told reporters that “it is just absolutely false that the United States was the driving force behind this resolution. We didn’t draft the resolution, we didn’t put it forward.” Whether she was telling the truth or not about the Obama administration’s role in drafting the resolution and driving it forward, she cannot deny that the text of the resolution fell far short of the standards of clarity and attribution of responsibility she said should be followed by the Security Council.

...

The Obama administration has engaged in the romantic fiction that the UN as it is presently structured is worth the billions of dollars we have poured into it annually as well as the enormous amount of futile diplomatic effort the administration has expended there, including by the president and secretary of state. In his first speech as president to the UN General Assembly in 2009, President Obama said, regarding the United Nations, “we address our priorities here, in this institution.” President-elect Donald Trump tweeted last December in the wake of the Obama administration’s abstention vote on Resolution 2334, "As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20."

Ambassador Samantha Power’s Swan Song at the United Nations

 

[American_Jihad]

New Sheriff in Town...
​

Nikki Haley Puts UN Anti-Israelism In Crosshairs
New ambassador makes clear change has arrived.
February 21, 2017
Joseph Klein

...

Resolution 2334 reeks of such bias. Yet Power strongly defended the Obama administration’s decision to abstain rather than veto it. The resolution outrageously declared that “the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.” When it came to the resolution’s call to prevent “acts of terror” and “to refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric,” the resolution referred elliptically to “both parties.” Power could not defend why the resolution failed to call out the Palestinian Authority or Hamas by name for committing acts of terror, incitement to violence and glorification of terrorists. Her lame explanation to reporters at her farewell UN press conference was that Resolution 2334 “was not our resolution, so I think you can probably pose those questions to the people who were negotiating the text.” Of course, she could have insisted on including such specific references to Palestinian terror and incitement to violence in violation of international law in the resolution itself as a condition for a U.S. abstention. She didn’t. Instead, add a display of moral cowardice to Power’s list of “accomplishments” during her tenure as UN ambassador.

Things will be different from now on. And it is not just a change in words and tone. Expect concrete actions demonstrating the Trump administration’s moral clarity in holding the UN organization to account.

For example, Ambassador Haley objected to the proposed appointment of the Palestinian Authority's former Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to become the next UN envoy to Libya. Palestine is not a full member of the United Nations. It is just an observer state. Israel, on the other hand, is a full member state. Yet the new UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, sought to elevate a Palestinian official to a high UN Secretariat post, while Israel has been denied the opportunity to fill such a position. Inner City Press has reported that, according to its sources, “the nomination was really by Jeffrey Feltman, the Obama administration's appointee to head the UN Department of Political Affairs.” Feltman served previously as U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs in the Obama administration. Through Feltman, the former Obama administration would still have someone inside the UN bureaucracy to further enhance the Palestinians' favorable position at the UN at the expense of Israel. But this appointment was not to be.

Shortly after Salam Fayyad’s proposed appointment was announced, Ambassador Haley issued a statement, which read in part: “The United States does not currently recognize a Palestinian state or support the signal this appointment would send within the United Nations, however, we encourage the two sides to come together directly on a solution. Going forward the United States will act, not just talk, in support of our allies.”

Evidently, that was enough to block the appointment. The Palestine Liberation Organization protested, of course. It’s not used to rejection at the United Nations.

Other actions appear to be underway or are soon to come. Late last year, during the waning days of the Obama administration, the UN General Assembly approved funding for compiling a blacklist of private Israeli companies doing business in the “occupied” territories. Samantha Power claimed the Obama administration objected to the blacklist project, but did nothing to stop it from proceeding. Less than a month after President Trump took office and Nikki Haley became the U.S.’s new UN ambassador, it was reported that the anti-Israel United Nations Human Rights Council decided to delay the publication of a report in connection with establishing the database of Israeli companies with business links to settlements in the West Bank until some unspecified time later this year. There is now a good chance the database will not see the light of day.

Blank checks for the UN’s multiple pro-Palestinian programs may finally become a thing of the past. Ambassador Haley singled out the UN Department of Political Affairs – still headed by the former Obama administration Assistant Secretary of State, Jeffrey Feltman - for having "an entire division devoted to Palestinian affairs." She added, “There is no division devoted to illegal missile launches from North Korea. There is no division devoted to the world’s number one state-sponsor of terror, Iran. The prejudiced approach to Israeli-Palestinian issues does the peace process no favors. And it bears no relationship to the reality of the world around us.”

...

Nikki Haley Puts UN Anti-Israelism In Crosshairs

 

[Boys]

I likes defence minister mattis, minister spicer and vice president pence most in current tricky situation!!!!

 

[Boys]

We should not builds wall South and instead illegals from South like cruz willing too ....

 

[anotherlife]

The UN is anti Israeli? This thread is a joke. Israel was created by the UN. What's the purpose of the UN anti Israel spin?

 

[anotherlife]

Is the UN the Next Big Threat to Internet Freedom?

6/1/12 By Mathew Ingram

Even as Internet-control bills such as SOPA and PIPA were making their way through the Senate and House of Representatives earlier this year (only to be short-circuited by public opinion), another potential firestorm was brewing just beneath the surface—one that is expected to erupt in a matter of months in Dubai. That’s because the International Telecommunications Union, an arm of the United Nations, wants very much to take over management of the Internet, a plan that will be debated by member nations in Dubai. On Thursday, a bipartisan group of U.S. congressional officials said they will resist this attempt with everything they have. But will it be enough?

Read More: Is the UN the Next Big Threat to Internet Freedom? - Businessweek

[+ Theft, Murder & Rape] ​

The technology of the Internet was developed such that it works as a distributed system, without centralized control. Now two centralized powers will fight to have total control over it globally, the UN and the US. Bravo, bright future for humanity. Will even the best hacker stand a chance to defend himself in the future?

 

[American_Jihad]

The UN is anti Israeli? This thread is a joke. Israel was created by the UN. What's the purpose of the UN anti Israel spin?

Said franco Jr...

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The United States should withdraw from the United Nations and start a partnership with those countries that pay their share and follow the guidelines of the organization. If that member nation wishes to do neither then there should be an option for the nations involved to disband that member from the organization.

Perhaps the United Nations can relocate to Baghdad, Cape Town, or some other place, other than the United States.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

The UN is anti Israeli? This thread is a joke. Israel was created by the UN. What's the purpose of the UN anti Israel spin?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

 

[Book of Jeremiah]