According to the U.N.’s top human rights body, Israel is the worst human rights violator in the world today. That’s the result of the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council which wrapped up in Geneva on Friday by adopting five times more resolutions condemning Israel than any other country on earth.
President Trump’s administration is currently a member of this reprehensible body. To borrow Elie Wiesel’s counsel to President Reagan not to pay his respects at a German graveyard containing Nazi SS remains: “That place, Mr. President, is not your place.”
The Bush administration refused to join the Council when it was created in 2006.
On March 31, 2009, President Obama – fully aware of its entrenched anti-Israel and anti-Jewish bias – made jumping on board one of his very first foreign policy moves. Moreover, in an unscrupulous attempt to control his successor, the former President obtained yet another three-year term for the United States on the Council that began on January 1, 2017.
Here are a few examples of exactly what this despicable body has stood for
In its history, the Council has condemned Israel more often than any other of the 192 UN states. Comparative totals after this session’s pogrom tell the story: Israel – 78 resolutions and decisions, Syria – 29, North Korea – 9, and Iran – 6. As for Saudi Arabia, Russia, and China, there’s nothing at all.
Go read the rest, it will sicken anyone with any grasp on the truth about Israel. The U.N. or Useless Nations as I call it, is about as devoid of a moral compass as anyone can imagine. The Trump Team has already announced plans to cut funding to the cesspool that the U.N. has become. I would suggest that every nation that values liberty, human rights, and that opposes terrorism, and Leftism should not only cut funding but get out of the Useless nation entirely.
The United Nations has a long history of being ineffective and, well left of reality. Consider some of the current member of the UN Human Rights Council. China, Communist China with its forced abortions, and limits on how many children Chinese couples may have, and other human rights violations
An estimated 500,000 people are currently enduring punitive detention without charge or trial, and millions are unable to access the legal system to seek redress for their grievances. Harassment, surveillance, house arrest, and imprisonment of human rights defenders are on the rise, and censorship of the Internet and other media has grown. Repression of minority groups, including Tibetans, Uighurs and Mongolians, and of Falun Gong practitioners and Christians who practice their religion outside state-sanctioned churches continues. While the recent reinstatement of Supreme People’s Court review of death penalty cases may result in lower numbers of executions, China remains the leading executioner in the world.
Cuba remains one of Latin America’s most politically repressive countries, according to international watchdog group Human Rights Watch (HRW). The group found that political dissidents who criticize the government routinely face criminal prosecution and that government officials use fear tactics including beatings, public shaming and threats of imprisonment to keep naysayers in check.
Reports of arbitrary arrests increased from 2,100 in 2010 to 3,600 in 2013, according to HRW’s 2013report, which also found that arrest orders are hardly ever presented during arrests and detainees may be held for several hours or even days without outside communication. Political prisoners are commonly denied parole after their minimum sentences are completed, the report found, and Cuba’s prisons are overcrowded and unclean, with prisoners who are often malnourished and suffer from illnesses.
Saudi Arabia’s discriminatory male guardianship system remains intact despite government pledges to abolish it. Under this system, ministerial policies and practices forbid women from obtaining a passport, marrying, traveling, or accessing higher education without the approval of a male guardian, usually a husband, father, brother, or son.
Authorities also fail to prevent some employers from requiring male guardians to approve the hiring of adult female relatives or some hospitals from requiring male guardian approval for certain medical procedures for women. In February, a member of the Senior Council of Scholars, the highest state body for the interpretation of Islamic law, issued a fatwa stating that women are not allowed to visit a male doctor without their male guardians. They are not allowed to expose parts of the body with the exception of a medical emergency. All women remain banned from driving in Saudi Arabia.
The entire list of nations is here Many of the members are anything but defenders of human rights. And yes, women are likely not exempt from the degradations and mistreatment. But, some “concerned” UN Sstaff members ae saying enough is enough! They have taken a stand and started an onlone petition to reconsider the UN’s choice of Wonder Woman as Honorary Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women and Girls. Wait, what? They cannot be serious can they? I mean with so many real issues with the UN to be outraged over, they lose it over Wonder Woman.
An online petition by concerned UN staff members calls for Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to reconsider the choice on the grounds that the character is culturally insensitive, overtly sexualized — and not real.
Well, at least they understand that Wonder Woman is not real. But really, how is this petition going to help actual women being brutalized?
“Having strong (living, breathing) female role models is a critical aspect of the goal of empowerment of women and girls,” the petition reads, in part. “If the United Nations would like a list of incredible extraordinary women that would formidably carry out this role, we could surely be able to come up with a list from which the Secretary-General could choose.”
Yes role models are great, invaluable, but it seems the real outrgae here is over Wonder Woman image
The petitioners also pointed to Wonder Woman’s questionable garb as making her an unsuitable UN ambassador.
“Although the original creators may have intended Wonder Woman to represent a strong and independent ‘warrior’ woman with a feminist message, the reality is that the character’s current iteration is that of a large breasted, white woman of impossible proportions, scantily clad in a shimmery, thigh-baring body suit with an American flag motif and knee high boots,” the petition notes.
Yes, that is true, Wonder Woman is hot, and yes, men like her, or at least hot women that dressed like her. No wonder the leftist loons at the UN are upset. I mean Wonder Woman is hot (which enrages Feminists), White (RAAAAACIST), American (America is evil to the Left), and wearing knee high boots. Did I mention that rope she carries to tie people up with? She can lasso me anytime. But more to the point here the real outrage seems to stem from Wonder Woman’s race, national origin, and sexiness, rather than how to help oppressed women around the world. And the UN’s long history of elevating the very worst nations to places of authority? Where is the outrage over that?
This is the Left of course, and they are selective in their outrage. Symbolism and phony outrage are more important than meaningful steps that lead to actual solutions. Frankly, if the United Nations cared about women’s rights, they would hold the West, especially America up as great examples. They would work to help other nation embrace Republican forms of government, and Capitalism. They would reject Totalitarian government as unacceptable, and oppressive. But, this is the Useless Nations, we should never expect anything serious to come from such a body dominated by Leftist ideology.
One of the most ironic things about the Left is that they always call Conservatives greedy, yet, it is the Left which always seeks new ways to take other’s money through taxes!
Governments should tax sugary drinks to fight the global epidemics of obesity and diabetes, the World Health Organization said on Tuesday.
A 20 percent price increase could reduce consumption of sweet drinks by the same proportion, the WHO said in “Fiscal Policies for Diet and Prevention of Noncommunicable Diseases”, a report issued on World Obesity Day.
The Nanny State, working to spread your wealth around, and working to use that money to implement more controls over you!
Senate Bill 139 passed 53-46. 46 US Senators voted against this: “To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.”
Fortunately, the odious, anti-American treaty was again voted down by the full Senate, but 46 Senators voted in favor of handing over our Constitutional rights to the UN.
Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) offered Amendment 139 that was passed with a 53 to 46 vote. His Amendment contained language to affirm that foreign treaties would not trump the U.S. Constitution.
“Mr. President,” Inhofe said on the floor of the Senate, “I want to make sure that everyone understands what the United Nations trade treaty is. The trade treaty is a treaty that cedes our authority to have trade agreements with our allies in terms of trading arms.”
He went on to say, “I want to very briefly read this so nobody over there or over here misunderstands what this amendment does. This is right out of the amendment. Uphold the Second Amendment rights, that is one thing. And secondly, prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations arms trade treaties.”
But many Democrats simply didn’t agree with Inhofe’s insistence that the U.S. Constitution trump the UN.
Forty-six Democrats-Independents favored ceding your Constitutional rights over to the United Nations.
(CNSNews.com) – Noting the worldwide excitement surrounding Kate Middleton’s pregnancy, MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry compared the hoopla surrounding the British royal birth to Texas abortion politics, and then offered her own definition of viability:
“When does life begin? I submit the answer depends an awful lot on the feeling of the parents. A powerful feeling – but not science,” Harris-Perry said on her show Sunday. “The problem is that many of our policymakers want to base sweeping laws on those feelings.”
Harris-Perry also said that women with unwanted pregnancies do not share the same experience as the Duchess of Cambridge, who gave birth Monday to an 8 pound, 6 ounce baby boy who is now third in line to the British throne.
“When a pregnancy is wanted . . . it is easy to think of the bump as a baby,” Harris-Perry said. “But not every pregnancy is a fairy tale.”
“An unwanted pregnancy can be biologically the same as a wanted one. But the experience can be entirely different,” she added.
Of course, in her emotionalistic ramblings she ignored the fact that IT IS STILL A BABY! Still a person. Liberalism is what happens when people replace intelligent thought with raw emotion.
I was in Malta last week, reporting on the problems the country is facing with illegal immigration. Large numbers of Africans are claiming asylum there after arriving on people trafficking boats from Libya, and the Maltese are up in arms about it. Actually, sorry, I got that wrong. Let me start again. I was reporting on the problems the country is facing withirregular immigration from Africa. Not illegal. There’s a difference, it seems. Let me explain.
“Illegal immigration” apparently carries connotations of criminality, of someone doing something wrong. Like, for example, paying a people smuggler €700 to transport them a rickety boat that might sink with the loss of all on board. Whereas “irregular” is a more “neutral” term. Probably all the same to you and me.
Except it’s not. According to the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in Malta, which gave me a leaflet about what words to use when discussing this issue, it’s wrong to use the term “illegal”. The reason is that most of those who arrive in Malta claim asylum, and even though they are locked up while their claims are processed, that detention is “administrative and not criminal”. Also frowned upon is the word “clandestine”, which has a “strong negative connection, invoking a sense of criminality”. Instead, it recommends the phrase “irregular migrants”.
So, if the problem is irregular immigrants, the solution is what Metamucil?
Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations criticized the international body for its anti-Israel bias after Syria and a slew other nations ordered the Jewish state to pay $1.1 million in “damages” resulting from its campaign to stop Hezbollah terrorists.
Included in the U.N. General Assembly’s latest “peacekeeping budget,” which was passed late last month, is “a call for Israel to pay some $1.1 million for damages to United Nations property following the shelling of the Qana village in southern Lebanon.”
The U.N., led by Syria, has been pushing this resolution since 1996, when the incident first occurred, a move that Israel’s ambassador called biased.
I think I speak for every rational person on earth when I say
Human rights activists are turning to Google Earth to identify the vast network of prison camps that dot the North Korean countryside and hold as many as 200,000 people deemed hostile to the regime.
Rights groups are pushing the United Nations high commissioner for human rights to open an international investigation into Pyongyang’s “deplorable” record on its citizens’ rights, including a system of political prisons that has operated for more than 50 years.
The State of Israel was created in a peaceful and legal process by the United Nations. It was not created out of Palestinian lands, but rather out of the Ottoman Empire, which had been ruled for 400 years by the Turks who lost it when they, fighting alongside Germany, were defeated in World War I. There were no “Palestinian” lands at the time because there were no people claiming to be Palestinians, but rather simply Arabs who lived in the region of Palestine.
It was only after World War I that the present states of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq were also created – also out of the Turkish Empire by the British and French victors. Jordan was created on about 80 percent of the Palestine Mandate, which was originally designated by the League of Nations as part of the Jewish homeland. Since then, Jews have been prohibited from owning property there.
In 1947, a UN partition plan mandated the creation of two states on the remaining 20 percent of the Palestine Mandate: the State of Israel for the Jews, and another state for the stateless Arabs. But the rulers of eight Arab states did not want a non-Arab state anywhere in the Middle East. Thus they rejected the UN arrangement and simultaneously launched a three-front war of annihilation against the newly created state of Israel — on the very day of its creation in 1948. Israel begged for peace and offered friendship and cooperation to its neighbors. The Arab dictators rejected this offer and answered it with a war, which they ultimately lost.
A state of war in the Middle East has continued uninterruptedly ever since, because most of the Arab states have refused to sign a peace treaty with Israel, and have refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Jewish state. To this day, the Arab states and the Palestinians refer to the failure of their effort to destroy Israel as Al-Nakba — The Catastrophe. What for one people was a joyous founding, was seen by the other as a disaster.
Had there been no invasion of Israel by Arab armies whose intent was overtly genocidal, there would have been a state of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza since 1948.
From 1949 to 1956, Egypt waged war against Israel, launching more than 9,000 attacks from terrorist cells set up in the refugee camps of the Gaza Strip. The 1956 “Sinai campaign” ended Egypt’s terror war, even though U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower forced Israeli Prime Minister Ben Gurion to return the Sinai to Egypt without a peace treaty.
But the Arab war continued on other fronts. In 1964, Yasser Arafat began a campaign of terror whose avowed goal was the destruction of Israel and the genocide of its Jews. Sponsored first by Kuwait, and later by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, and Iran, Arafat declared unending war against Israel until all of “Palestine” would be liberated, redeemed in “fire and blood.”
In 1967, Egypt, Syria and Jordan attacked Israel for a second time and were again defeated. It was in repelling these aggressors that Israel came to control the West Bank and the Gaza strip, as well as the oil-rich Sinai desert. Israel elected not to annex these territories it had captured from the aggressors, but neither did it withdraw its armies or relinquish its control over the region because the Arabs once again refused to make peace.
In 1973 the Arab armies again attacked Israel. This invasion was led by Syria and Egypt, abetted by Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and five other countries that gave military support to the aggressors. Israel again defeated the Arab forces. Afterwards, Egypt — and Egypt alone — agreed to make a formal peace.
In 1987 the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) initiated a violent, six-year Intifada (uprising) directed against Israeli soldiers and civilians alike, after false rumors of Israeli atrocities had circulated through Palestinian territories. During the first four years of the uprising, Palestinians carried out more than 3,600 Molotov cocktail attacks, 100 hand grenade attacks, and 600 assaults with guns or explosives. These actions resulted in the deaths of 16 Israeli civilians and 11 Israeli soldiers, in addition to the wounding of more than 1,400 Israeli civilians and 1,700 Israeli soldiers.
In 1993 the Oslo peace process was initiated, based on the pledge that both parties would renounce violence as a means of settling their disputes. But the Palestinians never followed through on this pledge. During the so-called “peace process” — between 1993 and 1999 — they perpetrated more than 4,000 terrorist attacks that resulted in the deaths of more than 1,000 Israelis. During this same period, Israel gave the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza a self-governing authority, a 40,000-man armed “police force,” and 95 percent of the territory their negotiators demanded. But Israel’s efforts to achieve peace were in vain. In 2000, the Palestinians officially launched a new, second Intifada against Israel, effectively terminating the peace process.
By the same token, when Israeli leaders declared their own independence in 1948, it represented a culmination of their nation-building efforts, not their initiation. More than 650,000 Jews already lived in a vibrant, dynamic, surprisingly cohesive civilization spread through several major cities (including the new metropolis of Tel Aviv, constructed on empty sand dunes in 1909) and scores of agricultural communities built on previously unoccupied land purchased from absentee owners. Intensive Jewish immigration began in the 1880s, more than two generations before independence, and produced distinctive political parties, labor unions, universities, newspapers, theater companies, and even symphony orchestras. This nation in formation also managed to defend itself against murderous Arab riots in 1921, 1929, 1936, and 1939, giving rise to the Haganah (“The Defense” in Hebrew), a militia that averaged 30,000 members over 30 years pre-independence, ultimately developing into the Israel Defense Forces. Like the Minutemen who gave rise to the Continental Army, these citizen soldiers fought a bloody struggle after formal independence, combating formidable foes determined to exterminate their new nation.
Greater care and clarity in describing the history of the conflict will encourage policymakers and the public to grasp its essential contours, and to recognize the absence of any real equivalence in the goals or strategies of the two sides.
Israel, in other words, wasn’t created by the U.N., the U.S. (which observed an arms embargo and provided no aid during the War of Independence), or any other outside agency. The nation grew from the patient, incremental, organic efforts of the Halutzim (pioneers) who risked everything to build a homeland for themselves and their posterity.
Nor did these efforts in any way “uproot” or “displace” Palestinian society. During the years of intensive immigration between World War I and World War II, the Jewish population west of the Jordan increased by 470,000 while the non-Jewish population swelled by 588,000. According to respected British census figures, the number of Palestinian Arabs exploded on the eve of Israeli independence, increasing 120 percent between 1922 and 1947. These figures prove that the rise of the Jewish state (with its greatly heightened economic development) drew more Palestinians into the area, rather than driving them away.
Palestinians became refugees only after fighting began in the War of Independence, especially after five Arab states with well-equipped armies invaded the fledgling Jewish state, pledged to achieve its total annihilation. Even then, in the midst of massive bloodshed and widespread violence, the Palestinian Arab population increased, rather than declining. In 1941, before Israeli independence and the claimed “uprooting” of Palestinians, 1,111,398 Arabs lived in what later became Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. Nine years later, after the turmoil of war and dislocation, that number had risen (slightly) to 1,162,100. By 1980 (with Israel controlling all territory west of the Jordan), the Palestinian numbers had nearly doubled, and they more than doubled again by 2005. Most recent figures show that the Palestinian population of Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank has increased by more than fivefold since independence and the flight of the famous refugees—hardly evidence of some ruthless program of ethnic cleansing.
Unfortunately, anti-Israel propagandists choose to ignore these facts and to distort history with misleading and manipulative language. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas recently wrote in The New York Times about the 1947 U.N. vote to partition the British Mandate into two states, one Israeli and one Palestinian. “Minutes after the State of Israel was established on May 14, 1948,” he notes, “the United States granted it recognition. Our Palestinian state, however, remains a promise unfulfilled.”
He neglects to mention that the Palestinian leaders themselves (led by the grand mufti of Jerusalem, a close Hitler ally during the war) rejected the U.N. partition and made no effort to set up a Palestinian state, either before or after the War of Independence. Between 1949 and 1967, Arabs (the Egyptians and Jordanians) controlled every inch of territory that Abbas now seeks for his new state—all of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. They could have established a Palestinian homeland at any point during those 18 years and, incidentally, continued denying Jews any access to their holy sites. With scant protest from Palestinians, the Arab states made no effort to “fulfill the promise” because they concentrated all their attention and effort on destroying Israel rather than building Palestine. They cared far more about expelling Jews than they did about re-settling Palestinians.
Go read the rest, and spread it around. stop the lies about Israel and “Palestine”. The fact is that Palestinians want to destroy Israel far more than they want peace with Da JOOOOS!
CBS News has obtained the CIA talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on Sept. 15 regarding the fatal attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, four days earlier. CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan says the talking points, which were also given to members of the House intelligence committee, make no reference to terrorism being a likely factor in the assault, which left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. Rice . . . has been attacked by Republican lawmakers for saying . . . on Sept. 16 that all indications were the attack “began spontaneously” – suggesting it likely sprang from a protest against an anti-Muslim video found on the Internet. Protests of that nature had been seen in other Muslim nations in the days and weeks before the Benghazi attack. “Available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault… There are indications that extremists participated,” read the CIA’s talking points
Why wouldn’t she have had access to other information? Because Rice had no operational responsibility for anything other than relations with the United Nations. So why did the “White House,” as Obama put it yesterday, ask her to go on five talk shows on Sunday to impart this story to the media and the public? That request had to come from Obama himself, and it bypassed other more likely candidates for that assignment such as Tom Donilon, James Clapper, Hillary Clinton, or David Petraeus, all of whom had some responsibility for the incident. And here’s a related question — why didn’t those five media outlets raise that very question when the “White House” offered Rice as a spokesperson for that explanation? Didn’t that seem even a little curious – especially when the Libyan President was saying exactly the opposite?
The moral retardation and intellectual deprivation of the Left always amazes me. They blame Israel for defending itself against terrorism, they blame America for everything, and now, they are blaming free speech for terrorism
“Pillay: Hatred, free speech don’t mix,” from UPI, October 24 (thanks to Block Ness):
UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 24 (UPI) — A top human rights official said from U.N. headquarters that world leaders need to find ways to ensure freedom of expression doesn’t equate to violence.U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said there are signs of growing tensions between freedom of expression and religion.
“I have publicly regretted or condemned various displays of religious hatred or bigotry and have also consistently urged religious and political leaders to condemn the violence, including the loss of life that has taken place in reaction to such incidents in various parts of the world,” she said.
Can you smell the stench of moral relativism here. Sure, the violence is bad, but if people were just super careful of what they say, then Muslims would not riot and murder. Of course, if a woman dares to wear something that reveals too much, say like her calf or something, then that might spark outrage, riots and murder too. So, what IS the answer here? Ban free speech? Or just “anti-Muslim” speech. And when that fails what? Force women around the globe to wear burkas lest they appear in a video that might outrage a Muslim? Force members of other religions to be silent, because they might offend a potential Jihadi? I know, maybe we can demand that girls not attend school, lest, you know, some aggrieved Jihadi be forced to shoot them.
How about this idea instead, how about the West stop tolerating the riots and violence? How about we stop bending over backwards to appease these miscreants? The Left always tries to blame normal behavior, while coddling and excusing the abnormal. Sorry, that does not work, nor will it ever work.
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights has warned Americans not to elect Republican Mitt Romney in next month’s presidential election, saying that doing so would be “a democratic mandate for torture.”
The UN’s Ben Emmerson was referring to Romney’s refusal to rule out the use of waterboarding in interrogating terror detainees, a practice that President Barack Obama has ended.
Colin Perkel of The Canadian Press reported Emmerson’s remarks from a symposium in Toronto on the impact of 9/11 on human rights:
“The re-introduction of torture under a Romney administration would significantly increase the threat levels to (Americans) at home and abroad,” Emmerson said.
“Such a policy, if adopted, would expose the American people to risks the Obama administration is not currently exposing them to.”
Ah, so electing Mitt might make Islamist extremists unhappy with us? And to think, they have been so good to us since Obama was elected too! DARN!
Political correctness has been used for decades now to silence the Right. The Left does not believe in freedom, unless it is closely regulated by the State. Donald Douglas has a link to a piece on the possible death of freedom of speech
Free speech is dying in the Western world. While most people still enjoy considerable freedom of expression, this right, once a near-absolute, has become less defined and less dependable for those espousing controversial social, political or religious views. The decline of free speech has come not from any single blow but rather from thousands of paper cuts of well-intentioned exceptions designed to maintain social harmony.
In the face of the violence that frequently results from anti-religious expression, some world leaders seem to be losing their patience with free speech. After a video called “Innocence of Muslims” appeared on YouTube and sparked violent protests in several Muslim nations last month, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon warned that “when some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected.”
It appears that the one thing modern society can no longer tolerate is intolerance. As Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard put it in her recent speech before the United Nations, “Our tolerance must never extend to tolerating religious hatred.”
A willingness to confine free speech in the name of social pluralism can be seen at various levels of authority and government. In February, for instance, Pennsylvania Judge Mark Martin heard a case in which a Muslim man was charged with attacking an atheist marching in a Halloween parade as a “zombie Muhammed.” Martin castigated not the defendant but the victim, Ernie Perce, lecturing him that “our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to piss off other people and cultures — which is what you did.”
Of course, free speech is often precisely about pissing off other people — challenging social taboos or political values.
This was evident in recent days when courts in Washington and New York ruled that transit authorities could not prevent or delay the posting of a controversial ad that says: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad.”
When U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer said the government could not bar the ad simply because it could upset some Metro riders, the ruling prompted calls for new limits on such speech. And in New York, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority responded by unanimously passing a new regulation banning any message that it considers likely to “incite” others or cause some “other immediate breach of the peace.”
The Left, and Islamists, in fact all dictatorial mindsets seek to control freedom, starting with freedom of expression. They will use intimidation, threats, and yes, they will cloak their desire to subjugate in nice words like sensitivity, inclusion, or tolerance, but their end goal is control. Those of us who love, and practice freedom of speech have the ultimate stake in never allowing our freedom to be curtailed.
This post from Bob Belvedere illustrates the difference between how the Left and Right view rights
…is awarded to Mark Steyn for his response to the pablum puked by a UN Official regarding Free Speech.
First: what the UN dickhead said:
Free speech is a “gift given to us by the [Universal] Declaration of Human Rights,” said Deputy Secretary General of the United Nations Jan Eliasson during a press conference on October 2nd at UN headquarters in New York. It is “a privilege,” Eliasson said, “that we have, which in my view involves also the need for respect, the need to avoid provocations.”
Free speech is a gift given to us in 1948 by U.N. officials? Who knew?
The only appropriate response of free-born peoples to such a statement is: **** off, ******. Free speech is not in the gift of minor Swedish timeserving hack bureaucrats, either to grant or withdraw.
The Left sees rights as collective, and they see them as things to be given by government, and, restricted by government as the government sees fit.
Or not! The Real Revo has the story a a man named Pentti Linkola from Finland who has some rather, ah, how should I put this delicately, interesting ideas,
This is Finnish writer Pentti Linkola — a man who demands that the human population reduce its size to around 500 million and abandon modern technology and the pursuit of economic growth.
In his own words, “Any dictatorship would be better than modern democracy. There cannot be so incompetent a dictator that he would show more stupidity than a majority of the people. The best dictatorship would be one where lots of heads would roll and where government would prevent any economical growth.
We will have to learn from the history of revolutionary movements — the national socialists, the Finnish Stalinists, from the many stages of the Russian revolution, from the methods of the Red Brigades — and forget our narcissistic selves.” … Linkola has called for “some trans-national body like the UN” to reduce the population “via nuclear weapons” or with “bacteriological and chemical attacks”.
OK then. I do not think that is going to happen, but at least Pentti has that second career waiting for him, posing for homeless calendars Here is his Mr. Disheveled August photo
It would seem a good idea, a noble venture if the U.N. decided to fight hunger across the globe. It is certainly a terrible problem, plaguing too many in too many nations. I think we can all agree there right? OK, so the U.N. gets a hunger expert, and sends this expert to, CANADA?
“There is no food and no clean water, nothing,” Mahmoud, a 12-year-old boy from Homs, Syria, told Reuters Thursday. “There is no shop open and we only have one meal a day. How can we live like that and survive?”
According to the World Food Program, half a million people don’t have enough to eat in Syria. Fears are growing that the regime is using hunger as a weapon.
This is the kind of emergency which should attract the attention of the UN Human Rights Council’s hunger monitor, who has the ability to spotlight situations and place them on the world agenda. Yet Olivier de Schutter of Belgium, the “Special Rapporteur on the right to food,” is not going to Syria.
Instead, the UN’s food monitor is coming to investigate Canada.
That’s right. Despite dire food emergencies around the globe, De Schutter will be devoting the scarce time and resources of the international community on an 11-day tour of Canada—a country that ranks at the bottom of global hunger concerns.
A key co-ordinator and promoter of De Schutter’s mission is Food Secure Canada, a lobby group whose website accuses the Harper government of “failing Canadians…and [failing to] fulfill the right to food for all.” The group calls instead for a “People’s Food Policy.”
A “right to food”? A People’s Food Policy”? You see there is the problem right there. The buffoons at the U.N. are exploiting a real problem, to push, not for actual solutions to said problem, but to push Marxism onto a free nation. Isn’t this always the case with Leftists and their “good intentions”? It certainly seems so to me.
I asked De Schutter if his time wouldn’t better be spent on calling attention to countries that actually have starving people.
“Globally, 1.3 billion people are overweight or obese,” he responded via his spokesperson, “and this causes a range of diseases such as certain types of cancers, cardio-vascular diseases or (especially) type-2 diabetes that are a huge burden.”
In other words, the hunger expert is not even that interested in hunger, but the opposite. Sure, we should all eat less fries, but do Canadians need a costly UN inquiry to tell us that?
Again, rather than working to elevate starving nations to a better state, the U.N. prefers to try to tear down successful nations. Odd isn’t it? The Left speaks of equality, and fairness. But it always seeks to tear down those people or nations that are doing well. What they seek, it would seem, is not a utopian equality, but rather an equality of misery.
Now, you might call me “extreme” for holding such a view. After all, how could I ever accuse the U.N. of being part of some Marxist plot to attack the West? This is how
First, consider the origins of the UN’s “right to food” mandate. In voluminous background information provided by De Schutter and his local promoters, there’s no mention that their sponsor was Cuba, a country where some women resort to prostitution for food. De Schutter does not want you to know that Havana’s Communist government created his post, nor that the co-sponsors included China, North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe.
These and other repressive regimes are seeking a political weapon to attack the West. That is why the first person they chose to fill the post, when it started in 2000, was Jean Ziegler. The former Swiss Socialist politician was a man they could trust: In 1989, he announced to the world the creation of the Muammar Gaddafi Human Rights Prize.
The award spread propaganda for its namesake, and elevated his ideological allies. Recipients include Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. In 2002, the prize went to convicted French Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy — and to Jean Ziegler himself.
From 2000 to 2008, Ziegler’s UN reports and probes turned a blind eye to the world’s hungry. Instead he attacked America, the West, capitalism and Israel. The human rights council applauded him, and repeatedly renewed his mandate. Only because of term limits did they replace him in 2008 with De Schutter, who praises and emulates his predecessor.
De Schutter’s consistent argument is that if there is hunger, Western countries are to blame. His attacks on international trade are so ideologically extreme that even Pascal Lamy, head of the World Trade Organization and a member of the French Socialist party, criticized De Schutter’s approach for threatening to drive food prices higher and “exacerbating the negative impacts on poor consumers.”
This is a great piece, please go read it all. It lays out the ugly truth about Marxism. Marxists always attack the successful. They say it is to help the poor, the down trodden, the weak, but if they truly wanted to help those people, they would help their nations emulate the West. Instead, they seek to destroy those nations that actually have respect for human rights. Again, the reality is that Marxism is evil, and all the bastard “Ism” children of Marxism, Communism, Stalinism, ,Lenninism, Maoiusm, Socialism, are evil as well. They are the enemies of mankind, never forget that!
Leaving aside the matter of the despicable record of the UN on human rights, what kind of record does Pillay herself have on human rights, and does she have any moral leg to stand on when interfering in the domestic affaris of the United States? According to Freedom House, between September 2008, when she became the Human Rights Chief, and June 2010, Pillay made no comment whatsoever on the victims in 34 countries rated “Not Free.” Some of the countries not criticized were: Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Belarus, Cuba, North Korea, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria and Vietnam.
When Iranian demonstrators were abused violently by the Iranian government’s forces following the June 2009 presidential elections, Pillay refrained for three months from commenting even though video existed of demonstrators being killed; she only mentioned the matter as part of her traditional opening speech at the UN Human Rights Council session in September 2009. She did not give any statement dealing directly with the matter. And when she did speak, it was only in an “unprecedented effort to engage” with the Muslim world. While she did raise some human rights concerns, she praised Iran’s progress instead of naming violence that had been recorded or current violations.
The pattern of do-nothingness continued. In July 2010, two renowned human rights lawyers, Haytham al-Maleh and Muhanad al-Hasani were jailed for criticizing the Syrian authorities on human rights grounds. In March 2010, the Syrian military detained Kurdish leader Abdel Hafez Abdel and journalists, bloggers and writers for exposing Syria’s corruption. But Pillay did not respond at all. In addition, Pillay was a staunch defender of the falsified Goldstone Report which ripped Israel and also questioned whether the United States had the legal right to kill Osama Bin Laden.
There you are, just another leftist out to destroy U.S. sovereignty. The U.N. knows that there IS an investigation going on. An investigation run by those who should be running it, the local authorities! Frankly, it would be a joke if the U.N. “investigated” this. The fools at the U.N. could not find their asses with both hands!
But, as a side note, I think someone ought to charge Pillay with a human rights violation, showing her mug in public. Yes, I know, that is mean, but it proves that while beauty is only skin deep, ugly and stupid go all the way to the bone!
RAMALLAH, West Bank (The Blaze/AP) — Israel must halt settlement building and present detailed proposals for a border with a future Palestinian state, visiting U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon said Wednesday, as he tried to persuade the Palestinians to continue low-level meetings with Israel that the international community hopes will evolve into serious negotiations.
Ban praised Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas for his leadership and publicly backed him on key issues, including the demand for a freeze of settlement building on occupied lands the Palestinians want for their state.
With Abbas by his side, the U.N. chief affirmed that “all Israeli settlements are contrary to international law and prejudice”
Ban Ki-moonbat needs to accept the ugly truth, the Palestinians do not want peace, they want Israel destroyed. Every time Israel makes any concessions, it results in increased rocket attacks aimed at Israeli civilians.
While I am pointing out how corrupt, useless, and anti-Western the UN is I might as well note their Communist tendencies.
The world can no longer afford to ignore the environmental cost of economic growth and must redefine the very concept of national wealth, a UN panel of heads of state and environment ministers said Monday.
The panel challenged leaders to recognise that “current global development is unsustainable.”
“We need to chart a new, more sustainable course for the future, one that strengthens equality and economic growth while protecting our planet,” UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said in Addis Ababa to mark the release of the panel’s report, which outlines more than 50 policy recommendations.
Here they go with another scheme to redistribute wealth and the misery that redistributing wealth always results in. Go read the rest, and pray that these fools never achieve their goals!
(Fox News) — United Nations climate envoys have proposed the creation of a global “climate court” that would be responsible for enforcing a sprawling set of rules requiring developed countries to cut emissions while compensating poorer countries in order to pay off a “historical climate debt.”
The proposals are contained in a draft document pieced together for the climate conference in Durban, South Africa. Representatives at the conference are struggling to come up with a compromise that negotiators from 194 nations can agree on.
But the draft document, one of many floating around the conference, gives a glimpse into the long-term vision some nations hold for the creation of an international legal framework on climate change.
In the bowels of the document is a provision calling for “an international climate court of justice.”
The proposal is meant to “guarantee the compliance of Annex I Parties with all the provisions of this decision.”
The rules of the road the court would presumably enforce are based on the view that these developed countries owe developing countries a “debt” over climate change, and must provide financial aid in addition to taking major steps toward cutting emissions.
In one section, the document calls for developed countries to help poorer countries with “finance, technology and capacity building” so they can “adapt to and mitigate climate change” while helping eliminate poverty. Another section provides that developing countries should receive an amount of money equal to the amount “developed countries spend on defense, security and warfare.”
The ultimate redistribution of wealth power play. As always, the Leftists want to “fix” a problem, one that does not even exist in this case by punishing the successful.
Our involvement in Cambodia is what the Kent State protesters were marching about that day. In part because of the tragic shooting, and the images that spread round the world, we eventually abandoned Vietnam and Cambodia to people like Pol Pot. Forty years later the UN is getting around to trying the communist mass murderers for their unimaginable crimes.
One of the greatest shames is that weak, morally retarded politicians, in the interest of politics, turned their backs on Vietnam and Cambodia. All to appease hippies who actually cheered evil regimes, regimes that slaughtered millions!
I worked with a girl a couple of years ago, Sineath was her name. Such a beautiful girl, she was from Cambodia, and told me stories she had heard from her father, and other relatives about the atrocities. The Khmer Rouge left incredibly detailed records of their butchery. I still remember some of those pictures, and cannot help tearing up when I think of all those innocent people, many of them just children. Tortured, butchered, and thrown away, like yesterday’s trash.
Honestly, every time hear some idealistic Leftist crow about America “losing” in Vietnam, I want so badly to wipe their smile off with the back of my hand. The damned sick, morally perverted fools actually REVEL in the butchery of the Khmer Rouge.
For anyone who is offended because I refer to such Leftists as morally retarded, or evil, I say this. Go Google Khmer Rouge, you look into those innocent faces, and look at the evil committed for the “common good”. And if you are not sickened by what you see, and by those who defend the ideology of Marxism that led to that barbarity, and so many other barbarities, then you have no soul.