The US and Israel are big meanies because they won’t share!

August 3, 2014
Perfect against tunneling jihadis!

We’re so selfish

That’s the gist of the complaint from Navi Pillay, the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, who denounced Israel (and by extension the US) for civilian deaths in Gaza. The original article is behind Haaretz’s subscriber wall, so I’ll quote the Breitbart summary:

Navi Pillay told reporters following yet another “emergency” meeting of the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council that Israel was not doing enough to protect civilians. “There is a strong possibility,” said the known Israel critic, “that international law has been violated, in a manner that could amount to war crimes.”

Among the UN’s long bill of particulars against the beleaguered Jewish state comes the almost unbelievable accusation that Israel’s refusal to share its Iron Dome ballistic missile defense shield with the “governing authority” of Gaza – i.e. Hamas, the terror group created to pursue the extermination of the Jewish state and now waging a terrorist war against it – constitutes a war crime against the civilians of Gaza.

The UN chairwoman criticized the U.S. for helping fund Israel’s Iron Dome system which has saved countless Israeli and Palestinian lives. “No such protection has been provided to Gazans against the shelling,” she said.

Oh, poor little Hamas. They start a war with Israel, firing thousands of rockets with the potential to kill thousands –especially if they had hit that nuclear reactor at Dimona!– and they dig tunnels for offensive operations against civilians, and then when they fight back to destroy those tunnels and successfully defend their people from those rockets, the leftists in the transnational bureaucracy (1) whine that Israel, the nation that got attacked in the first place, has an unfair advantage.

You cannot make this crap up.

Claudia Rosett take Ms. Pillay’s idea about “sharing the weapon-wealth” to its logical, farcical conclusion:

It also seems unfair to limit such sharing to terrorist organizations. The UN is, after all, an institution devoted to upholding and treating equally the rights of all sovereign states. Why not save South Korea from its unfair military edge over North Korea, by demanding that Seoul turn over to Pyongyang enough advanced military technology to even the balance? For the sake of world peace, the U.S. could deliver to China any military secrets China hasn’t stolen already; likewise, give Russia its fair share. And it almost goes without saying that the U.S. and other world powers should stop dickering with Iran over its nuclear program, and just give Tehran the bomb.

Actually, once this redistribution really gets underway, there are quite a number of UN member states, plus an array of terrorist groups, around the globe, which could more safely threaten or attack the world’s developed democracies if only advanced military technology were to be included in the UN roster of aid entitlements. Though, the myriad transfers and accompanying funding could become complex. Maybe it would be more efficient to simply require that all developed democracies turn over all advanced military technology to the UN, along with the requisite cash, to be redistributed to terrorist groups and rogue states as UN human rights officials deem proportionately appropriate. One more step toward the UN dream of a more equitable world.

Fair is fair, after all. To paraphrase President Obama, “At some point, you have enough weapons.”

PS: My philosophy of dealing with dangerous neighboring countries is simple — “We want to live in peace with you. We are happy to buy your stuff and sell you our stuff, something good for us all. But, if you insist on trying to kill my people, I will bring the Wrath of God down on you. That is how I will share my country’s military technology.”

PPS: And if you want an idea of how seriously High Commissioner Pillay’s UN Human Rights Council takes the idea of human rights for all, consider that China, Cuba, Pakistan, Russia, and Saudi Arabia are all members.

Footnote:
(1) Is there a more useless class of people in the world? I’m hard pressed to think of one.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


UN climate chief sees her job as “sacred.”

January 26, 2014

"Our mission is sacred; let none deny it."

“Our mission is sacred; let none deny it.”

Courtesy of the dread William Teach of Pirate’s Cove, the United Nation’s “Executive Secretary for Climate,” Cristina Figueres, sounds like she’d be more at home in a temple to Gaea than in a position supposedly dealing with empirical science. Her job, you see, is sacred:

The top climate official at the United Nations has described her role in pushing nations to contain the Earth’s climate as a “sacred” job.

“We are truly defining the quality of life for our children,” Christina Figueres, the U.N.’s executive secretary for climate, told USA TODAY on the sidelines of the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

“We have to do everything we can because there is no plan B because there is no planet B,” she said.

“I fully intend my grandchildren and great-grandchildren to be able to live on this planet. This job is a sacred responsibility,” Figueres said.

She also notes that the world has spent a trillion dollars so far to fight climate change and that we need to spends trillions and trillions more. Every year. And all controlled by the UN, I’m sure.

Okay, we’ve all heard people at times sacralize their job, usually to show their dedication to a task that involves significant risk or hardship. Military and police come to mind. And, sure, politicians often prattle on about the sacred trust they’ve been given by their constituents, but most of us recognize that as a rhetorical device. Perhaps that’s the case for Ms. Figueres, too.

But I don’t think so.

Instead, it has the ring of sanctimony that brooks no debate or challenge. Indeed, if you question man-caused global warming or what, if anything, needs to be done to fight it, you’re putting her descendants at risk. It moves from being a matter of empirical, testable science, on which there can be reasonable disagreement, to a tenet of faith and morality, something holy. Disagree with her “sacred mission,” and you become a “denier,” one who has denied the faith. It’s a short step from there to being designated a “traitor to planet” and perforce evil.

It would be funny, if only these people weren’t in positions of influence and power, with the ability to implement their programs to our great harm, if we don’t keep a close eye on them.

That’s our “sacred responsibility.”

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


One in the many reasons to send the United Nations packing

April 8, 2013

It’s corrupt from top to bottom and the only people who get punished are those who expose it:

A U.N. whistleblower who was awarded a fraction of the damages he says he suffered at the hands of the United Nations urged Washington on Monday to withhold 15 percent of the U.S. contribution to the world body in accordance with U.S. law.

American James Wasserstrom was last month awarded 2 percent of the $3.2 million he wanted by a tribunal that found U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the U.N. Ethics Office failed to properly review claims he suffered retaliation for alleging U.N. corruption in Kosovo.

According to Section 7049(a) of the 2012 U.S. Consolidated Appropriations Act, the United States is required to withhold 15 percent of its contribution to any U.N. agency if the secretary of state determines that it is not implementing “best practices for the protection of whistleblowers from retaliation.”

(…)

Wasserstrom complained in 2007 to the Ethics Office that he suffered retaliation for reporting alleged misconduct while head of the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Oversight of Publicly Owned Enterprises in Kosovo.

He had told the United Nations he was concerned about corporate governance in Kosovo and alleged the possibility of a kickback scheme tied to a proposed power plant and mine that involved top politicians and senior U.N. officials.

Instead of being protected as a whistleblower, Wasserstrom claimed he suffered retaliation, which started with his U.N. public utility watchdog office in Kosovo being shut down and his U.N. contract not being renewed.

Although Wasserstrom eventually won his case, he was only awarded $65,000, despite the fact that he says his legal fees, lost wages and other financial damage incurred amounted to well over $2 million.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for Secretary John “Global Test” Kerry to invoke this law to protect a wronged American; relations with the world body that represents the voice of the international community are too important, you see. (1) More likely, as Rick Moran acidly observes, Kerry will use the UN appeal process as a dodge to avoid doing anything that might upset things. And, I think, in the hope that this pesky little prole will stop bothering his betters with minor matters.

There was a time when, if an American was ill-treated by a foreign regime, the government would try to find a solution and, if that didn’t work, would figuratively go punch the offending government in the gut and keep doing it until they recognized their diplomatic obligations. See, for example, the Barbary Pirates and the Mexican War. (2)

Now, while we can’t declare war on the United Nations, cutting our contribution by 15% would also be an effective gut-punch, one that would command attention and, I bet, meet with wide public approval. (Just “sequester” it…) But, cynical me, I don’t expect this administration headed by  “citizens of the world” to do anything to help Mr. Wasserstrom.

That might make the next cocktail party in New York just too uncomfortable.

Footnotes:
(1) If you detect a note or two (or several thousand) of sarcasm and cynicism, your senses are not deceiving you.
(2) Yes, I’m grossly oversimplifying things, but the shabby treatment of Americans was among the causes of war in each case, as well as others.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


As his Mideast policies crumble, Obama to go to the UN… to blame a movie

September 23, 2012

I was going to say “unbelievable,” but, really, it’s all too believable, the only way the schmuck knows how to act. His Middle East policies going up in flames, our embassies besieged, our diplomats murdered, and with credible evidence that we had prior warning, that security arrangements were incompetent, and that this was a pre-planned terrorist attack, President Obama reaches out for a scapegoat.

Only, this time, he’s going to do it in front of the entire world:

National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor previews the president’s speech to the UN General Assembly next week:

“UNGA always provides an opportunity for the President to put the international situation in context, and to put forward a vision of US leadership. I would certainly expect the President to address the recent unrest in the Muslim world, and the broader context of the democratic transitions in the Arab World.”

(…)

“As he has in recent days, the President will make it clear that we reject the views in this video, while also underscoring that violence is never acceptable…

Pathetic. He’s still equating a badly made video with murderous violence, in effect saying “We understand why this happened” and placing the blame on free speech, rather than on the perpetrators of the violence.  While almost everyone outside his administration acknowledges that the video was merely a pretext for something that had been in the works for at least weeks, possibly a revenge hit, the President of the United States is going to stand before the world and say “You’re right to be angry, but it wasn’t us! It was that guy over there! Didn’t you see us roust him for you in the middle of the night? Please don’t us!”

Utterly contemptible and craven. Washington, Adams, and Jefferson are spinning in their graves.

November can’t come fast enough.

Via Power Line, which has a great quote from Churchill.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


May 31, 2012

Phineas Fahrquar:

One small victory for human liberty…

Originally posted on Watts Up With That?:

Image

http://phys.org/news/2012-05-internet.html

As a followup to a previous story about congressional hearings regarding a proposal to turn over control of the internet to the United Nations International Telecommunications Union, we are happy to report that extensive public pressure has ensured that there remains a bipartisan consensus against allowing this transfer of power over the Internet.

View original 219 more words


Moving from tragedy to farce, the UN condemns the evil that is… Canada

May 17, 2012

Well, at least they’re on the same wavelength as South Park.

No, seriously. The “Special Rapporteur on the right to food” for the UN Human Rights Council (We’ve met them before) has decried the lack of “a national right to food strategy” in one of the wealthiest, best-run democracies on the planet:

“Canada has long been seen as a land of plenty. Yet today one in ten families with a child under six is unable to meet their daily food needs. These rates of food insecurity are unacceptable, and it is time for Canada to adopt a national right to food strategy,” said Olivier De Schutter, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, on the last day of his official visit to the country.*

“What I’ve seen in Canada is a system that presents barriers for the poor to access nutritious diets and that tolerates increased inequalities between rich and poor, and Aboriginal non-Aboriginal peoples. Canada is much admired for its achievements in the area of human rights, which it has championed for many years. But hunger and access to adequate diets, too, are human rights issues — and here much remains to be done.”

The UN human rights expert was nonetheless confident that the country could move towards establishing food systems that deliver adequate and affordable diets for all, and called upon the Canadian government to convene a national food conference that would clarify the allocation of responsibilities between the federal level, the provinces and territories. “All political parties have expressed support for the establishment of a national food policy, and the engagement of citizens through food policy councils across the country is truly impressive. But in order to address them, Canada must first recognize the reality of the challenges it faces,” he stated.

And, at the same time that Canada is heartlessly letting people starve, De Schutter covers all his bases by warning an even great number are obese:

Second, more than one in four Canadian adults are obese, and almost two thirds of the population is overweight or obese, costing at least 5 billion Canadian dollars annually in health care costs and in lost productivity. “This is also a result of poverty: adequate diets have become too expensive for poor Canadians, and it is precisely these people who have to pay the most when they live in food deserts and depend on convenience stores that charge higher prices than the main retailers.”

Over-fed, under-fed, wrongly-fed… Canada just can’t win.

Of course, the UN bureaucrat’s recommendation is… Wait for it… more government intervention in the economy, including (he hints) price regulations and income guarantees for farmers. And, of course, it’s a shame that school meal policies are left to the locals. National planning is the answer.

And it’s not just for access to food. When complaining about the lack of access to nutritious diets, De Schutter subtly suggests a need to control what Canadians eat, too. This guy would be right at home in a North Carolina preschool. Or maybe De Schutter, Mayor Bloomberg, and Michelle Obama could get their own FoodTV show, “Nanny cooks — and you’ll like it!”

Gosh, I don’t know. Call me crazy, but it seems to me that the democratically elected governments of Canada –federal, provincial, and local– can decide for themselves what kind of food policy Canadians need. If Canadians need any at all, since they’re perfectly capable of deciding for themselves what they want to eat and whether they have access to what they need.

Though I’ll grant it’s a bit much to expect a transnationalist statist bureaucrat from the mack-daddy of transnationalist statist organizations to grasp that simple concept, since it means he’d have fewer opportunities for globe-hopping, expenses-paid  trips to hector other people.

Naturally, the Canadian government wasn’t amused, as Reuters reports:

After De Schutter complained in a newspaper interview that no federal cabinet minister had agreed to meet him, Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq, from Canada’s aboriginal Inuit population, met him on Wednesday.

But the meeting did not seem to go well.

“I met with the individual this morning and I found him to be an ill-informed, patronizing academic studying, once again, the aboriginal people, Inuit and Canada’s Arctic from afar,” Aglukkaq told Parliament.

Looks like DeSchutter’s report will get the reception it deserves — a trip to the ash can.

via Nile Gardiner, to whom I give the last observation:

One would think the United Nations would be concerned with real deprivation and hunger, in places like North Korea and Zimbabwe, instead of focusing on one of the richest countries in the world, with among the highest overall living standards on the planet. Even the UN’s own Human Development Index (HDI) ranks Canada sixth in the world out of 187 countries. But then again, De Schutter represents the discredited UN Human Rights Council, which includes in its membership some of the world’s worst human rights abusers, such as China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia. Its bar has been set so low that even Libya under Colonel Gaddafi was elected to membership. The HRC is a farce, and their latest report on Canada is further proof of it.

Indeed.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


(Video) Pat Condell on Israel and the United Nations

April 16, 2012

Pat Condell’s back to ask a very good question: Why in the name of sweet reason would anyone who isn’t brain-dead or a Western leftist (but I repeat myself) ever expect Israel to do anything ordered by the UN, which is dominated by genuinely barbaric dictatorships with appalling human-rights records?

Preach it, Brother Pat!

Oh, and he asks another good question: Why on Earth is the US still hosting and paying for this Club Med for Tyrants?

RELATED: At PJMedia, Claudia Rosett asks a question of her own — Guess who’s buying flowers for Pyongyang?

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Nauseating spectacle at the United Nations

December 23, 2011

The UN honors one of its own

A moment of silence in memory of Kim Jong-Il? Seriously?

What’s next? A birthday party for Robert Mugabe? Memorial days for Pol Pot and Josef Stalin?

I’m sure the millions of victims of the Kim family’s Stalinist monarchy are grateful for the remembrance.

Someone pull the plug on the UN, please.


NAACP begs United Nations to block US voter ID laws

December 6, 2011

Because efforts to ensure electoral integrity are, per the UK’s Guardian newspaper,  all a racist plot:

The largest civil rights group in America, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), is petitioning the UN over what it sees as a concerted efforted to disenfranchise black and Latino voters ahead of next year’s presidential election.

The organisation will this week present evidence to the UN high commissioner on human rights of what it contends is a conscious attempt to “block the vote” on the part of state legislatures across the US. Next March the NAACP will send a delegation of legal experts to Geneva to enlist the support of the UN human rights council.

The NAACP contends that the America in the throes of a consciously conceived and orchestrated move to strip black and other ethnic minority groups of the right to vote. William Barber, a member of the association’s national board, said it was the “most vicious, co-ordinated and sinister attack to narrow participation in our democracy since the early 20th century”.

In its report, Defending Democracy: Confronting Modern Barriers to Voting Rights in America, the NAACP explores the voter supression measures taking place particularly in southern and western states.

Fourteen states have passed a total of 25 measures that will unfairly restrict the right to vote, among black and Hispanic voters in particular.

Note that highlighted sentence, by the way. That’s apparently not a quote from the NAACP’s report, but the words of “journalist” Ed Pilkington parroting the party line of the anti-voter ID Left as if it were established fact. Not that UK papers make any pretense of objectivity, anyway (in that regard, they’re more honest than US papers), but it would be nice if Pilkington and his colleagues would at least try not to be little more than hired flacks.

Back to the NAACP, it might surprise you to learn I have a small amount of sympathy here. Very small, but it’s there nonetheless. A lot of tricks were pulled under Jim Crow, such as literacy tests and other swindles, to cheat Blacks of their right to vote. So I can sympathize with a reflexive suspicion on the part of the average Black or Hispanic voter.

But the leadership of the NAACP surely knows better. We present ID for all sorts of things, from buying groceries with a check to picking up items being held for us. If we can do that when writing a check at Wal-mart, why not when doing something far more important, such as voting? And if the law is applied equally to all, where’s the discrimination?

(And don’t tell me poor minorities can’t afford state identification cards. In California, it’s $26 — or $7 under certain circumstances. If someone can’t afford that, they have more pressing problems than needing to vote.)

We have a serious and growing problem with vote-fraud in the US (1), with the spread of “reforms” such as same-day registration and voting, the increased use of mail-in ballots, and the resistance to requiring identification all contributing to the problem. Both John Fund and Christian Adams have written books about this that should leave American’s concerned about the honesty of our elections very worried. ACORN, an organization closely aligned with the Democratic Party and President Obama, was recently convicted of voter-registration fraud.

(I’ll mention what Fund points out: registration and vote fraud are largely Leftist and Democratic schemes, as they seek to enlarge the pool of voters who lean their way. Republicans in the past have more often resorted to intimidation tactics to restrict that same pool.)

Presenting valid identification is a simple way to cut down on fraud. The leaders of the NAACP, the Democratic Party, and the various anti-identification groups all know this, so there’s only one real reason they oppose voter ID laws: they want to make fraud possible.

As for the United Nations Human Rights Commission… Don’t make me laugh. Moe Lane points out the UN’s lack of legal and moral authority. If that’s not enough, consider this: among the members of the UNHRC are those paragons of free elections, China, Cuba, Libya, Russia (2), and Saudi Arabia — the last of which did not even allow women to vote until this year.

Somehow, I doubt we need them to tell us how to run fair elections. In fact, over our history we’ve done a damned fine job correcting the problems that did exist.

And we especially don’t need the NAACP, the Democratic Party, and the voter-fraud advocacy industry sullying the legitimate defense of legitimate civil rights with cheap plays of the race card.

RELATED: Ed Morrissey and Bruce McQuain. Also Jeff Dunetz at Yid With Lid.

via Election Law Center

Footnotes:
(1) For example, the Washington State governor’s race in 2005.
(2) Hey, Russia just had parliamentary elections! How’d those go? Yeah, we need their help.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Canada stands on principle; Obama goes “meh.”

July 13, 2011

A couple of weeks ago I could barely contain my disgust over the appointment of North Korea as head of the UN Conference on Disarmament. It seems I wasn’t the only one, and it’s great to see a liberal democracy refuse to participate in this disgraceful sham.

Good for you, Canada:

Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird is set to announce Monday that Canada is boycotting the United Nations Conference on Disarmament over North Korea’s involvement, a senior government source told Postmedia News.

So Se Pyong, North Korea’s ambassador, was last week named chair of the Geneva-based group dedicated to promoting global nuclear disarmament.

“North Korea is simply not a credible chair of this UN body as its leaders are working in the exact opposite direction,” the source told Postmedia News on Sunday evening.

“Our government feels this undermines not only the Conference on Disarmament, but the UN itself. And Canada will not be party to that . . . Our government received a strong mandate to advance Canada’s values — freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law — on the world stage.”

During North Korea’s term as chair, Canada will not “engage” in the conference, the source said Baird will announce Monday.

Meanwhile for the Obama administration, it’s no “big deal:

The Obama administration will not follow Canada’s lead and boycott a session of the U.N.-linked Conference on Disarmament to protest North Korea’s appointment to the body’s rotating presidency.

“We have chosen not to make a big deal out of this because it’s a relatively low-level, inconsequential event,” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Monday.

In one sense, Nuland is right; UN conferences often aren’t “big deals,” serving as little more than occasions to pad a resume, collect a per diem, and shop for things not available in your own country.

On the other hand, if the United States won’t defend the principles on which the commission and the larger UN were founded in the little, easy instances such as this, who should believe we would care in the big instances? By assenting to North Korea’s chairmanship of the conference and lending that act our prestige by our participation, we also say that North Korea’s serial illegal arms-trafficking is “no big deal” and encourage them (and others) to do even more. It’s an example of the broken-windows theory to international relations.

Canada and the Harper cabinet are right in this case, while the Obama administration again shows its casual, amateurish approach to foreign affairs.

via The Jawa Report and Weasel Zippers

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Dear United Nations: shove it where the sun of your sanctimony doesn’t shine

July 8, 2011

You have absolutely no moral authority to lecture us about breaking international law.


The UN takes “farce” to a whole new level

June 30, 2011

Really, I thought they couldn’t get any more ridiculous than naming Iran, a Sharia-enforcing fascist state, to the Commission on the Status of Women, but they did it. Meet the new President of the United Nations Conference on Disarmament:

North Korea

Despite numerous breaches of arms embargoes and continued threats to expand its nuclear weapons program, North Korea has assumed the presidency of the United Nations Conference on Disarmament. In a speech to the 65-nation arms control forum in Geneva, the newly-appointed president, North Korean Ambassador So Se Pyong, said he was “very much committed to the Conference.”

Appointing a North Korean to chair the UN’s only multilateral disarmament forum is like “asking the fox to guard the chickens,” says Hillel Neuer, of the UN watchdog organization UN Watch. Neuer is calling on the U.S. and European governments to protest the appointment, which he says, “damages the UN’s credibility.”

When asked about the controversy over North Korea’s new leadership role, UN spokesman Farhan Haq pointed out that the head of the Conference on Disarmament is selected by the member states that sit on the conference, not the UN secretary general.

Haq added that when Secretary General Ban Ki-moon spoke at the Conference on Disarmament this January, he urged the states who sit on the conference to do more to advance its work, so that it “does not become irrelevant.”Aware that many nations see the Conference on Disarmament as a place of talk rather than a forum that does substantive work, Secretary General Ban warned: “The very credibility of this body is at risk.”

“At risk?” I’d say whatever credibility the conference still had has been taken out back and shot.

Claudia Rosett is appalled. After rattling off the serial illicit arms-dealing (including passing nuclear tech) that makes this appointment a joke, she explains the real harm this does:

Except, it isn’t harmless. It gives the lie to everything the UN pretends to stand for, and emboldens North Korea’s regime to believe that monstrous misconduct, at home and abroad, is actually no bar to a seat at the table with civilized governments. The UN promotes itself as a defender of world peace and security, a champion of human dignity. Under the banner of such promises, the UN enjoys billions in funding from the world’s leading democracies — especially the United States, which for the entire UN system foots roughly one-quarter of the bill for all 192 member states. And with the facilities thus lavished upon it, the UN then hands North Korea the presidency of its Conference on Disarmament.

Worse, scroll down past the UN press release, to the statements of member states upon the handover of this presidency to North Korea. There you can peruse the praise and good wishes for North Korea of China, Nigeria, and — yes — Portugal, whose envoy is “looking forward” to working with North Korea in coming weeks. Worse still, is what the world’s governments, including the US. administration, are not saying. Apparently, diplomatic politesse is more important than speaking out to protest the monstrosities that should be obvious here to anyone with an ounce of integrity or sense. Where’s the outrage?

Dead, I imagine, along with the pretense that the United Nations does anything worthwhile.

By the way, a couple of weeks ago the US intercepted a ship suspected of carrying contraband missile technology to the tyrants who rule Burma.

A ship from North Korea, the new President of the UN Disarmament Conference.

Memo to Congress: If you’re looking for ways to cut the budget, let me make a suggestion

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


United Nations hits new low, keeps digging

April 26, 2011

If anything shows what a farce and travesty the UN has become, it’s Syria’s forthcoming membership on the UN Human Rights Council:

The brutal crackdown by Syrian President Bashar Assad may finally be getting the attention of world leaders — but apparently not enough to stop Syria from becoming the newest member of the U.N. Human Rights Council.

And despite calling for an independent investigation into the crackdown, which has left hundreds dead, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon apparently won’t do much about blocking Syria’s path to the human rights group.

Nah, Ban’s too busy with the important stuff: attending meaningless conferences, issuing vapid statements, and generally trying desperately to pretend he’s anything other than the UN’s head waiter. I wonder how much Assad tipped him for the seat at the UNHRC table, no questions asked?

As Michael Totten writes:

Correct me if I’m wrong here, but I’m pretty sure the absurdness of this situation is self-evident and that no comment is necessary.

It speaks for itself.

RELATED: Human rights, a la Assad. This is the man Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently called “a reformer,” thus removing all doubt about her qualifications to be president.


NEA: Reading, Writing, and Orgasms??

March 8, 2011

As Barbara Hollingsworth points out in the Washington Examiner, education funding in the United States has doubled since the Seventies, yet many students are still not reaching basic levels of reading and math.

Not to worry, however, because the National Education Association is concentrating on what’s really important: making sure girls know how to have an orgasm:

A representative of the National Education Association (NEA), the nation’s largest teachers union, recently told attendees at a United Nations conference on the status of women that “oral sex, masturbation, and orgasms need to be taught in education” worldwide. [...]

Diane Schneider, the NEA reprepsentative, didn’t explain what such graphic sex education for middle-schoolers has to do with helping women and girls gain access to “education, training, science and technology” – the theme of this year’s Commission on the Status of Women.

I think Barbara is being a bit harsh here. Surely this meets the science goal — at least in biology.

I wonder what’s on the curriculum for PE at these schools: lap dances and pole dancing?

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The United Nations as farce: an insult to the world’s women

March 4, 2011

A couple of days ago I provided an example of why the United Nations is useless: while the world is beset by problems around the globe, the Secretary General came to Hollywood to lobby for movies that would serve as propaganda for the alarmist side of the global warming debate. Sure, that’s worthy of a face-palm moment, but it’s not evil.

This is:

Today, Iran officially becomes a member of the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women. Only three days ago, the U.N. General Assembly voted to suspend Libya’s membership on the U.N. Human Rights Council in a desperate bid to save the Council’s tattered reputation and itself.

But not a single state, including the United States, has indicated anything but smooth sailing for today’s membership of Iran on the U.N.’s top women’s rights body.

Yes, you read that right. A misogynistic Islamic (But I repeat myself) theocracy has been elected to an international board meant to promote the rights of half the world’s population.

This is how the commission describes itself:

The Commission on the Status of Women (hereafter referred to as “CSW” or “the Commission”) is a functional commission of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), dedicated exclusively to gender equality and advancement of women. It is the principal global policy-making body. Every year, representatives of Member States gather at United Nations Headquarters in New York to evaluate progress on gender equality, identify challenges, set global standards and formulate concrete policies to promote gender equality and advancement of women worldwide.

The Commission was established by ECOSOC resolution 11(II) of 21 June 1946 with the aim to prepare recommendations and reports to the Council on promoting women’s rights in political, economic, civil, social and educational fields. The Commission also makes recommendations to the Council on urgent problems requiring immediate attention in the field of women’s rights.

Emphases added.

Gee, I wonder what kind of recommendations and reports we could expect from Iran to promote the “gender equality and advancement of women?” Maybe we should look at their track record:

For the UN to agree to Iran’s membership on the Commission is beyond a joke or a farce; it is a slap in the face to all women everywhere, and especially to Iranian women, who have to suffer under this barbaric tyranny.

And, never forget, your tax dollars pay for this.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention something: Notice how the Obama administration has voiced no objection Iran’s membership? Another proud moment for the diplomacy of Hope and Change.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The irrelevance of the United Nations, as illustrated by the Secretary General

March 2, 2011

There are many examples to choose from, if one wishes to show why the United Nations is a waste of taxpayer money. Its record in resolving international crises is abysmal: Bosnia, anyone? And don’t get me started on its corruption by and covering for Saddam Hussein in the run-up to Gulf  War II. Oh, but what about human rights, you say? Isn’t the UN set to expel Libya from the Human Rights Commission? Aside from asking why Libya was ever on anything named “Human Rights Council,” take a minute to look over its membership and then try to tell me the HRC is anything but a bad joke — on the world.

Anyway, if you want something that captures the essence of the uselessness of the United Nations, it’s this: the Secretary General, Mr. Ban-Ki Moon, has come to Hollywood to lobby the film industry to make movies about global warming:

We kid you not. As the real world seemed to be coming apart at the seams, Ban Ki-moon swept into Tinseltown during Oscar week to urge the entertainment industry to produce more movies, TV shows and music about — drumroll, please — global warming.

During a daylong forum, some 400 writers, directors, producers, agents and network executives were briefed on recent heat waves, floods, fires and droughts that have been blamed on man-made climate change.

With all that’s wrong in the world today, this feckless buffoon has gone before our cultural movers and shakers (who are all too willing to buy in) to beg for propaganda films about a problem that does not exist. But, hey, if it works and he convinces everyone to SAVE THE PLANET NOW!!!, it will mean lots of new transnational bureaucratic jobs, international conferences in swanky resorts,  and even more taxpayer money funneled to, you guessed it, UN bureaucrats. What a deal! (For the UN)

Meanwhile, Libya’s collapsed into civil war against a brutal tyrant and Somali pirates are murdering travelers on the high seas — and giving money to allies of al Qaeda, a global terrorist organization. Oh, and Mexico is headed toward becoming a failed state while North Korea and Iran build nuclear weapons.

But Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon has his priorities.

And you’re paying 22% of his tab.

via Fausta

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The UN is a bunch of vultures, and the US has joined the flock

February 18, 2011

Unbelievable. Just how low, how embarrassing, how indecent can the Obama administration make our diplomacy?

Really, do you remember the days during the last presidential campaign when Obama promised to “restore our standing” in the world. Was that a bad joke? A code phrase for “standing on our heads?” Will we have any allies left when these jackasses are done?

Is it 2012, yet?


Still don’t think we should quit the UN?

December 28, 2010

If yesterday’s post didn’t convince you, maybe Mary Katharine Ham’s “The top 10 UN-believable moments of 2010” will. Here’s one:

No. 7: Have you ever wondered what it might look like if the U.S. subjected itself to a peer review of its human rights record by the world’s leading violators of human rights? The UN’s got you covered, and the Obama administration is honored to be there for it.

The Human Rights Council, which is now only 40 percent democratic, created a process in 2006 by which all members submit a report on their human rights records to the review of the council every four years. This year, Obama administration representatives Esther Brimmer and Michael Posner listened as Iran, North Korea, Egypt and China, among others, lectured the United States on its human rights record and history of racial discrimination.

Don’t forget, it was at this same “peer” review that the Obama administration claimed it was fighting for human rights — by suing Arizona. Yes, an American state, a democratic republic with the rule of law, was held up for judgment to… North Korea. Sorry, that still galls me.

Anyway, be sure to read the rest of MKH’s list; some are real doozies.

via The Anchoress

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Defund the United Nations

December 27, 2010

When I was young, I used to be amused by the crudely-made billboards I’d see along the highways in Southern California that demanded we get out of the UN. Usually they were put up by some John Birch-affiliate, whom I would write off as a bunch of kooks.

Well, I still do think of John Birch and their conspiracy theories as lunatic (thank you, Bill Buckley, for banishing them from the conservative movement), but the sentiment of saying bye-bye to the United Nations now strikes a chord with me. A corrupt playground for dictators and tyrants, it’s also convened two of the worst antisemitic assemblies held by any national government or international agency since the Wansee conference*, “Durban I” and Durban II,” the UN “World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.” Now they want to hold “Durban III” — in New York City.

Roger L. Simon is, like any decent person would be,  outraged:

To return to the langue diplomatique, these events are la vie a l’envers — life upside down. They are the reverse of what they pretend to be and should be labeled the “World Conference for the Promotion of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.” I attended Durban II in Geneva – you can see some reports here and here — and I can say personally that I have never seen anything as quite literally insane. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the keynote speaker of a human rights conference.

The whole thing virtually broke down when several European delegates walked out on the Iranian despot in the midst of one of his predictable anti-Semitic screeds (the US, despite some equivocation, had ultimately declined to go in the first place). UN officials ran and hid from the media after this debacle and you would think they wouldn’t want to repeat such a disgrace but… here they go again with Durban III this September… and in New York, of all places.

These events (I, II and, most probably, III) are basically Festivals of Anti-Semitism, and the UN membership — a substantial portion anyway — just can’t stop themselves from doing it again. It’s pathological, really. They pay lip service to the idea the anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism, but this notion has become increasingly risible. UN attention to tiny Israel (still with under eight million population — less than L.A. county) is nearly as big as all other states combined. Why is that? By 1992 alone there were 65 resolutions concerning Israel. By January 2009, this number rose to 225. All these resolutions are largely led by Islamic states that are basically judenrein, although many of them had substantial Jewish populations in the past.

It’s a black comic moral travesty and our money is paying for it.

The first steps should be to stop this outrage from happening on American soil: official protests (Where is the State Department on this, Madame Secretary?), a denial of funds from Congress (Hello, House Republicans!), a refusal of entry into the US for any delegates, and, if need be, public protests at the conference itself.

And, once it’s held –wherever it’s held– we should walk out of the United Nations, itself; an irredeemable, farcical organization unworthy of our time, our money, and the validation our presence gives it.

Maybe it’s time to make my own billboard.

*And, yes, I’m making that comparison deliberately.

UPDATE: Welcome readers of Legal Insurrection! And thanks for the POtD link, professor!

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The United Nations: a sick joke

November 12, 2010

Would you like (yet another) example of why the United Nations is worthless? Well, here ya go, pal. Saudi Arabia has joined the executive board of the new United Nations organization on the rights of women. No, I’m serious. It seems Iran was beyond the pale, but Saudi Arabia was a-okay by the UN’s high standards. I guess the difference must be that, in Iran, they still stone women to death, but, in the enlightened heart of Islam, they’re merely whipped and sent to jail for the crime of being victims of a gang-rape. That obviously qualifies the Saudis to oversee the rights of women around the world

At least, to anyone who understands George Orwell.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 13,070 other followers