IS spreading like a cancer: UN chief

This article, from DAWN, is the perfect example of the utter and complete insanity of the United Nations.  The head of the U.N. comes out and "boldly" claims that ISIS is spreading like a cancer yet when you read down at the bottom of the article, you find out just what this U.N. leader had put out as solutions to eradicate said cancer:


In January, Ban launched a global action plan, asking countries to come up with national plans to address the problem. Ban’s plan encompasses 79 recommendations, from boosting education to promoting human rights to counter the recruitment drives of groups like IS and Boko Haram which prey on disaffected youth.

Yeah, that's the answer Ban ....let's boost a little education for these poor impoverished men in their early 20's and that should halt them immediately from joining ISIS.

IS spreading like a cancer: UN chief

GENEVA: The Syrian conflict has acted like a greenhouse for extremist groups which are now spreading “like a cancer”, the UN chief said on Friday, urging greater cooperation to prevent radicalisation.

The war raging in Syria has “provided the perfect breeding ground for extremist and terrorists to take root in the society,” UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told reporters in Geneva.

“Now (the militant Islamic State (IS) group) and all the extremists are spreading like a cancer around the world,” he warned in remarks on the sidelines of a high-level conference on preventing violent extremism.

In an earlier address to some of the 700 delegates — among them around 30 ministers and deputy ministers — Ban urged a radical rethink of ways to counter the threat from IS and other groups.

“Evidence shows that security and military responses alone cannot defeat this scourge,” he said, stressing that heavy-handed responses have sometimes “proven to be counter-productive” and can “end up further fuelling violent extremism”.

In January, Ban launched a global action plan, asking countries to come up with national plans to address the problem. Ban’s plan encompasses 79 recommendations, from boosting education to promoting human rights to counter the recruitment drives of groups like IS and Boko Haram which prey on disaffected youth.

United Nations: No, It's Not Assad's Fault That Syrians Are Dying...Nope, Not ISIS' Fault Either....It's the Damn Israelis' Fault!

Documented evidence of Bashir Assad using chemical weapons on the Syria people and yet the United Nations has come out to finger Israel as the culprit against the health risks of Syrians.  Documented evidence of Syrians crucified and slaughtered by ISIS but no, the United Nations doesn't hold ISIS accountable....it's the damn Joos!

The story comes from Israel National News.

UN Condemns Israel for 'Violating Health of Syrians'

The UN is once again singling out Israel for criticism. The UN Watch NGO on Friday reported that the global body adopted a draft resolution portraying Israel as violating the health rights of Syrians in the Golan.

The resolution comes even though Israeli hospitals continue their life-saving treatment for escalating numbers of wounded Syrians fleeing the civil war in their country.

By a vote of 104 to 4, with 6 abstentions and 65 absent, the Jewish state was the only country in the world to be singled out on Wednesday by the annual assembly of the UN’s World Health Organization. The decision was ratified Friday in Geneva in a final reading by the plenary, noted UN Watch.

The resolution adopts two reports heaping blame upon Israel for allegedly violating the health rights of both the Palestinians and Druze residents of the Golan, and constituted the 2015 assembly’s only treatment of a specific country situation, the NGO said.

“There was no debate on the health of the Yemeni people now under indiscriminate Saudi bombardment, no mention at all of the 1,850 Yemenis killed, the 7,394 wounded, and the 545,000 displaced, many of whom are desperate to find food,” said UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer.

On the contrary, he added, the representative of Saudi Arabia took the floor to denounce “Israeli intransigence,” and to beseech “all peace loving states” to adopt the distorted and politicized resolution.

“The despotic regime must have felt especially emboldened as the gathering took place adjacent to the Human Rights Council, where Saudi Arabia sits as a full member, elected in 2013 by more than two-thirds of the UN General Assembly,” said Neuer.

The resolution, he continued, falsely claimed a dire need for “health-related technical assistance” for “the Syrian population in the occupied Syrian Golan” and said nothing about the Syrians being murdered in their own country.

“Instead, the scapegoating of Israel—in the form of a special debate, two lopsided reports, the resolution, and the publication of country submissions—provided a UN platform for Assad’s murderous regime,” said Neuer.

The latest anti-Israel resolution follows a motion in March, when the Commission on the Status of Women introduced a motion criticizing Israel for “violating the rights of Palestinian women.”

Israel was the only country to be criticized by the commission, which ignored countries which truly violate women’s rights such as Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon admitted in 2013 that the UN is biased against Israel, but he later backtracked on those comments.

Saudi Arabia Tells the United Nations To Go To Hell

From The Telegraph.

Saudi Arabia rejects UN seat over body's handling of Syria crisis

Saudi Arabia is rejecting its seat on the UN Security Council and says the 15-member body is incapable of resolving world conflicts.


The move came just hours after the kingdom was elected as one of the Council's 10 nonpermanent members.

In a statement carried on Friday by the official Saudi Press Agency, the Saudi Foreign Ministry says the Council has failed in its duties toward Syria.

It says this alleged failure enabled Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime to perpetrate the killings of its people, including with chemical weapons, without facing any deterrents or punishment.

The Council remained divided for more than two years over taking action against Assad's government, with his allies Russia and China using their veto power as permanent members to block resolution after resolution aimed at imposing tough sanctions.

The Ministry also says the Council has not been able to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict over the past decades and has failed to transform the Middle East into a zone free of weapons of mass destruction.

The 15-member council includes five permanent members with veto power — the US, Russia, China, Britain and France — and 10 nonpermanent members elected for two-year terms.

Security Council seats are highly coveted because they give countries a strong voice in matters dealing with international peace and security, in places like Syria, Iran and North Korea, as well as the U.N.'s far-flung peacekeeping operations.

Hillel Neuer, executive director of Geneva-based human rights group U.N. Watch, accused Saudi Arabia of denying women the right to vote, drive a car or travel without the permission of a male relative.

Are You Serious? Barack Obama, Mr. Spineless, Warns the United Nations of Being Powerless? Isn't That Like the Pot Calling the Kettle Black?

Hard to believe that the Wimp-in-Chief of the United States....Mr. Barack "I took a month to kill 4 Somali pirates" Hussein Obama, would warn the United Nations as coming off as "powerless" in the world's perception.

This is close to comedy gold, I tell ya.

The report comes from The Telegraph.

Barack Obama warns UN's failure to act on Syria will expose its powerlessness


Addressing the UN General Assembly, Mr Obama said that denying the Assad's regime's responsibility for the poison gas attack that claimed over 1,000 lives on Aug 21 was an "insult to human reason".

The Security Council is deadlocked over a resolution that would compel Syria to keep the agreement to surrender its chemical weapons. America and Russia differ over whether any draft should allow force – or other punishment – if Syria breaks the deal.

The US, Britain and France want a resolution under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which allows the Security Council to enforce its will. However, this would not necessarily authorise military action: a resolution passed under Article 41 would only allow economic or other measures.

Mr Obama said the UN would be exposed as powerless if the impasse persisted.

"There must be a strong Security Council Resolution to verify that the Assad regime is keeping its commitments, and there must be consequences if they fail to do so," he said.

"If we cannot agree even on this, then it will show that the UN is incapable of enforcing the most basic of international laws. On the other hand, if we succeed, it will send a powerful message that the use of chemical weapons has no place in the 21st century, and that this body means what it says."

The gas attacks were launched from areas of Damascus under Assad's control, said Mr Obama, and they were targeted on rebel-held suburbs. The evidence for this came from the UN inspectors' own report, he added.

"It is an insult to human reason – and to the legitimacy of this institution – to suggest that anyone other than the regime carried out this attack," said Mr Obama.

But the president added that military action "by those within Syria, or by external powers" could not "achieve a lasting peace". America and Russia both favour a peace conference involving all parties to be held in Geneva.

Mr Obama restated that Assad's departure was essential for any settlement, saying: "A leader who slaughtered his citizens and gassed children to death cannot regain the legitimacy to lead a badly fractured country. The notion that Syria can return to a pre-war status quo is a fantasy."

Will Your U.S. Senators Give Their Blessing For Anti-Israel, Anti-America Samantha Power?

Call your Senator, email your Senator...go to their office if you can - let every single U.S. Senator know that Barack Hussein Obama has gone too far this time in this United Nations ambassador nominee - Samantha Power is a pig - she's an anti-Semitic advocate for the terrorists in Gaza and the West Bank and she flat out hates America.  This is the worst nomination for a U.N. post in the history of this country.

Did I mention that Samantha Power is married to Cass Sunstein?  Enough said.

The story comes from Family Security Matters.

Will the Senate Rubber-Stamp Power’s Contempt?


Refusing to answer proper questions in a legitimate governmental hearing is contemptuous - not just in the rhetorical sense but in the legal sense. To analogize: In court proceeding, if a witness refuses to provide a responsive answer to a question, the judge will strike the non-responsive answer from the record and direct the witness to address the question head-on. If the dodging persists, the witness can be held in contempt and imprisoned. Such episodes may also form the basis for an obstruction-of-justice charge.

It is just as illegal to obstruct a congressional proceeding.

Contempt of Congress and obstruction of the Senate's constitutional advice-and-consent obligation is the only way to interpret the performance of Samantha Power during Wednesday's hearing on her nomination by President Obama to become U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Power has a long history of decrying "crimes committed, sponsored, or permitted by the United States." Of demanding that the United States apologize for its sundry "sins." Of condemning "the role U.S. political, economic and military power has played in denying such freedoms to others." Of calling for "not tweaking but overhauling" of U.S. foreign policy. Of seeking to subordinate American national interests to "the interests of the global commons." Of expressly calling for the U.S. to surrender sovereignty to international institutions (such as the U.N. and the International Criminal Court). And of agitating for "a historical reckoning" of America's alleged crimes. Not content with various American acts of contrition, she would have our government institute "a doctrine of the mea culpa" as a pillar of our foreign policy. By her lights, at least up until this week's confirmation conversion, our nation is an arrogant, exploitative serial criminal with much to apologize for.

With that as background, we turn to Ms. Power's exchange with Senator Marco Rubio at the hearing. Power Line's Scott Johnson recounts it well. The senator tried to assess the nominee's fitness and inclination to represent American national interests at the U.N. - rather than the U.N.'s interests at the White House - by probing Power's assertions about America's overarching criminality and her specific allegation that "I would categorize the Rwanda situation as a crime ... permitted by the United States." Power's obdurate refusal to answer the questions is summarized by Fox News as follows. Rubio asked Power, "Which [crimes] did the U.S. commit or sponsor that you were referring to?"

"Again sir, I think this is the greatest country on Earth," Power responded. "We have nothing to apologize for."

Rubio wasn't placated with the nebulous reply, pressing her to explain further, saying, "So, you don't have any in mind now..."

"I will not apologize for America. I will stand very proudly, if confirmed, behind the U.S. placard," said Power.

Just when it appears the exchange may be over ... think again. Rubio trudges onward. "I understand," he says, "but do you think the U.S. has sponsored crimes...?"

"I believe the U.S. is the greatest country on earth," Power reiterates.

And on it went.

Now, I confess that I have not been as outraged by the Power nomination as a number of my friends, who are campaigning vigorously against it. Mind you, I am no Power fan. I'm quite sure she'd be dreadful. But the problem here is not so much the quality of this particular nominee - who happens to be a powerful influence on Obama, the guy making policy, and will remain one regardless of what administration post she fills. The main problem is the U.N. itself. It is an anti-American institution, an international enterprise in eroding the sovereignty, liberty and security of the American people - with a big old bull's-eye on the Bill of Rights.

I don't believe in permanent international institutions. They serve the interests of the institutions, not the American people. We'd be much better served by ad hoc collaborations with real allies - collaborations that lapse when the transient conditions for entering them lapse. Geopolitics presents countless scenarios in which China, Russia, the 57-government Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and even our occasionally cantankerous European friends can frustrate our national interests. Why, in addition to all that, we should cede them legal rights to undermine us, and pay dearly for the privilege, is a mystery to me.

Consequently, I don't think we should participate in the U.N. scheme at all. But the bipartisan Beltway clerisy is hyper-invested in it - much more so, I'd wager, than the public - so I am not daft enough to think we are going to pull out any time soon. That being the case, I would certainly see the sense in supporting a strongly pro-American ambassador - a John Bolton or Jeane Kirkpatrick who could be trusted in that hostile arena to pursue our vital interests and overmatch the anti-Americans.

With President Obama, in stark contrast, we have an administration that shares the U.N.'s predilections, including its desire that Americans be ruled by transnational progressive pieties, rather than determine their own destiny. As a result, I find myself unable to get worked up over which Obama operative carries out the president's misbegotten policies at the U.N. The problem is the U.N. and Obama's affinity for it. To oppose Power for a gig at the anti-American U.N. because she holds opinions that I'm confident Mr. Obama enthusiastically shares would imply that I believe the U.N. would be a better deal for America if only the president would pick one of his other friends. I don't. If Congress really wants to do something worthwhile, let it work on cutting the U.N.'s funding, blocking its treaties, and enacting laws that protect our constitutional rights against U.N. encroachments. Then Obama and whoever his ambassador is could do less damage.

All that said, though, obstruction of necessary governmental processes is a different, more serious matter. By confirming Ms. Power, the Senate would effectively be saying that congressional hearings are a clown show. Lawmakers would be inviting future witnesses to treat them with the same contempt Ms. Power exhibited. Imagine ...

Q: Did you, as an IRS bureaucrat, target conservative groups on orders from your superiors?

A: I think America is the greatest country in the world because it guarantees free expression for all Americans....

Q: Can you tell us what the president was doing between 6pm and 2am while Americans were under siege in Benghazi?

A: The president believes American is the greatest country in the world, and as he has said many times, he takes his duties as commander-in-chief extremely seriously....

Q: Did you, Mr. Attorney General, approve a search-warrant application that represented to the court that a member of the media was not just a witness but had committed a serious felony?

A: I think America is the greatest country in the world because it guarantees freedom of the press in a robust marketplace of ideas.

Q: But didn't you tell the court that a member of the press had done enough to be prosecuted before telling us under oath that you'd never considered prosecuting members of the press?

A: Well, America being the greatest country in the world and all, I can't tell you how much I admire the Framers for giving us a Congress I so admire and a court system I so admire so that journalists can do the vital work we all so admire....

You get the drift. Why should anyone ever again answer a significant question in a congressional hearing about a matter of public interest? And why pretend that confirmation hearings are anything other than theater - why convene them at all - if the nominee gets to give the soliloquies of her choosing and thumb her nose at all confrontational lines of inquiry? Those would be the lines most revealing about her suitability, the ones that go to the essence of the Senate's constitutional duty to evaluate high-level appointees.

I was fortunate to appear before scores of excellent federal judges in many years as a government lawyer. I cannot think of a single one who would have let Samantha Power pull what she pulled in the Senate foreign relations committee on Wednesday. They had too much self-respect.

Does the Senate have any?

Once Again, the United Nations Sticks It To Israel, Accuses the Israelis of Torturing Palestinian Children

If I was Israel, I'd have the United Nations on permanent ignore but in this latest disgrace of this so-called "world body"...they have the gall to accuse the Israelis of torturing so-called palestinian children - okay, so when the Israelis purposely refuse to bomb a school due to Hamas firing rockets in front of it, that's torturing children?

Perhaps the U.N. needs to view the photographs of the Fogel children from Israel one more time - I'd say a cut by a knife across the neck of a 3 month old Israeli infant would constitute torture by a so-called palestinian. How about the Hamas jihadis who strap suicide belts on pali children?  Huh?

Why can't we get lucky and have a Times Square bomber set his charges under the base of this worthless institution in New York City?

Fuck em.

The story comes from The Telegraph.

Israel furious at UN report detailing torture of Palestinian children


The Committee on the Rights of Children, a body of independent legal experts charged by the UN with the task of monitoring the protection of children’s rights in signatory states, has urged Israel to honour its responsibility to prevent the torture and ill-treatment of children.

“The Committee expresses its deepest concern about the reported practice of torture and ill-treatment of Palestinian children arrested, prosecuted and detained by the military and the police, and about the State party’s failure to end these practices in spite of repeated concerns expressed by treaty bodies,” the investigative body stated in its periodic review of Israel’s child rights record, released on Thursday.

It continued: “[Palestinian children are] systematically subject to physical and verbal violence, humiliation, painful restraints, hooding of the head and face in a sack, threatened with death, physical violence, and sexual assault against themselves or members of their family, restricted access to toilet, food and water.

“These crimes are perpetrated from the time of arrest, during transfer and interrogation, to obtain a confession but also on an arbitrary basis as testified by several Israeli soldiers as well as during pretrial detention.”

The report prompted a furious response from Israel, countering that the findings are “not based on any direct investigation on the ground, only on documents gathered from secondary sources.”

Yigal Palmor, spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry, described the report’s allegations that Israel did not comply with requests for information as a “bold, scandalous lie”. Its allegations that Palestinian children are being used as informers and human shields, he added, are also deliberately misleading.

“The [committee] were fully informed that instructions have indeed been issued and that the use of children as human shields is totally forbidden. Yet the authors pretend there never was any such communication by Israel,” Mr Palmor said.

A UNICEF report investigating the treatment of Palestinian children published earlier this year described “widespread, systematic and institutionalised” abuse of minors detained by Israeli security forces in the West Bank, including night-time arrests and long periods of solitary confinement, but stopped short of describing this ill treatment as torture.

The report, which consulted closely with Israel’s foreign ministry, also praised the country’s efforts to improve its child rights record.

Israeli human rights group B’Tselem has extensively documented the testimonies of Palestinian children abused in by Israeli security services.

Sarit Michaeli, the organisation’s spokesman, argued that while several improvements have been made there remain “major problems with Israel’s treatment of Palestinian minors”.

Muslims Seek Even MORE Control of Every Agency At the United Nations

The article comes from CNS News.

Islamic Nations Try Again to Take Helm of U.N. Culture Agency


(CNSNews.com) – Unsuccessful in its previous attempt to install a Muslim as head of the U.N’s cultural agency, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) now is putting up a rival candidate in an effort to deny the current director-general a second term.

A meeting of OIC foreign ministers in Djibouti earlier this month agreed to back the candidacy of a Djibouti diplomat, Rashad Farah, for director-general of the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The election will be held late next year.

UNESCO has long been a political battleground, both during the Cold War when it was seen by critics as a hotbed of pro-Soviet and anti-Western sentiment, and in more recent years when Islamic states and their allies have sought to use it in campaigns against Israel and “Islamophobia.”

Last year it became the first U.N. agency to grant full membership to the Palestinian Authority, a step that obliged the U.S. to cut its funding (22 percent of UNESCO’s regular budget). The Obama administration is seeking a waiver that would enable it to resume contributions.

Three years ago a politically-charged election for the head of the agency saw a European, former Bulgarian foreign minister Irina Bokova, narrowly defeat Egypt’s culture minister, whose candidacy was backed by the OIC and Arab and African blocs.

The Egyptian, Farouk Hosni, had stoked controversy by threatening to burn any Israeli books found in Egypt’s Alexandria library. Some Egyptians also questioned the suitability of a candidate who for 22 years had represented the Mubarak regime, accused of censorship and violating free speech. (UNESCO’s goals include “empowering people through the free flow of ideas.”)

Lobbying by the U.S. and other Western democracies succeeded in scraping together the required majority of UNESCO’s 58-member executive board behind Bokova’s bid. After several rounds of voting the Bulgarian won by 31-27.

Hosni and Egyptian state media blamed his defeat on “Jews.”

Last September, Bulgaria’s president met with U.N. secretary-general Ban Ki-moon in New York and formally nominated Bokova for a second term when her current one ends next year. The OIC’s recent decision, however, means a contest is now on the cards.

The last four directors-general, a Frenchman, a Senegalese, a Spaniard and a Japanese, served terms of between 10 and 13 years each.

The OIC-backed candidate, Farah, is Djibouti’s ambassador to France and its representative to UNESCO, which has its headquarters in Paris.

“By its geographical position and its population, our country is a crossroads between Africa and the Arab world favoring culture of peace and dialogue among peoples,” Djibouti’s foreign ministry said in a statement on Farah’s candidacy.

‘Massive influence gap’

Bokova’s short tenure has been challenging, particularly as she has sought to find alternative sources of finance to make up a significant shortfall resulting from the U.S. funding cut.

Apart from the financial and political fallout over the Palestinian admission, she had to deal last November with outrage over a decision to reappoint Syria’s Assad regime to a committee dealing with human rights; and controversy over the awarding of a UNESCO life sciences prize sponsored by the despotic president of Equatorial Guinea.

In 2010, UNESCO planned to allow Iran to host its annual World Philosophy Day event – until Bokova, under pressure from the U.S. and others, disassociated the agency from the Tehran event.

Over the summer, a UNESCO committee voted for an “emergency” application by the Palestinian Authority to have Jesus’ traditional birthplace in Bethlehem recognized as an endangered World Heritage site – overruling the advice of independent experts and the wishes of local church leaders.

Also in July, a UNESCO decision to establish a chair at the Islamic University of Gaza, an institution closely associated with the Hamas terrorist group, drew protests from the Israeli government.

In a speech Monday to the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO – a federal advisory committee to the State Department – the head of the U.S. mission to UNESCO, Ambassador David Killion, said it has been “a very challenging year for both the mission and for UNESCO.”

He argued that while the U.S. was engaged and active at UNESCO, it was “paying a heavy price” for the funding suspension.

Aside from endangering important projects like Holocaust education, he said, “the funding cutoff is also creating a massive influence gap at UNESCO – one that other countries are more than eager to fill.”

“Saudi Arabia, Qatar and China have all contributed large sums to UNESCO’s emergency fund, and we could very well see their leverage over its politics and programs grow stronger and stronger.

“These are countries that have very different ideas when it comes to subjects like girls’ education and freedom of expression.”

Killion said there was a battle underway “for the very soul of UNESCO.”

“We must not forget that UNESCO is an American design. It was created after World War II to spread our values. UNESCO’s constitution is based on our constitution. The values it promotes – democracy, freedom of expression, and human rights – are our values.”

“Today, as the world grows more multipolar, emerging countries such as Qatar and China are looking to leave their mark on the international system and the values that underpin it,” he said. “We must use every tool in our foreign policy toolbox to defend democracy, liberty, and human rights.”

The U.S. was a founding member of UNESCO, but the Reagan administration withdrew in 1984, citing mismanagement and accusing it of promoting an anti-Western agenda. Britain’s Conservative government also left, although Labor Prime Minister Tony Blair took the country back into UNESCO in 1997.

In September 2002 President Bush told the U.N. that the U.S. would return to UNESCO, citing important reforms under Japanese diplomat Koichiro Matsuura, who had become director-general in 1999.

United Nations Representative Calls For a World Capital...In Islamic Istanbul, Turkey...Of Course

Reason #273 for closing the doors on the United Nations building in New York City is the latest call by a U.N. representative for establishing a global (world) capital in Istanbul, Turkey.  Let's see...let's just make it more complete and have all of the Christians, Jews and atheists of the world travel there once a year to kiss the ring of the highest level imam in Turkey.

The United Nations continues to spin itself completely into the ground as the foremost world organization that preaches Sharia law, the Islamic Caliphate and Marxism and of course, half of their bills get paid by the American people.

The story comes from CNS News.

UN Representative Calls For Establishing A 'World Capital' - In Islamic Istanbul


The world needs a global capital and it should be the capital of Islamic Turkey, Istanbul, according to a UN special representative. Richard Falk, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights, wrote a Nov. 1, 2012, opinion piece for the controversial al Jazeera English site calling for a "global capital" because of integration "by markets, by globally constituted battlefields, by changing geopolitical patterns."

While Turkey is a longstanding U.S. ally and a member of NATO, its nearly 80 million population is 99.8 percent Muslim, according to the CIA Factbook. Its Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has had several run-ins with Israel over access to Gaza. In March, he urged Israel to "stop the brutal attack against Palestinians and stop the massacre and bloodshed."

The U.S. Embassy in Turkey sent out an "emergency message" for U.S. citizens in September warning of "a planned anti-American march/protest" in Istanbul. The march was tied to protests against the YouTube video claimed by critics to be anti-Islamic. "The Department of State strongly recommends avoiding the march/protest location as well as any other large crowds that may gather in Istanbul to protest against the controversial video that has created other demonstrations throughout the world," explained the warning.

Falk recommended what al Jazeera called a "modest proposal" that should move the world past "the persisting tendency is to view the hierarchy of global cities from a West-centric perspective: London, New York, Paris, Los Angeles placed in the first rank." Along with his UN duties, he is the Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Falk said there were two sides on where to locate such a capital - hard and soft power dynamics. He defined hard power as a view "that history is principally made by those who prevail in warfare, and little else."

His description of soft power included "culture, political vitality, religious identity and ethics shapes and forms what unfolds." He listed "several factors" why to choose Istanbul. Those included the city as a tourist destination, it has "also become a secure and acceptable place to hold the most delicate diplomatic discussions," it is convenient, and Turkey has "gained economic and political credibility at a time when so many important states have either been treading water so as to remain afloat."

He credited Turkey for "achieving a stable interface between secular principles and religious freedom" and for "moving away from the 'over-secularisation.'" Falk said choosing Istanbul as a world capital would be good because Turkey could provide the "satisfactions of a post-Western world civilisation."

While Americans Struggle To Pay For Gas At the Pump, Make Mortgage and Rent Payments, the Federal Government Has Increased Money To the United Nations by 142%

Since 2001, the monetary contribution of the United States of America to the United Nations has risen 142% - and yes, that encompasses Presidents Bush AND Obama but I ask you to look at the listing below (from the article at CNS News) by year and notice what happened in 2009 and 2010:

FY 2001 -- $ 3,183,166,000.00

FY 2002 -- $ 3,934,814,000.00

FY 2003 -- $ 3,841,323,000.00

FY 2004 -- $ 4,115,155,000.00

FY 2005 -- $ 5,327,276,000.00

FY 2006 -- $ 4,546,120,000.00

FY 2007 -- $ 4,158,641,000.00

FY 2008 -- $ 6,090,242,000.00

FY 2009 -- $ 6,347,415,000.00

FY 2010 -- $ 7,691,822,000.00

Look at that bullshit!  We literally have doubled our monetary contributions to the U.N. since 2003 - and for what?  Every action the United Nations takes is detrimental to the U.S. - whether they are trying to control our free speech in this country or trying to control citizenship ownership of firearms or aiding and abetting Islamic enemies of ours...the U.N.'s goal is to destroy America.  And we pay them to do it.  And Obama has decided it needs to happen faster.

This is like paying someone to rape your wife and beat your children.

U.S. Contributions to U.N. Up 142% Since 2001 -- $4.5 Billion


(CNSNews.com) – The financial contribution that the United States makes to the United Nations has increased sharply over the past decade, rising by $4.5 billion between 2001 and 2010 – a 142 percent rise -- according to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Since 2006, the OMB has presented Congress with an annual report detailing the U.S. contributions to the U.N. system for each fiscal year, which runs from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30.

The total money contributed from all federal agencies to the United Nations, as reported by OMB, since 2001 are as follows:

FY 2001 -- $ 3,183,166,000.00

FY 2002 -- $ 3,934,814,000.00

FY 2003 -- $ 3,841,323,000.00

FY 2004 -- $ 4,115,155,000.00

FY 2005 -- $ 5,327,276,000.00

FY 2006 -- $ 4,546,120,000.00

FY 2007 -- $ 4,158,641,000.00

FY 2008 -- $ 6,090,242,000.00

FY 2009 -- $ 6,347,415,000.00

FY 2010 -- $ 7,691,822,000.00

The total increase in funding is $4,508,656,000.00, or a 142 percent rise over nine years.

Prior to 2006, the total financial contribution from the United States to the U.N. was not easily assessed because of the multiple sources of funding.

Brett Schaefer, a Jay Kingham Fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, has written extensively about U.S. funding of the U.N.

“Most everyone knows the United States is the largest contributor to the United Nations and its affiliated funds, programs, and specialized agencies,” Schaefer wrote in the National Review Online last month. “But nailing down precisely how much we pay into the U.N. system every year is no easy task.”

“Although most U.S. contributions come from the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, hundreds of millions of dollars also flow into the U.N. system from other parts of the federal government,” Schaefer said.

Tracking of the expenditures changed in 2006 when Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) asked the OMB to prepare a report detailing the cost from 2001-2005. The OMB, because it is in charge of overseeing the president’s budget, can require all segments of the government to report on information that it requests.

“The first report was an eye-opener,” Schaefer said. “The OMB calculated that U.S. contributions totaled $4.115 billion in 2004 and $5.327 billion in 2005.”

Schaefer also revealed in his article why the latest data from OMB is for FY 2010. The OMB has prepared the report for FY 2011 but will not issue it without a congressional mandate, which was not included in the Continuing Resolution that Congress passed before adjourning until after the November elections, according Schaefer.

“Congress neglected to renew the reporting requirement,” Schaefer said.

The World Hears The Truth From Israel's Prime Minister

Will the Western world listen to the truth portrayed today at the U.N. by Benyamin Netanyahu or will be further duped and dhimmified by the liars and murderers of the Muslim countries?

Here is the full speech of Netanyahu's speech to the U.N. General Assembly, from The Jerusalem Post.

Full text of PM Netanyahu's speech at the UNGA


Thank you very much Mr. President.

It's a pleasure to see the General Assembly presided by the Ambassador from Israel, and it's good to see all of you, distinguished delegates.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Three thousand years ago, King David reigned over the Jewish state in our eternal capital, Jerusalem. I say that to all those who proclaim that the Jewish state has no roots in our region and that it will soon disappear.

Throughout our history, the Jewish people have overcome all the tyrants who have sought our destruction. It's their ideologies that have been discarded by history.

The people of Israel live on. We say in Hebrew Am Yisrael Chai, and the Jewish state will live forever.

The Jewish people have lived in the land of Israel for thousands of years. Even after most of our people were exiled from it, Jews continued to live in the land of Israel throughout the ages. The masses of our people never gave up the dreamed of returning to our ancient homeland.

Defying the laws of history, we did just that. We ingathered the exiles, restored our independence and rebuilt our national life. The Jewish people have come home. We will never be uprooted again. Yesterday was Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish year.

Every year, for over three millennia, we have come together on this day of reflection and atonement. We take stock of our past. We pray for our future. We remember the sorrows of our persecution; we remember the great travails of our dispersion; we mourn the extermination of a third of our people, six million, in the Holocaust.

But at the end of Yom Kippur, we celebrate.

We celebrate the rebirth of Israel. We celebrate the heroism of our young men and women who have defended our people with the indomitable courage of Joshua, David, and the Maccabees of old. We celebrate the marvel of the flourishing modern Jewish state. In Israel, we walk the same paths tread by our patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But we blaze new trails in science, technology, medicine, agriculture.

In Israel, the past and the future find common ground. Unfortunately, that is not the case in many other countries. For today, a great battle is being waged between the modern and the medieval. The forces of modernity seek a bright future in which the rights of all are protected, in which an ever-expanding digital library is available in the palm of every child, in which every life is sacred. The forces of medievalism seek a world in which women and minorities are subjugated, in which knowledge is suppressed, in which not life but death is glorified. These forces clash around the globe, but nowhere more starkly than in the Middle East. Israel stands proudly with the forces of modernity. We protect the rights of all our citizens: men and women, Jews and Arabs, Muslims and Christians – all are equal before the law.

Israel is also making the world a better place: our scientists win Nobel Prizes. Our know-how is in every cell-phone and computer that you're using. We prevent hunger by irrigating arid lands in Africa and Asia. Recently, I was deeply moved when I visited Technion, one of our technological institutes in Haifa, and I saw a man paralyzed from the waist down climb up a flight of stairs, quite easily, with the aid of an Israeli invention.

And Israel's exceptional creativity is matched by our people's remarkable compassion. When disaster strikes anywhere in the world – in Haiti, Japan, India, Turkey Indonesia and elsewhere – Israeli doctors are among the first on the scene, performing life-saving surgeries.

In the past year, I lost both my father and my father-in-law. In the same hospital wards where they were treated, Israeli doctors were treating Palestinian Arabs. In fact, every year, thousands of Arabs from the Palestinian territories and Arabs from throughout the Middle East come to Israel to be treated in Israeli hospitals by Israeli doctors.

I know you're not going to hear that from speakers around this podium, but that's the truth. It's important that you are aware of this truth.

It’s because Israel cherishes life, that Israel cherishes peace and seeks peace.

We seek to preserve our historic ties and our historic peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. We seek to forge a durable peace with the Palestinians.

President Abbas just spoke here.

I say to him and I say to you: We won't solve our conflict with libelous speeches at the UN. That's not the way to solve it. We won't solve our conflict with unilateral declarations of statehood.

We have to sit together, negotiate together, and reach a mutual compromise, in which a demilitarized Palestinian state recognizes the one and only Jewish State.

Israel wants to see a Middle East of progress and peace. We want to see the three great religions that sprang forth from our region – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – coexist in peace and in mutual respect.

Yet the medieval forces of radical Islam, whom you just saw storming the American embassies throughout the Middle East, they oppose this.

They seek supremacy over all Muslims. They are bent on world conquest. They want to destroy Israel, Europe, America. They want to extinguish freedom. They want to end the modern world.

Militant Islam has many branches – from the rulers of Iran with their Revolutionary Guards to Al Qaeda terrorists to the radical cells lurking in every part of the globe.

But despite their differences, they are all rooted in the same bitter soil of intolerance. That intolerance is directed first at their fellow Muslims, and then to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, secular people, anyone who doesn't submit to their unforgiving creed.

They want to drag humanity back to an age of unquestioning dogma and unrelenting conflict. I am sure of one thing. Ultimately they will fail. Ultimately, light will penetrate the darkness. We've seen that happen before.

Some five hundred years ago, the printing press helped pry a cloistered Europe out of a dark age. Eventually, ignorance gave way to enlightenment. So too, a cloistered Middle East will eventually yield to the irresistible power of freedom and technology. When this happens, our region will be guided not by fanaticism and conspiracy, but by reason and curiosity. I think the relevant question is this: it's not whether this fanaticism will be defeated. It's how many lives will be lost before it's defeated. We've seen that happen before too.

Some 70 years ago, the world saw another fanatic ideology bent on world conquest. It went down in flames. But not before it took millions of people with it. Those who opposed that fanaticism waited too long to act. In the end they triumphed, but at an horrific cost.

My friends, we cannot let that happen again.

At stake is not merely the future of my own country. At stake is the future of the world. Nothing could imperil our common future more than the arming of Iran with nuclear weapons.

To understand what the world would be like with a nuclear-armed Iran, just imagine the world with a nuclear-armed al-Qaida.

It makes no difference whether these lethal weapons are in the hands of the world's most dangerous terrorist regime or the world's most dangerous terrorist organization. They're both fired by the same hatred; they're both driven by the same lust for violence.

Just look at what the Iranian regime has done up till now, without nuclear weapons.

In 2009, they brutally put down mass protests for democracy in their own country. Today, their henchmen are participating in the slaughter of tens of thousands of Syrian civilians, including thousands of children, directly participating in this murder.

They abetted the killing of American soldiers in Iraq and continue to do so in Afghanistan. Before that, Iranian proxies killed hundreds of American troops in Beirut and in Saudi Arabia. They've turned Lebanon and Gaza into terror strongholds, embedding nearly 100,000 missiles and rockets in civilian areas. Thousands of these rockets and missiles have already been fired at Israeli communities by their terrorist proxies.

In the last year, they've spread their international terror networks to two dozen countries across five continents – from India and Thailand to Kenya and Bulgaria. They've even plotted to blow up a restaurant a few blocks from the White House in order to kill a diplomat.

And of course, Iran's rulers repeatedly deny the Holocaust and call for Israel's destruction almost on a daily basis, as they did again this week from the United Nations.

So I ask you, given this record of Iranian aggression without nuclear weapons, just imagine Iranian aggression with nuclear weapons. Imagine their long range missiles tipped with nuclear warheads, their terror networks armed with atomic bombs. Who among you would feel safe in the Middle East? Who would be safe in Europe? Who would be safe in America? Who would be safe anywhere? There are those who believe that a nuclear-armed Iran can be deterred like the Soviet Union.

That's a very dangerous assumption. Militant Jihadists behave very differently from secular Marxists. There were no Soviet suicide bombers. Yet Iran produces hordes of them.

Deterrence worked with the Soviets, because every time the Soviets faced a choice between their ideology and their survival, they chose their survival.

But deterrence may not work with the Iranians once they get nuclear weapons.

There's a great scholar of the Middle East, Prof. Bernard Lewis, who put it best. He said that for the Ayatollahs of Iran, mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent, it's an inducement. Iran's apocalyptic leaders believe that a medieval holy man will reappear in the wake of a devastating Holy War, thereby ensuring that their brand of radical Islam will rule the earth.

That's not just what they believe. That's what is actually guiding their policies and their actions.

Just listen to Ayatollah Rafsanjani who said, I quote: "The use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything, however it would only harm the Islamic world." Rafsanjani said: "It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality." Not irrational… And that's coming from one of the so-called moderates of Iran.

Shockingly, some people have begun to peddle the absurd notion that a nuclear-armed Iran would actually stabilize the Middle East.

Yeah, right… That's like saying a nuclear-armed al-Qaida would usher in an era of universal peace. Ladies and Gentlemen, I've been speaking about the need to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons for over 15 years.

I spoke about it in my first term in office as Prime Minister, and then I spoke about it when I left office. I spoke about it when it was fashionable, and I spoke about it when it wasn't fashionable.

I speak about it now because the hour is getting late, very late. I speak about it now because the Iranian nuclear calendar doesn't take time out for anyone or for anything. I speak about it now because when it comes to the survival of my country, it's not only my right to speak; it's my duty to speak. And I believe that this is the duty of every responsible leader who wants to preserve world peace.

For nearly a decade, the international community has tried to stop the Iranian nuclear program with diplomacy. That hasn't worked.

Iran uses diplomatic negotiations as a means to buy time to advance its nuclear program.

For over seven years, the international community has tried sanctions with Iran. Under the leadership of President Obama, the international community has passed some of the strongest sanctions to date.

I want to thank the governments represented here that have joined in this effort. It's had an effect. Oil exports have been curbed and the Iranian economy has been hit hard. It's had an effect on the economy, but we must face the truth. Sanctions have not stopped Iran's nuclear program either.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, during the last year alone, Iran has doubled the number of centrifuges in its underground nuclear facility in Qom.

At this late hour, there is only one way to peacefully prevent Iran from getting atomic bombs. That's by placing a clear red line on Iran's nuclear weapons program. Red lines don't lead to war; red lines prevent war.

Look at NATO's charter: it made clear that an attack on one member country would be considered an attack on all. NATO's red line helped keep the peace in Europe for nearly half a century.

President Kennedy set a red line during the Cuban Missile Crisis. That red line also prevented war and helped preserve the peace for decades.

In fact, it's the failure to place red lines that has often invited aggression. If the Western powers had drawn clear red lines during the 1930s, I believe they would have stopped Nazi aggression and World War II might have been avoided. In 1990, if Saddam Hussein had been clearly told that his conquest of Kuwait would cross a red line, the first Gulf War might have been avoided.

Clear red lines have also worked with Iran. Earlier this year, Iran threatened to close the Straits of Hormouz. The United States drew a clear red line and Iran backed off. Red lines could be drawn in different parts of Iran's nuclear weapons program. But to be credible, a red line must be drawn first and foremost in one vital part of their program: on Iran's efforts to enrich uranium. Now let me explain why: Basically, any bomb consists of explosive material and a mechanism to ignite it. The simplest example is gunpowder and a fuse. That is, you light the fuse and set off the gunpowder.

In the case of Iran's plans to build a nuclear weapon, the gunpowder is enriched uranium. The fuse is a nuclear detonator. For Iran, amassing enough enriched uranium is far more difficult than producing the nuclear fuse.

For a country like Iran, it takes many, many years to enrich uranium for a bomb. That requires thousands of centrifuges spinning in tandem in very big industrial plants. Those Iranian plants are visible and they're still vulnerable. In contrast, Iran could produce the nuclear detonator – the fuse – in a lot less time, maybe under a year, maybe only a few months. The detonator can be made in a small workshop the size of a classroom. It may be very difficult to find and target that workshop, especially in Iran. That's a country that's bigger than France, Germany, Italy and Britain combined. The same is true for the small facility in which they could assemble a warhead or a nuclear device that could be placed in a container ship. Chances are you won't find that facility either.

So in fact the only way that you can credibly prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, is to prevent Iran from amassing enough enriched uranium for a bomb.

So, how much enriched uranium do you need for a bomb? And how close is Iran to getting it? Let me show you. I brought a diagram for you. Here's the diagram.

************** This is a bomb; this is a fuse.

In the case of Iran's nuclear plans to build a bomb, this bomb has to be filled with enough enriched uranium. And Iran has to go through three stages.

The first stage: they have to enrich enough of low enriched uranium.

The second stage: they have to enrich enough medium enriched uranium.

And the third stage and final stage: they have to enrich enough high enriched uranium for the first bomb.

Where's Iran? Iran's completed the first stage. It took them many years, but they completed it and they're 70% of the way there.

Now they are well into the second stage. By next spring, at most by next summer at current enrichment rates, they will have finished the medium enrichment and move on to the final stage. From there, it's only a few months, possibly a few weeks before they get enough enriched uranium for the first bomb.

***************** Ladies and Gentlemen, What I told you now is not based on secret information. It's not based on military intelligence. It's based on public reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Anybody can read them. They're online.

So if these are the facts, and they are, where should the red line be drawn? The red line should be drawn right here…………..

Before Iran completes the second stage of nuclear enrichment necessary to make a bomb. Before Iran gets to a point where it's a few months away or a few weeks away from amassing enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon. Each day, that point is getting closer. That's why I speak today with such a sense of urgency. And that's why everyone should have a sense of urgency.

Some who claim that even if Iran completes the enrichment process, even if it crosses that red line that I just drew, our intelligence agencies will know when and where Iran will make the fuse, assemble the bomb, and prepare the warhead. Look, no one appreciates our intelligence agencies more than the Prime Minister of Israel. All these leading intelligence agencies are superb, including ours. They've foiled many attacks. They've saved many lives.

But they are not foolproof.

For over two years, our intelligence agencies didn't know that Iran was building a huge nuclear enrichment plant under a mountain.

Do we want to risk the security of the world on the assumption that we would find in time a small workshop in a country half the size of Europe? Ladies and Gentlemen, The relevant question is not when Iran will get the bomb. The relevant question is at what stage can we no longer stop Iran from getting the bomb.

The red line must be drawn on Iran's nuclear enrichment program because these enrichment facilities are the only nuclear installations that we can definitely see and credibly target.

I believe that faced with a clear red line, Iran will back down.

This will give more time for sanctions and diplomacy to convince Iran to dismantle its nuclear weapons program altogether.

Two days ago, from this podium, President Obama reiterated that the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran cannot be contained. I very much appreciate the President's position as does everyone in my country. We share the goal of stopping Iran's nuclear weapons program. This goal unites the people of Israel. It unites Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike and it is shared by important leaders throughout the world.

What I have said today will help ensure that this common goal is achieved. Israel is in discussions with the United States over this issue, and I am confident that we can chart a path forward together. Ladies and Gentlemen, The clash between modernity and medievalism need not be a clash between progress and tradition.

The traditions of the Jewish people go back thousands of years. They are the source of our collective values and the foundation of our national strength.

At the same time, the Jewish people have always looked towards the future. Throughout history, we have been at the forefront of efforts to expand liberty, promote equality, and advance human rights.

We champion these principles not despite of our traditions but because of them.

We heed the words of the Jewish prophets Isaiah, Amos, and Jeremiah to treat all with dignity and compassion, to pursue justice and cherish life and to pray and strive for peace.

These are the timeless values of my people and these are the Jewish people's greatest gift to mankind. Let us commit ourselves today to defend these values so that we can defend our freedom and protect our common civilization.

Thank you.

U.S. Delegation to the U.N. Boycotts Ahmadinejad Speech, Thousands of Joe Q. Americans Protest the Iranian Madman Outside the U.N.

A good day for America today as finally, our U.N. delegation didn't even give Ahmadinejad of Iran the courtesy of showing up for his speech full of hate - the U.S. delegation did not even show up for the speech.  Good for them.

And also, America's real patriots...the men and women on the streets of this country showed up outside the U.N. to protest this bag of shit who stained our soil by coming here.  Good for them, too.  I really wish I could have been there.

From the article at The Telegraph:

In his address, Mr Ahmadinejad criticised the US over the manner of Osama bin Laden's killing and questioned the motives of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in wishing to be president. He described Israel, whose delegates were absent because it was the Yom Kippur holy day, as "uncivilised Zionists".

Mr Ahmadinejad's offensive language in UN addresses has prompted Western diplomats to walk out in past years. But yesterday the US announced beforehand that its delegates would not attend. The UN building in New York was the target of a large crowd of protesters condemning Iran's threats against Israel, days after Mr Ahmadinejad expressed his hopes that the country would be "eliminated".

Britain sent three officials to the speech. They had been instructed to walk out if he said anything offensive. David Cameron and William Hague were both in New York, but neither the Prime Minister nor the Foreign Secretary attended.

Good for those protesters - I hope that Ahmadinejad and his band of monkeys got the message that your hate for Israel won't be tolerated in this country and your security better be high on the way back to the airport.

US boycotts Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speech at UN

In his address, Mr Ahmadinejad criticised the US over the manner of Osama bin Laden's killing and questioned the motives of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in wishing to be president. He described Israel, whose delegates were absent because it was the Yom Kippur holy day, as "uncivilised Zionists".

Mr Ahmadinejad's offensive language in UN addresses has prompted Western diplomats to walk out in past years. But yesterday the US announced beforehand that its delegates would not attend. The UN building in New York was the target of a large crowd of protesters condemning Iran's threats against Israel, days after Mr Ahmadinejad expressed his hopes that the country would be "eliminated".

Britain sent three officials to the speech. They had been instructed to walk out if he said anything offensive. David Cameron and William Hague were both in New York, but neither the Prime Minister nor the Foreign Secretary attended.

Mr Ahmadinejad called September 11 a "tragic incident" but suggested that an "independent fact-finding team" should have prepared the world for the perpetrators to be brought to justice "instead of killing and throwing the culprit into the sea without trial".

In an apparent swipe at the US presidential elections, he suggested that those who ran lavish campaigns were beholden to the people who funded them.

Earlier this week Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, hinted that his country was prepared to take pre-emptive action against Iran over its nuclear programme. The Iranian president spoke of the "continued threat by the uncivilised Zionists to resort to military action against our great nation".

Why Is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Being Allowed Back In New York City?

From Family Security Matters.

Where Should Ahmadinejad Bunk Down in New York?


Plaudits to the watchdog group United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), which is again tackling the mission of persuading New York City hotels to spurn Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his entourage when they come to Manhattan for the late-September opening of the United Nations General Assembly. This will be Ahmadinejad's eighth consecutive year of attending the UN's annual opening, and in years past UANI has led campaigns to drive him out of the Intercontinental and the Hilton Manhattan East, and is now calling on the Warwick Hotel - which hosted him last year - to give him the cold shoulder. In a Thursday press release, UANI congratulates an array of other hotels for refusing to provide rooms to the smirking face of Iran's terror-based regime.

All of which is gratifying, but presents an intriguing question - since it looks quite likely that even if Manhattan hoteliers take a principled stand for U.S. interests, the UN and the U.S. State Department will do no such thing. They will almost certainly insist that regardless of Tehran's baggage of terror plots, genocidal threats, domestic repression, illicit nuclear activities, and U.S. and UN sanctions, Ahmadinejad will yet again be accorded the full array of privileges and immunities that the UN is pleased to bestow on all its member tyrants. Ahmadinejad and his retinue will be permitted entry to the U.S., ushered into Manhattan, and provided with top-notch security, courtesy of the same U.S. taxpayers whose country and way of life he would like to destroy.

But the question. If New York hotels won't host Ahmadinejad, then where should he stay?

Maybe he can pitch a tent in Central Park? Fuggedaboutit. The late Moammar Gaddafi made a bid for that when he came to the UN's annual opening in 2009, the year Libya's man presided over the UN General Assembly. New York City said no. So did New Jersey.

There are plenty of other possibilities, of course. Perhaps Ahmadinejad could offer to deliver another lecture at Columbia University, in exchange for access to visiting faculty housing. Or, on a more pedestrian note, he could simply bunk down in the quarters of Iran's ambassador to the UN, and cram his retinue into the broom closets. One can come up with all sorts of ideas.

But I have my own preferred solution. It's obvious. By now, it would be entirely fitting for Ahmadinejad to bunk down in New York as the house guest of none other than Ban Ki-moon, the secretary-general of the UN.

For Ban to refuse Ahmadinejad such a favor would be nothing short of churlish. After all, Ban is about to avail himself of the Iranian regime's hospitality later this very month, when he travels Tehran to to attend the 16th summit of the Non-Aligned Movement. For reasons having no discernible connection to experience, reality, or even sanity, the UN secretary-general has apparently decided that if he can just spend a few days rubbing elbows with Iran's terror-masters, he can talk them into good behavior.

Ban is wrong - even more wrong than when he went to Libya in 2010 to attend an Arab League summit hosted by the late Gaddafi, with whom Ban was photographed whooping it up at a banquet. But if Ban really believes his own bunkum about needing some quality time with the ayatollahs, then let's see him follow through, and offer Ahmadinejad some down-home hospitality in New York. That should leave plenty of time for edifying chat at the end of a long day's propagandizing in Manhattan.

Courtesy of the good old United States, Ban certainly has the digs to accommodate Ahmadinejad's yen for plush rooms in Manhattan. Ban lives in the multi-million dollar Sutton Place Georgian town house that has served for decades as the official residence of the UN secretary-general. This 14,000 square-foot luxury dwelling is just up the road from the UN's midtown Manhattan headquarters. It's a lovely stroll on crisp autumn days, or at least a convenient strip for motorcades to race back and forth, protected by barricades and security officers from the gridlock that plagues the lesser folk of Manhattan during UN high-level events.

Surely Ban would be generous enough to share with Ahmadinejad for a few days the fruits of the relatively recent $4.9 million renovation of this spacious UN residence - the largest share of that tab paid, as usual, by U.S. taxpayers. Improvements, as reported at the time in the Washington Post, included "a new $2.1 million central heating and air-conditioning system, and a $200,000 kitchen upgrade" (at least those were the preliminary estimates; let us not be shocked should it turn out the real cost ran higher). Should Ahmadinejad wish to straighten his lounge suit before heading out into the streets of the Great Satan, Ban's residence reportedly boasts two small bathrooms in the entryway alone. We know that because it reportedly cost $100,000 to renovate them.

Yes, I know. Morally, this proposal is disgusting. Politically, it is outrageous. And surely the vision of Ahmadinejad during his next New York trip availing himself of the lavish comforts of Ban Ki-moon's UN residence, while dignified with special access to the secretary-general himself, is hardly in keeping with the UN's founding promises to promote peace, prosperity, and human dignity.

But as shorthand for the current relationship between Iran and the UN secretary-general, Sutton Place seems just the ticket. So, my vote is for Ban Ki-moon to return Iran's gracious hospitality, and open up his spare bedrooms, armchairs, and $200,000-upgraded kitchen to the UN's guests from Tehran. Would it really be all that different from what's going on anyway?

What a Joke - United Nations Observer Convoy In Syria Gets Attacked

The United Nations continues to be the joke of the planet as over the weekend, it has come out that the convoy of the general who is overseeing the observation teams of the U.N. in Syria was attacked by militants who sprayed the convoy with small arms fire.

So, let's get this straight - the U.N. observation teams are in Syria to verify if there is any violence going on and now every vehicle they had in their convoy has gaping holes in it from AK-47's....do you suppose they had to file a report or just attach a JPEG to the email they sent to U.N. headquarters?   What do you suppose the subject line of the email was....something like ..."Tell me what you think...is there violence going on here?"

Like I said.  What a joke.

The report is from The Jerusalem Post.

Ban: UN mission chief's convoy attacked in Syria


UNITED NATIONS - The convoy of Lieutenant General Babacar Gaye, head of the UN observer mission in Syria, was attacked over the weekend and only the vehicles' armor prevented injuries, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Monday.

"Yesterday the convoy of General Gaye was attacked by armed attacks," Ban told reporters in New York, according to a transcript of his remarks issued by the UN press office. "Fortunately there were no injuries."

He gave no further details about the attack, though UN officials said on condition of anonymity that the convoy of five vehicles was hit with small arms fire in Talibisa, some 17 km from Homs. The officials said it was an opposition-held area.

Ban said that more than a dozen UN armored vehicles have been attacked and destroyed since the mission began deploying in Syria over three months ago.

"It's quite fortunate that nobody got injured by these attacks," Ban said. "It was only because of these armored vehicles which protected our mission."

Although the mission suspended most of its monitoring work last month due to the increasing violence in the 16-month conflict, it continues to carry out limited activities. The mission's 90-day mandate was renewed on July 20 for 30 days.

Ban said that he convened a crisis meeting of senior UN officials on Syria on Monday, adding that the group would continue to meet regularly to discuss the conflict.

The UN chief also reiterated his calls for both the government and opposition forces to stop fighting. He repeated his previous demand that the Syrian government pledge not to use chemical weapons under any circumstances.

He was responding to reports that Syria said it would only use chemical weapons if it was attacked by foreign powers.

Once Again We See the Farce Of Sanctions As Iran Imported Weapons Galore the Past Three Years

Is there a human being on Earth that believes the U.N. can be effective at anything?  When the Iranian government went down its path of nuclear development, and several nations objected ...well, the U.N. and independent Western countries decided that the answer was to just slap sanctions on the mullahs - you know, make em "pay" for being bad boys.  Well, the proof is out that the sanctions against weaponry and such failed miserably as the Iranians (and other countries) got all of their missiles and rockets and munitions without a lick of problems.  Once again the U.N. scores a big fat zero.  Let's see....kinda like the old "Oil for Food" idea, right?

The story comes from The Telegraph.

Iran 'imported over £350 million of weapons in three years'


In all, 10 countries subjected to arms embargoes still managed to buy weaponry worth over £1.4 billion between 2000 and 2010.

Their success in tapping the international arms market showed the ineffectiveness of current restrictions, said Anna MacDonald, the Control Arms campaigns manager for Oxfam. She added: "If you are an unscrupulous government, it's quite easy to find your way around them."

The UN Security Council urged all member states to "exercise vigilance and restraint" in the supply of arms to Iran from 2007 onwards. But data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute suggests the country's rulers went on to buy weaponry worth £350 million by 2010.

Russia and China, who prevented the UN from imposing a comprehensive embargo, are understood to have been the principal suppliers.

Azerbaijan, which will host the Eurovision song contest later this month, is subjected to an arms embargo by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, an association of 56 states. Nonetheless, the country imported arms worth over £450 million between 2000 and 2010, making it the biggest purchaser of weaponry by any nation under embargo.

"One of the reasons why embargoes don't work is there are no global rules on the conventional arms trade," said Ms MacDonald. Individual countries are free either to restrict their exports or sell weapons to any buyer – and the figures demonstrate that even governments subjected to embargoes are skilled at evading them.

Campaigners say the solution would be a global treaty regulating the trade in conventional weapons. Britain already forbids any exports that could be used for "internal repression" or "external aggression". A new treaty could take those restrictions and make them global.

The UN will hold a conference to discuss the issue in July. However, countries like Russia and China benefit greatly from arms exports. They are highly unlikely to accept any international rules that would restrict this trade.

Good For Israel As they Sever All Ties With the U.N. Human Rights Council

First off, there isn't a more corrupt and worthless body of people in the entire world than the United Nations Human Rights Council - these pieces of shit have been the type to criticize and try to censor Israel for decades now while they blatantly endorse the likes of China, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Well, today Israel had enough of the charade and told the Human Rights Council to kiss off and for that, Israel gets a standing ovation.

As far as I'm concerned, Israel should tell the U.N. to fuck off altogether and withdraw its membership in the Hall of Clowns.

In my view, the United Nations has become an offshoot of Jihad Incorporated and quite frankly, the charter of the United Nations might as well be rewritten to read as the charter of the Muslim World Caliphate. At some point in time, every single Western nation ought to follow Israel's lead here and sever ties with at least the Human Rights Council - by the way, this is the same gang that has its eyes on your guns, Mr. and Mrs. American.

The story comes from The Telegraph.

Israel breaks off ties with 'biased' UN Human Rights Council


Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, said the council "should be ashamed of itself" after its member states voted by 36 to one to appoint a mission to assess the impact of settlements on the Palestinian population. Only the United States voted against the resolution.

Although Israel is not a member of the council, officials in Jerusalem said that the country's ambassador to the body had been instructed not to answer the telephone if any of its officials rang. He has also been told not to attend any of its meetings.

Underlining the scale of its anger, Mr Netanyahu's government pledged not to cooperate with the mission and said its members would be denied permission to enter Israel or the West Bank.

The UN council has faced a torrent of criticism in recent weeks, with Russia and the Syrian government also accusing it of bias for resolutions condemning the Assad regime of human rights abuses in Syria.

Israel's criticisms go further, with officials in Mr Netanyahu's government saying that it has passed more than 30 resolutions aimed at the Jewish state in recent years.

Mr Netanyahu's cabinet is also considering imposing stiff financial penalties on the Palestinian Authority after accusing its president, Mahmoud Abbas, of being behind the council's latest decision.

Avigdor Lieberman, the Israeli foreign minister, drew a comparison between the move and the killing of Jewish school children in Toulouse last week by a gunman who said he was motivated by the plight of the Palestinians.

"We are dealing with al-Qaeda terror on the one hand and diplomatic terror by Abu Mazen on the other," he said, referring to Mr Abbas by his alternative name.

For Israel, the issue of settlements is a particularly sensitive one after it was accused of reneging on pledges it made during peace talks to freeze Jewish construction on territory occupied by the Israeli army in the Six Day War of 1967.

The Palestinian Authority says the expansion of the settlements, considered illegal under international law, undermines the prospect of there ever being a viable Palestinian state.

* Israel yesterday confirmed that Mohammed Merah, the gunman behind the killings in Toulouse, had spent three days in the country in 2010 but said it could not confirm French claims that he had been detained at the time for carrying a knife.

Hell Has Frozen Over!

 

It was bound to happen eventually, even with the warm weather in the United States, but Hell has frozen over.  In fact, the whole world is in shock over it.  What could happen to bring about a freeze in such a hot spot?  Why the United Nations condemned Iran for attacks on Israeli diplomats.

Yes condemned Iran not Israel.

The United Nations Security Council condemned "in the strongest terms" the terrorist attack against Israeli diplomats in New Delhi, India and the attempted attack in Georgia's capital Tbilisi.

The UN resolution stated that terrorism poses "one of the most serious threats to peace and security," and said that terrorist acts are "criminal and unjustifiable."

Israel Ambassador to the UN Ron Prosor welcomed the Security Council resolution, saying it was the first time the UNSC condemned a terror attack against Israelis since 2005.

Prosor declared that the UN's "breaking the silence echoes around the world." He said the international body's resolution would bring solace to the wounded from the attack in New Delhi.

An Israeli diplomat's wife, Tal Yehoshua-Koren, was wounded along with her Indian driver, Manoj Sharma, in New Delhi near the Israeli embassy when a sticky bomb was planted on their vehicle, exploding and sending shrapnel flying. At the same time, in Tbilisi, an embassy employee noticed a bomb on his vehicle while he was driving and informed the local authorties, which sent sappers to defuse the explosive device. No one was injured in that attack.

The UN condemnation came after Prosor sent a letter to both the Security Council and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, requesting that a strong and clear message be transmitted to Iran, who he said, is directly responsible for the actions. Prosor also mentioned a botched bombing in Thailand that occurred a day after the two attacks in India and Georgia, which Thai defense officials said was meant to target Israeli officials.

Iran has denied any involvement in each case, with some officials in Tehran insisting that Israel attacked its own diplomatic personnel in order to engage in "psychological warfare" with Iran.

Iran announced earlier this week it would participate with Thailand to investigate the explosion in Bangkok. Tehran has not offered to comply with the investigations in India or Georgia.

Source

It has been 7 years since the United Nations didn't condemn Israel for attacks upon Israelis (and anyone else).  In fact Lucifer himself was seen fainting when the vote on this was announced.  He is renewing his effort to destroy Israel as part of his program of world domination.

Meanwhile the world has scrambled to write notices of condemnation not of Israel, but of Iran.  And all this while they are scratching their hands.

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

Why Did Russia and China Veto the U.N. Resolution On Syria? One Word....Obama

Once again we see just how failed the foreign policy has been of Barack Hussein Obama and this story from Family Security Matters highlights that all in bold as it discusses the fact that the major powers of the world no longer have any trust, respect or belief in a United States under the helm of one Barack Hussein Obama.

Hopefully, in the 2012 Presidential campaign, the light of day will be shone on this bumbling President of ours for his stumbling and haphazard approach to dealing with the world and its problems. Hopefully, the conservative candidate will be quick to point out Obama's foreign policy has the consistency of oil and water... that there has NEVER been any rhyme or reason to it but is literally driven by who has the President's ear at that given time.

A UN Farce in Syria


If anyone is to blame for Russia and China's vetoing of the Syria resolution in the UN Security Council, it's Barack Obama. Last year the United States and the Arab League brought forward a No Fly Zone to the UN Security Council. Instead of enforcing a No Fly Zone, Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy instead used it as an excuse for an invasion and regime change. If Russia and China refused to take another plan from the same suspects at face value, the blame lies with an administration that abused a No Fly Zone.
The message from Russia and China is fairly clear. Fool me once, shame on you. But don't even think about trying it twice.

A closer look at the whole process reveals the ridiculousness of it. The Security Council Resolution calling for peaceful democratic change was co-sponsored by Saudi Arabia, which is an absolute monarchy, and which recently used tanks to suppress protests in Bahrain. As the driving force behind the Arab League, Saudi Arabia was the key player in moving for regime change in Libya. Now it has rubber stamped regime change in Syria.

But why are we expected to take a call by one tyranny for the overthrow of another as a moral duty. As bad as the Assad regime is, Syria is marginally more open and democratic than Saudi Arabia is. And unlike Saudi Arabia, it isn't an Apartheid state that treats non-Muslims and women like dirt. If we were going to implement regime change on the basis of democracy and human rights, we would start with the Saudis.

Of the Muslim co-sponsors of the UN Resolution, virtually all of them have suppressed opposition movements and imprisoned political dissidents. Bahrain is another co-sponsor of the resolution and the only difference between it and Syria, is that Bahrain is a Sunni minority ruling over a Shiite minority, while in Syria it's the other way around. Kuwait ethnically cleansed the Palestinians back in the nineties. Turkey is still conducting an occupation and murdering Kurdish civilians. Libya doesn't have an actual elected government, but it's still somehow sponsoring UN resolutions for regime change in another country.

Of the nine Muslim co-sponsors that have actual governments... eight are monarchies. Most are even absolute monarchies. The only quasi-democracy on the list is Turkey which has prisons filled with dissidents, persecutes minorities and continues to deny its genocidal actions. Not to mention its violation of UN resolutions on Cyprus.

Muslim absolute monarchies are calling for implementing democratic change in Syria. Did monarchies which torture and execute dissenters expected anyone to believe that they were concerned because the Assad family was killing opponents of the regime? Two of the co-sponsors had been doing the same thing last year. One of the co-sponsors is busy torturing former members of its regime right now.

The UN Resolution was based around the Plan of Action of the League of Arab States based on an observer mission to Syria headed by General Mohammed Ahmed Mustafa al-Dabi. Al-Dabi headed up the Sudanese genocide, he is the pet thug of Sudan's indicted war criminal leader, Omar al-Bashir and helped create the Janjaweed rape squads.

Obama has been on the record opposing any military intervention in Sudan, despite the fact that an actual genocide did take place there. But now we are being led by the Gulf Cooperation Council members into another regime change plan. The loudest voice calling for military intervention is Sheikh Hamad Al-Thani, the fat smirking thug running Qatar.

Another of the Al-Thani clan, who serves as foreign minister, said, "We ask that the Syrian regime leave and hand over power. We are with the Syrian people, with their will and with their aspirations." The Al-Thanis, who rule in an absolute monarchy, are the last people to be cheering on the aspirations of the people. The Al-Thanis can't see the people from their palaces.

And who are the Syrian people anyway? Is it the Sunnis or the Alawites or the Christians? This isn't a civil war between a dictator and his people, no matter how often the media and foreign policy experts will repeat the lie, it's a religious conflict between a ruling Shiite splinter sect and Sunnis backed by Turkey and Arabian Gulf monarchies.
For all the talk of replacing Assad with an inclusive system based on elections, this will mean majority rule and the disenfranchisement of non-Sunnis, non-Muslims and women at the hands of the rebels handpicked by Turkish ruling Islamist party and the Emir of Qatar. Egypt's democracy led to an Islamist parliament. There is no reason to expect a Syrian election not to lead to the same thing.

Sheikh Hamad Al-Thani has already called for an invasion of Syria. Qatari special forces were the first on the ground in Libya, But as the usual the West will have to do the heavy lifting. Does the United States have an interest in removing Assad? It does, considering that Assad is an Iranian puppet and he helped kill quite a few Americans in Iraq. But removing Assad to replace him with the local Muslim Brotherhood leaders doesn't benefit anyone except the Brotherhood and its backers.

If Russia and China re reluctant to get fooled a second time, so are Americans who were never fooled a first time. The Libyan War was one of the most unpopular on record, and that was before the aftermath melted down into torture cells and Al-Qaeda flags. With the examples of Libya and Egypt before us, who's really up for a Syrian War besides the Saudis and the Emir of Qatar?

France's Sarkozy is tediously eager to crack the Gallic whip over another former colony, and he's dim witted enough to think that it will be French diplomats calling the shots, rather than officials from neighboring countries who actually have the contacts and the inside track, and who were backing regime change while Sarkozy was busy with Libya..

The UK's Cameron has dismantled chunks of the fleet and air force, but is still raring for another round of fighting. Selling spartan cuts to his own people, while fighting a new war every year would seem to be at odds with policy and elementary mathematics, but at least it's likely to create new jobs in the British defense industry if a new Syrian government begins ordering their equipment from the West instead of the East. But stimulating your defense industry by starting new wars every year is not sound economic stewardship.

Considering the amount of Russian arms sales to Syria, Moscow is protecting its own defense industry, if nothing else. But it's also protecting its access point to the Middle East. Russia has a naval base in Syria and Russia's aircraft carrier recently paid a visit to Tartus as a show of support for Assad.

But what did the Russian veto really come down to? The Russians attempted to introduce amendments calling for the Syrian opposition to disassociate itself from any armed attacks and blaming it for some of the violence. Had the NATO countries been willing to sign on, then the Russians would no longer have had an excuse for a veto. But rather than go that route, Rice bluffed the Russians, rejected the amendments and got shot down.

That can mean a number of different things. Either Rice really didn't care if the resolution passed. Bringing the resolution forward and letting the Russians shoot it down will score points with the rebels if they do win, and destroy the Russian connection. That's not an implausible scenario since Obama might not be racing to war as fast as Sarkozy might want him to. And if war becomes necessary then the same coalition which exploited a No Fly Zone for regime change will find another way to get it done. It's not as if anyone is going to hold them accountable.
But it's also an admission that the only purpose of all this is regime change. Placing blame on the rebels will challenge the absolute legitimacy required to topple Assad on their behalf. Russia knew that the backers of regime change could not accept a resolution that undermined the legitimacy of the rebels. Especially a resolution that would not have been the endgame, but the lead in to another one of the same.

This isn't the end of the push for regime change in Syria. Germany's UN Ambassador has been discussing how to move forward. And while the Assad regime is completely unsympathetic, its enemies are equally so. Absolute monarchies have no legitimacy when calling for democratic change and an administration whose head honcho built his rep on opposing military intervention is now swaggering around with one war under his belt and a second one behind his back.

The free world has no friends in Syria. None likely to take power anyway. And it has nothing at stake in a Sunni-Alawite civil war that will end with Syria as a puppet of Iran or a puppet of Saudi Arabia.