Forum: Should The U.S. Leave The UN?

Tags

UN, United Nations, USA

Every Monday, the WoW! community and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week’s question:Should The U.S. Leave The UN?

James Kirwan: Good question. I believe the US should leave the organization and turn the building into rent-controlled apartments on Turtle Bay to help alleviate the dearth of affordable apartments in NYC. I’d love to see the General Assembly turned into a food court: they could even keep the flags if they add Panda Express and Taco Bell.

The truth is the current administration could simply walk out of the organization. Nikki Haley would resign her position and the President and Secretary of State would refuse to submit her replacement. Since the position is appointment, there is nothing Congress could do about it.

If Congress wanted to support the move, it could defund the organization by submitting and approving legislation to the President to do that. During both Bush administrations the USA withheld dues to the organization, but succeeding presidents Clinton and Obama reversed those moves.

Such moves would be temporary. The next Democratic administration could simply return to the organization by paying the dues and appointing a UN Permanent Representative.

Permanently leaving the UN would be a major change in diplomatic policy, and major changes are difficult to get done in a huge, bureaucratic organization with checks and balances built in. There would be significant bureaucratic resistance to doing so, with every step likely fought in the courts. It would take years and require like-minded Democrats – something that I don’t see happening without a major screw up by the UN. And an organization that promotes anti-Semitism, protects child rapists, and is incapable of protecting villages from genocide or the world from a nuclear North Korea proves it has staying power after some pretty serious screw ups.

But the truth is that the UN has little clout and with each scandal it loses more. Perhaps the best solution from the perspective of those of us who want the USA to leave the UN is to ignore it and allow the organization to sink into complete irrelevance through its own mistakes.

Doug Hagin:WE should leave post haste frankly. The UN (Useless nations, as I call it) is a nest of miscreant nations which always seem to favor dictators and terrorists while bad mouthing the western nations. Especially the US and Israel.

Rob Miller: Why now? Why not 30 years ago?

The UN was a good idea on its face after WWII. Unfortunately, FDR, the first world leader to recognize the Soviet Union insisted that ‘Uncle’ Joe Stalin have a major seat at the table and a veto. President Truman had a whole host of Soviet sympathizers and outright spies like Alger Hiss advising him that he inherited from FDR’s administration. So he likewise compounded this grave error, even giving Soviet satellites who were basically colonies of the USSR their own seats and votes. Big mistake…totalitarian dictatorships never play well with democracies. That of course opened the door for all sorts of dictatorships and failed states to destroy the original premise like termites while milking western democracies for all kinds of cash.

The UN Human Rights Commission(UNHRC) was always one of the laughable misnomers ever. It was constantly dominated by some of the most despotic countries in history, and it’s main objective, really, was demonizing Israel which made it a great group to be part of as far as Barack Hussein Obama was concerned.

A year year after it was established, in 2007, the UNHRC passed what they called Permanent Agenda Item 7. What it did was to establish a separate standard for judging anything Israel did. It provided a platform to automatically ‘investigate’ Israel and condemn it for just about anything it did to defend itself, while taking for granted any Palestinian libel against Israel.

In other words, special standards for Jews and Israel and a different one for say, Iran, Venezuela or Pakistan. There’s a word for that.

To show you how this worked in practice, out of 135 resolutions the UNHRC passed, 68 of them condemned Israel for ‘human rights violations.’ By contrast, Iran was mentioned just six times.

UN organizations like UNESCO and UNWRA operate on similar levels. They’re all simply just money pits for the U.S. taxpayer.

We get nothing out of it, and nothing of any value whatsoever is accomplished based on the UN’s original goals. There’s no reason for America to stay in the UN.

Laura Rambeau Lee: With a total of 193 member nations, the United States is assessed 22% of the United Nations regular budget and 28% of its peace keeping budget, which they calculate as our “fair share” contribution to this organization. This translates to over eight billion dollars annually our government is taking of our hard earned tax money which is being turned over to be redistributed to other member nations as they see fit. The United Nations is at the forefront of the climate change hoax, which is a scheme to redistribute wealth from developed to developing countries. Even more insidious is the impact the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has on our educational system. What started out as the International Baccalaureate programme, a high school charter school, now has programs beginning in elementary school and continues through middle and high school. The agenda has been to promote cultural diversity and indoctrinating our youth to believe they are citizens of a global community. This is pure Marxist and collectivist ideology and it is being inserted into much of the curriculum to which our children are being exposed. We should absolutely pull ourselves and our money out of the United Nations and get the United Nations out of the United States.

Well, there it is!

Make sure to drop by every Monday for the WoW! Magazine Forum. And enjoy WoW! Magazine 24-7 with some of the best stuff written in the ‘net. Take from me, you won’t want to miss it.

As Obama Plots Israel’s Demise, Netanyahu Seeks Alliance w/Trump, Congress

Tags

Barack Obama, Benjamin Netanyahu, France, John Kerry, Resolution 2334, Trump transition 2017, UN

by antifluor-Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

After Barack Obama collaborated last week with fellow anti-Semites in the United Nations on the 14-0 vote of anti-Israeli Resolution 2334, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s Prime Minister does not intend to wait for the next shoe to drop.

Expecting more acts of trickery from the Muslim-in-chief and his pit of rattlesnakes at the UN before Obama leaves office in 20 days, the Israeli prime minister is seeking help from the incoming administration and the 115^th Congress to thwart future attacks by Obama to further pro-Islamic mandates through the UN Security Council that while harmful to Israel would fortify a Palestinian state.

According to the Times of Israel:

His aim is for the Trump team to make plain that his administration will “economically hurt” those countries that voted against Israel in the UN and that do so in the future.

Netanyahu’s fear is that Secretary of State John Kerry will set out principles or parameters for a Palestinian state in a speech that he has said he will deliver in the next few days on his Middle East vision. The prime minister fears that, in its final days, the Obama administration will seek to have a resolution enshrining those parameters adopted by the UN Security Council, the report said….

Continue Reading

Speaking of the lame duck, Secretary of State, John Kerry has moved up the date of expected his intended speech on a Palestinian State to Wednesday morning no doubt a move intended to thwart efforts by the incoming Trump administration to act on Israel’s behalf while at the same time pushing back against Netanyahu.

Per Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and as is being reported by the Obama-sanctioned propaganda machine, Kerry “will deliver a speech Wednesday on the Obama administration’s vision for Middle East peace.”

Since Progressives ALWAYS intend to act on the opposite of whatever comes out of their mouths [and as] proven by eight years of Obama’s lies, “vision for Middle East peace” is double speak for war against the state of Israel.

In defiance of Obama’s betrayal and the resolution banning Israel from building settlements in lands claimed by the Palestinians, Israel undaunted has no plans to stop building settlements in East Jerusalem.

The only person who has visited the White House over the past eight years that Obama has treated worse than Prime Minister Netanyahu is the Dalai Lama who at the end of his visit was directed toward the rear exit of the White House where the Dalai Lama walked past mounds of trash.

There is much going on behind the scenes as Obama and minions continue to deny their role in the orchestration and vote of Resolution 2334 but we know better and yes, Israel knows better.  The Israeli government says that it has proof that the U. S. government lobbied behind the scenes for the passage of the anti-Israeli-UN resolution, proof of which the Obama administration will not be made privy.  Instead, Netanyahu will share said proof with president-elect Trump’s transition team.

As reported by Eli Lake of Hamodia,

…He has not made this public, but Israeli officials tell me it is based in part on what many Arab envoys told Israeli diplomats in private.

We also know, because it has been publicly reported, that Secretary of State John Kerry spoke about this resolution last month with his counterpart in New Zealand, whose envoy introduced the resolution. As Liel Liebowitz pointed out this week in Tablet, this is particularly rich given New Zealand’s own unsavory history of driving natives off of their land….

Read full article

Then as mentioned above, there is the government sanctioned propaganda machine spinning the betrayal of Israel as a peace effort in the Middle East.  (You can’t make this stuff up.)

Case in point, The Guardian’s article entitled, “White House races to save Middle East peace process before Trump takes office.” Starting with the title, the article is deceptive.

John Kerry to underline outgoing president’s support of two-state solution with speech setting out US vision of Israel-Palestine agreement…

“Israel-Palestine agreement?”  What agreement?  Both parties must concur for there to be an agreement.

John Kerry is due to lay out a US framework for an Palestinian-Israeli agreement as the Obama administration and its international allies scramble to protect what is left of the peace process before Donald Trump takes office….

There is no “peace process” either but there is the insinuation, correction “fake news” that once in office president-elect Trump will turn on its head the “peace process” (that does not exist) put into place by Barack Obama.

More lies, illusions and maneuverings behind the scenes by the UK, one of the parties, who likely unbeknownst to Israel acted as proxy for the US formulating the text of Resolution 2334 “so it would meet the American threshold and so it could be passed without a veto,’ one of the Western diplomats said” to assure its passage (see:  Feverish Behind-the-Scenes Maneuvering Before U.N. Vote).

John Kerry, Susan Rice, Samantha Power and Barack Obama will spend the next few weeks doing everything to further deteriorate the relationship between Israel and the world.

This past Monday, Avigdor Lieberman, Israeli Prime Minister urged French Jews to leave France in protest of next month’s conference in which representatives from 70 nations will converge upon France for a conference slated to re-start Israeli-Palestinian “peace efforts.”

Lieberman who said that the conference (and I agree) is “a tribunal against the state of Israel,” is urging French Jews to move to Israel.

France 24

…’A conference whose whole point is to harm the security of Israel, its good name — a trial against Israel…It’s a Dreyfus trial in a modern version, what they’re preparing there in Paris for January 15, with one difference. Instead of one Jew being on trial, it will be the entire Jewish people and the state of Israel….’

Continue Reading

If you can believe it, France has dubbed the event a Middle East Peace Conference and John Kerry who five days after the conference will be out of a job will be in attendance.

Why the conference? Why January 15^th? Why can’t it wait until after the presidential inauguration and why is John Kerry attending?

Something stinks.

[One more thing, how on earth is France holding a Middle East Peace Conference when their citizens are being raped, maimed, mutilated and slaughtered by Muslim invaders from the middle east?  How does THAT work?]

On Sept 30, 2016 our internet will be transferred. Unless you say No.

Tags

control of the internet, data privacy, Globalization, ICANN, ICANN Internet Globalization Agenda, ICANNs Governmental Advisory Committee, internet censorship, Internet Commerce Association ICANN, internet transfer, UN, UNESCO, United Nations, World Wide Web

Missouri Education Watchdog by Cheri Kiesecker

ith so much media attention drawn to other events, you may not know that on Sept. 30, 2016 the United States is set to hand over control of US internet to global authority.  It’s complicated. There are reasons to not privatize the internet, not allow global control; yet there are reasons to remove the US stronghold of the internet after revelations of abuse and US surveillance.   However, because the general public has not sufficiently been informed, because there appear to be back room deals and because the internet is SO important economically, socially, globally, in every sector, we think this transfer of US internet control should not happen quietly and should not happen during an election year when the public is not aware, not fully apprised of its impact. Importantly, there is no guarantee of internet freedom of speech, privacy and security written into this transfer.

The transfer of internet rights is not to be taken lightly

Imagine an internet where you cannot access certain sites, such as news sites or Twitter, Google, or DNCLeaks or Facebook. Imagine instead, an internet that could be censored, like currently is the situation in China or Russia or Iran.  Why would the US transfer the oversight of our internet to countries outside of the US?  Once control is abdicated and the internet authority is transferred out of US borders,  our US Laws, our US Constitution and guaranteed Freedom of sSeech would no longer apply.  Censorship-free Internet access is an American right, but perhaps not for long, especially, critics say,  if the internet will be under UN control.

This push to give away oversight of our internet has been in the works for several years.  In 2014, Robert Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonpartisan tech-focused D.C. think tank, wrote that  in transferring internet control, the U.S. was effectively giving up its “bodyguard” role. “While on the surface this may seem like a simple administrative decision that gives more control over this key Internet function to more stakeholders, it could actually have far reaching negative implications for the freedom and security of the Internet,” he wrote.

Fast forward to today, two years later, where the same concerns of  internet censorship, security, and privacy rights remain, yet the transfer of  US internet authority is scheduled to go through at midnight on September 30, 2016, UNLESS  Congress creates and passes a bill to block it[…]

Continue Reading — On Sept 30, 2016 our internet will be transferred. Unless you say No.

Washington Piles Lie Upon Lie. Accuses Russia of Having “Invaded Ukraine”

Tags

Barack Obama, NATO, RUSSIA, Samantha Powers, Ukraine, UN, USA, Vladamir Putin

I have met several Ukrainians in my coming and goings and while I do not know them well, I feel comfortable enough to engage them on Ukraine/Russia/USA involvement matters and what I have learned so far is that Ukrainians support Russia. About USA involvement, there is silence as they shake their heads.

 

Global Reasearch By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
Global Research, August 29, 2014
paulcraigroberts.org

 

The latest Washington lie, this one coming from NATO, is that Russia has invaded Ukraine with 1,000 troops and self-propelled artillery.

How do we know that this is a lie? Is it because we have heard nothing but lies about Russia from NATO, from US ambassador to the UN Samantha Power, from assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland, from Obama and his entire regime of pathological liars, and from the British, German, and French governments along with the BBC and the entirety of the Western media?

This, of course, is a good reason for knowing that the latest Western propaganda is a lie. Those who are pathological liars don’t suddenly start telling the truth.

But there are even better rasons for understanding that Russia has not invaded Ukraine with 1,000 troops.

One reason is that Putin has invested heavily in diplomacy backed by unprovocative behavior. He would not risk his bet on diplomacy by sending in troops too few in number to have a decisive effect on the outcome.

Another reason is that if Putin decides he has no alternative to sending the Russian military to protect the Russian residents in eastern and southern Ukraine, Putin will send in enough troops to do the job quickly as he did in Georgia when the American and Israeli trained Georgian army invaded South Ossetia and was destroyed in a few hours by the Russian response. If you hear that 100,000 Russian troops accompanied by air cover have invaded Ukraine, it would be a more believable claim.

A third reason is that the Russian military does not need to send troops into Ukraine in order to stop the bombing and artillery shelling of the Russian populations by Washington’s puppet government in Kiev. The Russian air force can easily and quickly destroy the Ukrainian air force and artillery and, thereby, stop the Ukrainian attack on the secessionist provinces.

It was only two weeks ago that a fabricated report spread by the UK Guardian and the BBC that a Russian armored convoy entered Ukraine and was destroyed by the Ukrainian Military. And two weeks prior to that we had the hoax of the satellite images allegedly released by the US State Department that the corrupt US ambassador in Kiev spread around the world on social media allegedly showing that Russian forces were firing into Ukraine. One or two weeks from now we will have another lie, and another a week or two after that, and so on.

The cumulative effect of lie piled upon lie for most people is to build the view that the Russians are up to no good. Once this view is established, Western governments can take more serious moves against Russia.

The alleged entry of 1,000 Russian soldiers into Ukraine has been declared by NATO Brigadier General Niko Tak to be a “significant escalation in Russia’s military interference in Ukraine.” The champion liar Samantha Power told the US Security Council that “Russia has to stop lying.” The UK ambassador to the UN said that Russia was guilty of “a clear violation of sovereign Ukrainian territory.” UK prime minister Cameron warned Russia of “further consequences.” German chancellor Merkel announced that there would be more sanctions. A German Security Council advisor declared that “war with Russia is an option.” Polish foreign minister Sikorski called it Russian aggression that required international action. French president Hollande declared Russia’s behavior to be “intolerable.” Ukraine’s security council imposed mandatory conscription.

This suicidal drive toward war with Russia by Europe’s leaders is based entirely on a transparent lie that 1,000 Russian troops crossed into Ukraine

Of course the Western media followed in lock-step. The BBC, CNN, and Die Welt are among the most reckless and irresponsible.

The mountain of lies piled up by Western governments and media has obscured the true story. The US government orchestrated the overthrow of the elected government in Ukraine and imposed a US puppet in Kiev. Washington’s puppet government began issuing threats and committing violent acts against the Russian populations in the former Russian territories that Soviet leaders attached to Ukraine. The Russian people in eastern and southern Ukraine resisted the threat brought to them by Washington’s puppet government in Kiev.

Washington continually accuses the Russian government of supporting the people in the territories who have voted their separation from Ukraine. There would be no war, Washington alleges, except for Russian support. But, of course, Washington could easily stop the violence by ordering its puppet government in Kiev to stop the bombing and shelling of the former Russian provinces. If Russia can tell the “separatists” not to fight, Washington can tell Kiev not to fight.

The only possible conclusion from the facts is that Washington is determined to involve Europe in a war with Russia or at least in an armed standoff in order to break up Europe’s political and economic relations with Russia.

Europe’s leaders are going along with this because European countries, except for Charles de Gaulle’s France, have not had independent foreign policies since the end of World War II. They follow Washington’s lead and are well paid for doing so.

The inability of Europe to produce independent leadership dooms Russian President Putin’s diplomacy to failure. If European capitals cannot make decisions independently of Washington, there is no scope for Putin’s diplomacy.

Notice that the very day after Putin met with Washington’s Ukrainian vassal in an effort to resolve the situation, the new lie of Russian invasion was issued in order to ensure that no good can come of the meeting in which Putin invested his time and energy.

Washington’s only interest is in hegemony. Washington has no interest in resolving the situation that Washington itself created in order to bring discomfort and confusion to Russia. With the caveat that the situation could be resolved by Ukrainian economic collapse, otherwise the longer Putin waits to resolve the situation by force, the more difficult the task will be.

 

Permission to reprint granted by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, paulcraigroberts.org, publications@globalresearch.ca.

Link:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/washington-piles-lie-upon-lie-accuses-russia-of-having-invaded-ukraine/5398142

 

The Massive Amount of Weapons Meant for Libyan Rebels That Actually Ended Up in Terrorists’ Hands

Tags

Barack Obama, Benghazi, libya, NATO, Obama Administration, September 11 2012 Islamic terrorist attacks, UN

Members of the Libyan military force under the ruling of the National Transitional Council wave their national flag as they parade along a main street in Tripoli 14 February 2012. Image courtesy of Alakhbar

The Blaze (Sara Carter)

Up to $500 million worth of weapons intended for Libyan rebel fighters ended up in the hands of terrorists since the country’s uprising began in 2011, former senior military officials and current members of the intelligence community told TheBlaze.  Those weapons, provided to rebels with tacit approval from the United States during the 2011 Libyan civil war, ended up in the hands of Al Qaeda-linked militants and ultimately may have played a role in the deadly Benghazi attacks.

The Libyan rebels have refused to give up the arms, and bloody clashes between tribes have thrust the fragile nation into lawlessness. 

At the start of the Libyan civil war, which began as part of the Arab Spring movement, the U.S. and Europe had difficulties telling friend from foe. Al Qaeda sympathizers and extremists were directly woven into the fabric of the rebel fighters…..

Click here to view original web page at www.theblaze.com

 

Read Part One of Sarah Carter’s Report entitled, “Source: U.S. Knew Weapons and Aid Were Going to Al Qaeda-Linked Militants in Libya”

 

LINKS:
http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/4253
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/29/the-massive-amount-of-weapons-meant-for-libyan-rebels-that-actually-ended-up-in-terrorists-hands/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/28/source-u-s-knew-weapons-and-aid-were-going-to-al-qaeda-linked-militants-in-libya/

Iranian Official Hassan Rahimpour Azghadi: Ashton an Old Lady, Ban Ki-moon a Puppet, Westerners a Bunch of Animals. (Video)

Tags

Ban Ki-moon, Catherine Ashton, human rights violatons, iran, Iranian foreign ministry, UN

 

So who was Hassan Rahimpour Iranian Official Azghadi excoriating?

 

Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s foreign policy chief and Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-Moon.

 

Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s foreign policy chief and Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-Moon (photograph above).

Iran’s foreign ministry protested a meeting that Ashton had with six female activists at the Austrian embassy in Tehran a few weeks ago on International Women’s Day.

According to Ashton, she met with the female activists to discuss “the situation that women find themselves in and some of the work that these women are engaged in, from journalists to those involved with Afghan refugees, people working across the spectrum of civil society and the importance of civil society.”

In other words, Iran’s foreign ministry considered Ashton’s visit to Tehran a threat that explains the mockery.  Must keep the oppressed in their place.  As for Ban Ki-Moon, he is shilling New World Order. H/t MFS – The Other News.

 

 

LINK:
http://www.mfs-theothernews.com/2014/03/video-iranian-official-azghadi-ashton.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/10/eu-catherine-ashton-criticised-meeting-iran-women-activists