A must read GATESTONE article:
In this audio from late in December 2016, Ben Shapiro on the “Morning Answer” discusses the United States abstention in the vote against Israel in the United Nations. He notes Obama’s history — along with the rest of the crew — of disliking the Judeo-Christian freedoms in this country. A good clip to remember by Ben.
Here are a couple articles by Ben:
➤ A Complete Timeline of Obama’s Anti-Israel Hatred || March 2015;
➤ Happy Chanukah, From Obama: Obama-Backed UN Resolution Says Temple Mount Isn’t Jewish || December 2016;
➤ Obama Despises Israel Because He Despises the West || December 2016.
See other Prager University insights:
- A Black South African on Israel and Apartheid
- Israel: The World’s Most Moral Army
- Born to Hate Jews
- BDS: The Attempt to Strangle Israel
- Do You Pass the Israel Test?
- Pakistan: Can Sharia and Freedom Coexist?
- The Middle East Problem
- Israel’s Legal Founding
- Why Are There Still Palestinian Refugees?
The officials said that business with the embassies of those countries — Britain, France, Russia, China, Japan, Ukraine, Angola, Egypt, Uruguay, Spain, Senegal and New Zealand — will be suspended… (CNN)
Here is an excellent article by GATESTONE on the issue of the United Nations trying to undermine the Judeo-Christian West:
October 1st, 2015 • Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu renewed his warning that the Iranian nuclear deal threatens to destabilize the Middle East and will make a war more likely. He cautioned that already Iran is ramping up efforts to fund terror cells worldwide, while also arming Islamists in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories.
Some of what Bill Nye said in the above video from Campus Reform:
“We need, dare I say it, a tax, or should I say a fee,” Nye purportedly said Wednesday, right before an anonymous student began recording.
“It’s not just to be mean, it’s to redistribute wealth,” Nye said.
Nye went on to claim that instituting such a tax would drive innovation in more environmentally friendly ways.
“It will stimulate people investing in more energy efficient means. If you gotta pay a fee every time you make carbon monoxie and somone comes up with a more efficient car, you’ll use that car. Somebody comes up with a more efficient blender, you’ll use that blender. I mean, that’s just how it’s going to go.”
“The trouble with this is, there are people now, in the U.S. government, who don’t like government,” Nye lectured.
The former television host and Disney actor then ranted about limited government conservatives, comparing them to a General Motors employee that wants to shut their own company down.
“We have to get people who really want the government to do what it’s supposed to do, which is run things,” Nye said.
A student who attended the event told Campus Reform that he was disappointed with the big government push offered by Nye. “I thought this was going to be a fantastic event talking about science, but it turned out to be politically charged, big government propaganda.”
“I think he should stick to T.V.”…..
Via CNS-News, admitted goals, “UN’s Top Climate Official: Goal Is To ‘Intentionally Transform the Economic Development Model’”:
The United Nations’ top climate change official says the U.N.’s goal is to “intentionally transform the economic development model” in place “since the Industrial Revolution.”
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history,”Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) said February 3rd during a press conference in Brussels.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution….
Fox News also notes that U.N. ‘Climate Change’ Plan would likely shift trillions to form new world economy:
A United Nations document on “climate change” that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body….
U.N. experts in Geneva were at it again last week telling the Holy See that Catholic teaching on abortion is a human rights abuse, revealing a chasm between the Church’s understanding of its mission and how U.N. officials perceive it. The episode is reminiscent of a time in history when secular leaders did not accept a separation of Church and State.
The American on the U.N. Committee Against Torture, Felice Gaer, told the Holy See that the Church’s position on abortion was a “concern” and that “women should have a right to choose.” Prohibitions on abortion are a form of torture according to Gaer—who ironically spent a decade on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.
An expert from the country of Georgia tried to be nuanced, and accused the Catholic Church of having “publically shamed” women and doctors who commit abortions through excommunication, thereby torturing them….
Now for NRO’s excellent warning:
Kathryn has been covering the ongoing effort by radical pro-abortion NGOs to apply the U.N. Convention against Torture to the Catholic Church for — among other things — its international pro-life advocacy. The argument is so facially irrational that one would be tempted to dismiss it out of hand. Not even the U.N. could be so blindly malicious and ideological that it would attempt to destroy the church’s rights of free speech and religious liberty for the sake of protecting abortion-on-demand, could it?
Moreover, even if the U.N. Committee against Torture moved against the Vatican, such an action would be irrelevant to American courts and American constitutional law, wouldn’t it?
In fact, there is cause for concern. To be clear, the effort by the Center for Reproductive Rights clearly and explicitly targets the church’s rights to free speech and religious liberty. Here’s an excerpt from its recommendations to the Committee:
Note that the Holy See has negatively interfered with states’ attempts to develop legislation on abortion that would have served to better protect women from torture or ill-treatment. Note that the Holy See’s actions are a violation of Articles 1, 2, and 16 of the Convention against Torture and that the rights of freedom of speech and of religion extend only so far as they do not undermine women’s reproductive rights, including the right to be free from torture or ill-treatment. (Emphasis added.)
This is an astonishing statement, one that clearly targets the Catholic Church’s pro-life advocacy, equating it with state-sanctioned “torture or ill-treatment” of women and girls. By equating advocacy with torture, the Committee could begin an international legal process that would cause the U.N. to review statements or actions by pro-life public officials as “torture” within the meaning of the Convention. Radical pro-abortion groups would file amicus briefs citing new international legal standards equating pro-life advocacy with torture, thus claiming such advocacy is beyond the protection of the First Amendment. Indeed, the argument would be simple (and chilling): By permitting unfettered pro-life advocacy — by public officials and private citizens — the United States would be in violation of international law, specifically by torturing its own citizens.
It’s difficult to overstate the perversity of the abortion lobby’s U.N. argument. There are few acts more barbaric than abortion, and the very idea that such barbarism can be insulated even from criticism insults the very notion of free speech and obliterates religious liberty. This is a dramatic escalation of the already-overwrought “war against women” rhetoric, and one that would lead to such absurd results as domestic “women’s groups” accusing conservative candidates of literally torturing voters with pro-life arguments.
Posted for categorizing on my blog:
The following is from U.N. Watch:
1. The UN Human Rights Council elected Hezbollah supporter Jean Ziegler, founder and recipient of the Muammar Qaddafi Human Rights Prize, as a top advisor.
2. The UN General Assembly adopted 21 condemnatory resolutions against Israel, compared to 4 on the rest of the world combined.
3. The same UN General Assembly elected China, Cuba, Russia, and Saudi Arabia to the UN Human Rights Council. The dictatorships will take their new seats on January 1, 2014.
4. UN Human Rights Council expert Richard Falk blamed the Boston Marathon terror bombings on “the American global domination project” and “Tel Aviv.” Council members praised Falk and the president defended him.
5. The UN Special Committee on Decolonization, charged with upholding fundamental human rights and opposing the subjugation of peoples, elected the murderous Syrian regime to a senior post.
6. The UN Conference on Disarmament in May 2013 made Iran its president.
7. The UN Economic and Social Council, which oversees the UN women’s rights commission, elected genocidal Sudan as its vice-president.
8. The UN Human Rights Council elected slave-holding Mauritania to be its vice-president.
9. The UN chose Zimbabwe, a regime that systematically violates human rights, to host its world tourism summit.
10. UNESCO, which condemned no other country but Israel, and which was silent as Hamas bulldozed a world heritage site to make a terrorist training camp, allowed Syria to sit as a judge on UNESCO’s human rights committee.
A United Nations interpreter translating the proceedings of the General Assembly on Thursday was caught – not realizing her microphone was still piping her voice into the chamber – expressing her dismay that the world body is so focused on condemning Israel while ignoring every other country in the world.
Following votes at the General Assembly’s Fourth Committee which includes all 193 UN member states, nine resolutions were adopted condemning Israel. Not one resolution was adopted targeting any other country, not even Syria where more than 100,000 have been killed in just two-and-a-half years.
The unnamed interpreter, unaware she was still being heard both by delegates and online via a live webcast, said, “I mean, I think when you have five statements, not five, like a total of ten resolutions on Israel and Palestine, there’s gotta be something, c’est un peu trop, non? [It’s a bit much, no?] I mean I know… There’s other really bad sh** happening, but no one says anything, about the other stuff.”
After the translator spoke, the delegate chairing the meeting could be seen trying to suppress his laughter. This as other delegates laughed audibly after hearing the interpreter’s candid opinion about their work, including her use of an expletive.
Once she realized what was happening, the translator said, “apologies” after which the Secretary of the meeting commented, “I understand there was a problem with interpretation?”
The translator could then be heard saying “The interpeter apologizes.”
UN Watch, a non-governmental organization which monitors events at the United Nations, first caught the gaffe and posted a recording of it on YouTube.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday played the clip of the interpreter’s candid assessment at the weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem. Should her job be threatened, Netanyahu said she would have a place to work in Israel, Ynet reported.
“I would like to tell this translator that she has a job waiting for her in the State of Israel. There are moments that tear the hypocrisy off the unending attacks against us and this brave translator did so,”…
…It’s noteworthy that the UN chose to condemn Israel over its decision to extend Israeli law to the Golan Heights in light of the activity of Al Qaeda-linked jihadi rebels over the border in Syria.
“That’s right: the UN adopted a resolution today that mentions the word ‘Syria’ no less than 10 times—yet said nothing of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s massacre of more than 100,000 of his own people,” wrote Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch.
In an op-ed in the Times of Israel, Neuer pointed out that by next month which marks the end of its annual legislative session, 22 resolutions will have been adopted targeting Israel and only four discussing other countries.
“The hypocrisy, selectivity, and politicization are staggering,” Neuer wrote.
It also follows a pattern. Last year’s legislative session was closed “in a blaze of glory” as former Reagan administration official Elliot Abrams noted with the passing of nine resolutions against Israel in just one day, December 18.
Israel has been singled out by the UN General Assembly more times than any other country for alleged human rights violations.
According to Eye on the UN, another non-governmental group, in more than 50 years, 82% of all UN General Assembly emergency session meetings have been about condemning Israel. The group noted in 2011 that of the UN Human Right’s Council’s resolutions, 47% critical of specific countries condemned Israel.
“I sincerely hope she [the interpreter] won’t get fired. Because the one who should really apologize today is the UN. Founded on noble ideals, the world body is turning the dream of liberal internationalists into a nightmare,” Neuer wrote.
From video description:
Much to the dismay of people in actual need of human rights protection, the UN’s Human Rights Council have been hijacked by the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) — an organization of 56 Muslim countries who use Islamophobia to justify terrorism, while undermine the fight for human rights in Muslim countries and making sure Muslim countries and Islam will always be above criticism while of course blaming all the ills and injustice in the world on the western non-Muslim world and particularly the United States and Israel.
In this video, Anne Bayefsky, discussed the U.N.’s Racism Conference (Durban Conference), the invention “Islamophobia” as means to justify terror. And the intense lobbying by the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) for the issues of “Islamophobia” and “oppression” of Muslims ONLY by non-Muslims to be the prominent focus of the UN’s agenda in general and the Human Rights commission in particular. And the war (which they have won) to ensure that a prohibition against “Islamophobia” will be endorsed by the world community as the newest international human right issue and the equivalent of anti-Semitism.
Borrowing from Wikipedia:
“According to human rights groups, the council is controlled by a bloc of Islamic and African states, backed by China, Cuba and Russia, who protect each other from criticism. UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and former High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson have criticized the council for acting according to political considerations as opposed to human rights. Specifically, Secretaries General Kofi Annan and Ban Ki Moon, the council’s president Doru Costea, the European Union, Canada and the United States have accused the council of focusing disproportionately on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The United States boycotted the Council during the George W. Bush administration, but reversed its position on it during the Obama administration”.
Anne Bayefsky is a Senior Fellow at Hudson Institute and formerly taught law at Columbia University Law School. Since 1984, she has participated in U.N. human rights conferences on both official and non-governmental delegations, and conducted a major review of U.N. human rights legal documents in collaboration with the U.N. High Commission on Human Rights. She has authored a book on the United Nations, published numerous articles, and is the recipient of Canada’s highest annual human rights research award.
See the full lecture here: http://fora.tv/2007/10/30/Islamophobia
In the last few decades the United Nations has been obsessed with one country. Is it North Korea, Zimbabwe, Iran, Syria, China or some other nation with a reprehensible human rights record? Those would all be fair guesses and they would all be wrong. Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Human Rights Institute, answers this riddle and explains the upside down moral universe in which the United Nations resides.
Should be combined with these: