Archive for January 14, 2015

Top 10 Worst U.N. Decisions Of 2014

January 14, 2015

Top 10 Worst U.N. Decisions Of 2014

The most immoral, corrupt and unjust U.N. resolutions of the year.

posted on Dec. 21, 2014, at 9:25 a.m.

via Top 10 Worst U.N. Decisions Of 2014.

10. U.N. Elects Iran to Women’s Rights Commission

U.N. Elects Iran to Women's Rights Commission

ATTA KENARE AFP / Getty Images

NEW YORK, April 24, 2014 – The U.N. Economic and Social Council in New York elected Iran to a four-year term on its 45-nation Commission on the Status of Women, the top world body dedicated to protecting women’s rights.

9. U.N. Elects Elects New Human Rights Council Members: China, Russia, Cuba and Saudi Arabia

UN Watch / Via unwatch.org

On January 1, 2014, several of world’s worst dictatorships were elected to judge the rest of the world on human rights.

8. U.N. Creates Biased Inquiry into Hamas-Israel War, Declares Israel Guilty in Advance

GENEVA, JULY 23, 2014 — In an emergency session, the U.N. Human Rights Council declared Israel guilty of “gross violations of international human rights,” even as it created a commission of inquiry to purportedly investigate the facts.

7. U.N. Picks Genocidal Sudan to Oversee Human Rights Activists

U.N. Picks Genocidal Sudan to Oversee Human Rights Activists

NEW YORK, April 24, 2014 — The U.N. rewarded genocidal Sudan, along with the regimes of slave-holding Mauritania, Pakistan, Turkey, and Venezuela, by making them members of the powerful 19-nation U.N. Committee on NGOs, a coveted position that allows governments to silence criticism by acting as the gatekeeper and overseer of all human rights groups that seek to work inside the world body.

6. U.N. “Sees No Objection” to Praising Qatar’s Human Rights Record

UN Watch / Via unwatch.org

After UN Watch raised objections from migrant workers, women, and terror victims to a report praising Qatar’s human rights record, the U.N. went ahead and adopted the report anyway, with the Chair of the Human Rights Council saying, “I see no objection.”

5. As 9/11 Truther Richard Falk Exits, U.N. Names His Wife and Co-Author to Top Human Rights Post

As 9/11 Truther Richard Falk Exits, U.N. Names His Wife and Co-Author to Top Human Rights Post

GENEVA, May 8, 2014 — The U.N. Human Rights Council appointed Hilal Elver, the Turkish wife of Richard Falk, to become its Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food. Together with her husband and co-author, Elver is explicitly acknowledged in the world’s leading 9/11 conspiracy book, “The New Pearl Harbor,” for the help she provided the author, David Ray Griffin. Elver’s own academic work cites to Griffin’s conspiracy book, which argues that the U.S. government helped orchestrate the attacks on the World Trade Center to justify wars against Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. In a 2012 law journal article, Elver explicitly cited to Griffin’s notorious conspiracy tract. She compared 9/11 to Pearl Harbor, saying that both incidents “gave permission to the government to unleash the war power,” “invade countries”, “create new hegemonies”, and “racially discriminate against and segregate the people inside the United States.”

4. UNRWA Hands Rockets in Gaza Schools Back to Hamas Terrorists

UNRWA Hands Rockets in Gaza Schools Back to Hamas Terrorists

UN Watch

THE DAILY BEAST, July 20, 2014 – Reached by phone in Barcelona, Spain, UNRWA spokesman Chris Gunness insisted that the local authorities in Gaza report to the Palestinian government in Ramallah, not to Hamas. “As far as we are concerned, the government that we are dealing with now is the government of national consensus and they have authority over the organization that we dealt with for getting rid of these rockets from our school,” said UNRWA spokesman Chris Gunness. “We handed them over to the relevant authorities, and that organization, as it were, the experts that came and did it, are under the government of national consensus in Ramallah.”

July 23, 2014: “The Secretary-General is alarmed to hear that rockets were placed in an UNRWA school in Gaza and that subsequently these have gone missing…” (U.N. Spokesman of Ban Ki-Moon)

3. U.N. Names Anti-Israel Judge to Head Gaza Inquiry

William Schabas, a law professor who said that Israel’s prime minister was his “favorite in the world” to see in the dock of the International Criminal Court was selected by the U.N. Human Rights Council to chair its inquiry into the Hamas-Israel war of 2014. However, top human rights activist Aryeh Neier said that “any judge who had previously called for the indictment of the defendant should recuse himself.”

2. U.N. rewards murderous Syrian regime with top post on human rights committee

U.N. rewards murderous Syrian regime with top post on human rights committee

The U.N. Special Committee on Decolonization, charged with upholding fundamental human rights and opposing the subjugation of peoples, voted by acclamation to elect the murderous Syrian regime to a senior post.

1. U.N. Adopts 20 Resolutions on Israel vs. 4 on Rest of World Combined

U.N. Adopts 20 Resolutions on Israel vs. 4 on Rest of World Combined

UN Watch / Via blog.unwatch.org

In 2014, the U.N. General Assembly adopted 20 resolutions condemning Israel, and only four on the rest of the world combined, being one on Syria, North Korea, Ukraine and Iran.

There were zero UNGA resolutions condemning gross and systematic abuses committed by China, Cuba, Egypt, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Turkey, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, nor on many other major perpetrators of grave violations of human rights.

The Real Scandals of the Paris March

January 14, 2015

The Real Scandals of the Paris March

January 14, 2015 by Bruce Thornton

via The Real Scandals of the Paris March | FrontPage Magazine.

French President Francois Hollande welcomes Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at the Elysee Palace before attending a solidarity march in the streets of ParisCommentators on both the left and the right are slamming President Obama for missing the march in Paris last Sunday. Even a stalwart courtier like CNN’s Jake Tapper sniffed that he was “ashamed” that the U.S. was represented by an ambassador––one, by the way, who got her appointment by bundling money for the president’s political campaigns. But who’s surprised at this latest display of diplomatic incompetence? This is the same president who gave the queen of England an I-Pod loaded with his speeches, banished a bust of Churchill from the White House, bowed low to the Saudi King, blew off Margaret Thatcher’s funeral, and insulted on an open mike the prime minister of Israel, our most important ally in the Middle East. Missing the march is just Obama being Obama.

More significant is the fact that these complaints are just distracting us from more important questions about the march. The first is, what took the French so long? In 2012, to take just one example, a jihadist killed 7 people, including 3 Jewish children, in Toulouse and Montauban. Why did those deaths not merit a large display of  “solidarity” and multicultural togetherness? Some will argue that the Charlie Hebdo killings deserve more attention because they struck at a foundational belief of liberal democracy, free speech. Indeed it did.

But killing Jewish children just because they are Jews strikes at equally foundational beliefs––that all people have human rights whatever their race or creed, and that confessional tolerance is mandatory for an open and free society. Yes, the latest massacre also killed 4 Jews just because they were Jews, but those victims of the violent assault on our principles have been an afterthought. Passionate proclamations of the importance of free speech? Heard a lot those. Equally passionate calls to fight anti-Semitism? Not so much. Perhaps some people have some residual decency, and are embarrassed at being reminded that just 6 months ago, these same streets of Paris were filled with protestors marching in support of Hamas, vandalizing synagogues, and shouting anti-Semitic and genocidal slogans.

So there is a fair amount of hypocrisy in such calls for free speech and tolerance, coming as they do from the same people who institute “hate speech” codes against the critics of Islam, and who brand as “Islamophobes,” and “xenophobes,” and “neo-fascists” those political parties that call for a renewed commitment to Western civilization, and take pride in the culture that created human rights, democracy, tolerance, and all the other goods the scorners of national and cultural pride take for granted. Hence Bernard Henry-Levy snidely dismisses as “arsonists of the soul” those parties that call for patriotism and pride in their culture, and the need to defend it from the enemies that want to destroy it. So much for Henry-Levy’s cries for “national unity,” an invitation apparently valid only for those who endorse the flabby “tolerance” and multicultural fantasies that have enabled the illiberal, homophobic, misogynistic, and lethally intolerant jihadists shedding blood in the streets of Paris.

One suspects that the outcry reflects anger not so much at those who murder innocents in order to destroy liberal democracy and human rights, but at these particular killers who dared to slaughter left-wing journalists in what François Hollande laughably called the “capital of the world.” One wonders what the response would have been had the same number of people been murdered in a National Front office out in the sticks. It’s the arrogant provincialism of the has-been great power, the Gallic version of that old New Yorker cover showing the U.S. as a vast wasteland west of the East River. Killing Jews or cops in the provinces is one thing, but left-wing journalists in the City of Lights? Now that’s a cause for outrage. Roger Kimball got it right when he wrote, “The whole production is slightly nauseating in its fakeness, its self-aggrandizing narcissism, and its essential mendacity.”

But the most nauseating scandal of the march was the presence of Palestinian honcho

Mahmoud Abbas, participating with other heads of state in an event supposedly memorializing victims who include 4 Jews killed by jihadists. But Abbas is not a “head of state.” He is the “chairman” of a terrorist gang called the Palestinian Liberation Organization, a member of another terrorist outfit, Fatah, and a holocaust denier. Since 1993 he has headed up the Palestinian Authority, that Potemkin “government” behind which for 20 years now he and his cronies have incited hatred against Jews in Arab Palestinian popular culture and schools, brutally suppressed political rivals, fleeced the West of funds that arm soldiers and line the pockets of the PA’s “leaders” ($100 million just for Abbas), and serially engineered terrorist murders of Israelis, over 1500 since Oslo handed control of Judaea and Samaria to the Palestinians.

So a “leader” whose whole life has been committed to the destruction of Jews and their national homeland, who has colluded in terrorist murder, who regularly praises murderers of Israelis as “martyrs” and names schools after them, and who has rejected offers of the nation that he tells gullible Westerners is people’s purpose of their violence––this man who embodies everything opposed to the liberal democratic principles of Western civilization is invited to march in a celebration of those principles? A “leader” who arrests and tortures journalists marches in support of free speech? A killer of Jews attends a memorial in which Jews have been killed? But what should we expect when nations forged by Western principles have sunk so low that they make a terrorist gang a member of U.N. institutions––with the approval of France, remember–– and the International Criminal Court, one of whose charges is to prosecute genocide and war crimes like randomly firing rockets into cities. You have to go back to the bloodstained Soviet judges sitting on the Nuremberg Tribunal to find such absurd hypocrisy.

The rot in the West, its failure of cultural nerve and collapse of civilizational morale, will not be stopped by big talk and displays of communal emotion. To quote Churchill’s words in response to the Munich debacle, “This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in olden time.” And that “stand” will require more than just words and marches.

Ex-Muslim’s Open Letter To America: ‘WHAT ELSE HAS TO HAPPEN SO YOU WAKE UP?!’

January 14, 2015

Ex-Muslim’s Open Letter To America: ‘WHAT ELSE HAS TO HAPPEN SO YOU WAKE UP?!’

by / on January 11, 2015 at 12:09 am

via Mad World NewsEx-Muslim’s Open Letter To America: ‘WHAT ELSE HAS TO HAPPEN SO YOU WAKE UP?!’.

Something different than the cowards of the international press, and special the Jewish press in Israel.

Meet Mark Christian, a brave man who has dedicated his life to exposing what Islam truly is all about.

After leaving Islam a decade ago to convert to Christianity, Mark pulls no punches when speaking out about his former religion, frequently calling out the Muslims who choose to murder in the name of their god.

“A god who is insecure enough to be offended by a cartoon, and incompetent to the level that he wants you to avenge for him, is not a god worthy of worship, but a devil who is leading you to your demise.

“When people challenged Jesus, he made them walk on water, raised them from the dead, and healed their sickness to prove ‘who He Is’ … But when people challenged Mohamed, he chopped their heads off to prove his power as a prophet … Well you chop my head off as much as you want. My heart will continue to call on the name of my savior Jesus Christ.

“Where is the American spirit and the American soul? Where are those who destroyed Hitler and brought down the Berlin Wall? When planes flew into your buildings, knifes ran through your fellow citizens’ throats, bombs went off in your Boston streets, Women and kids are screaming in every country around the world. All of this and you are still calling Islam the religion of peace … What else needs to happen for that Giant to wake up, and liberate humanity from the bondage and the fear of Islam???”

The following is an open letter from Mark, not just to Americans, but to those professing to be “peaceful” Muslims. In the light of the recent terror attacks in Paris, this message needs to be heeded and applied before it is too late!

The circumstances we face are dire and we have no coherent way of addressing it until we establish the stark, bright line between Muslims who are willing to respect the religious liberty of others (which must absolutely require the abandonment of vengeance over insults, perceived or real) and those who count us as so many cattle, ripe for slaughter and easily led.

Our society can no longer afford to self-censor when it comes to the “hair trigger” that is Islam.  Muslims of the former type I described above may be offended, and for this I am sympathetic; but Muslims of the latter type will become enraged and will reveal to all the depth of their incompatibility with civilized society. This is my aim: to force these Muslims to expose their unacceptable radicalism for all to see, but also to reach a self-realization of the depravity of that radicalism that exists within themselves.

Being offended is uncomfortable for sure, but it is nothing compared to being hunted and subjugated, which is the lot our Christian brothers and sisters in Muslim-dominated lands endure, and as we saw in Paris; and increasingly in our own western democracies. The source of this is a foolish adherence to the idea of “multiculturalism,” enforced by a misguided political correctness.  I believe you would heartily agree that there is no verbal insult, nor cartoon that would move you to murder.  However, hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide disagree.

Part of the effort of the Global Faith Institute is to expose the reality of these twisted beliefs, not just among the jihadists (who we all know believe this) but more importantly, among the so-called “moderate” Muslims.

The concept of killing over an insult is abhorrent, but is held to be acceptable by a majority of Muslims.  Does this mean that a majority of Muslims would kill over a cartoon? Of course not.  However it does mean that a majority of Muslims would NOT stop a fellow Muslim from doing so, and might even feel compelled to assist or support them either financially, or through their silence. This concept is the bridge from religion to savagery. If a Muslim accepts insult as justification for violence, then it becomes possible  for them to move to the next stage – honor killings, murder of apostates and infidels, etc.

Think of responding to insult with violence as the “gateway drug” to all the evils that animate Islam today.  Break that link, and the rest will collapse for lack of support.

We are at the point where the lack of a stark, bright line is enabling death.  I must do all I can to draw that line, and force Muslims to choose which side of that line they prefer. This is an essential first step in exposing the radicalism that we both know festers beneath the surface of many Muslims; even some of whom we call friends.

Some of those “peaceful” Muslims are of the opinion that HAMAS is doing nothing wrong by targeting civilians. They say are merely “acting as anyone would toward an oppressor.” Their words, not mine.

We are in a war, declared by Islam against civilization itself.  As war is not pretty, sometimes tactics within a battle are difficult as well.  I have the greatest love for Muslims, as they are in fact the first victims of Islam, and it is that love that leads me to force them to address their own need for religious reform.  When one allows a wayward son to sit at the Thanksgiving table while drunk and on drugs, one is enabling that behavior.  Real love tells that son to be sober and clean before entering this house.  The son will resist, but only through that conflict can the problem be resolved.  So it is with Islam, and those who follow it.

Mark is the founder of Global Faith Institute, whose mission is “To inspire the lost with the hope of Christ; to equip America with knowledge of the truth, greater than the evils of the age; to embrace the role of “Watchmen,” that we might sound an alarm for all who will listen.”  Be sure and follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

If you would like to read the exclusive interview Mark did recently with Mad World News, you can check that out here.

Expert Under Fire for Highlighting UK’s Terror Enclaves

January 14, 2015

Terror Expert Under Fire for Highlighting UK’s Terror Enclaves

via Expert Under Fire for Highlighting UK’s Terror Enclaves.

 

by Jordan Schachtel

13 Jan 2015
Terrorism expert Steve Emerson has come under fire for daring to warn about the continuing Islamist radicalization of Birmingham and the greater United Kingdom.

Emerson has spent a lifetime warning about the threats to the West posed by Islamic radicals. His organization, The Investigative Project On Terrorism, has been relied heavily upon by law enforcement and federal officials in helping to catch those who seek to do us harm.

British PM David Cameron has gone as far as to call Emerson a “complete idiot” for his remarks during a Fox News appearance, in which he stated that Birmingham had become “totally Muslim.” “When I heard this, frankly, I choked on my porridge and I thought it must be April Fools day,” said Cameron.

Emerson has apologized for his remarks, saying that he made an “inexcusable error” in overstating particular claims such as that religious police beat “anyone who doesn’t dress” in Islamic garb.

However, while many in the mainstream media are forbidden from reporting on such issues, for fear of being labeled an “Islamophobe” or “racist,” Breitbart London has reported extensively on the continuing Islamic radicalization of Birmingham.

Birmingham, where 22 percent of its population follows Islam, represents almost five times higher than the 4.8 percent national average. Additionally, a 2011 census found that Birmingham had more Muslims enrolled in schools than Christians.

In April, Breitbart London reported that a whopping twenty-five institutions across Birmingham were subject to a “Trojan Horse” plot in which jihadists attempted to install Islamic radicals as the school’s head teachers.

A report released in June by the U.K. Education office (Ofsted) found that five state schools in Birmingham had attempted to impose an Islamic, “narrow faith-based ideology.” Ofsted found that Islamic schools countrywide were promoting stoning, lashing, and loving “death more than life.”

In July, a counterterrorism official uncovered a “sustained and coordinated agenda to impose upon children in a number of Birmingham schools the segregationist attitudes and practices of a hardline and politicised strain of Sunni Islam,” reported the Guardian.

While Cameron has been “choking on his porridge,” Birmingham and the entire U.K. has continued its slide towards radicalization. On Cameron’s watch, those who have carried out the barbaric act of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) have never been prosecuted; Islamic radicals are free to stay, while freedom fighters are denied entry; and the proliferation of Sharia courts and push for full Sharia law continues.

Additionally, throughout the United Kingdom and the whole of Europe, there exist hundreds of self-ruling Sharia enclaves where the “writ of the state, the sovereignty of the nation does not apply,” Breitbart’s Sebastian Gorka told Fox News on Saturday.

White House: Obama Will Fight Media To Stop Anti-Jihad Articles | The Daily Caller

January 14, 2015

White House: Obama Will Fight Media To Stop Anti-Jihad Articles

via White House: Obama Will Fight Media To Stop Anti-Jihad Articles | The Daily Caller.

President Barack Obama has a moral responsibility to push back on the nation’s journalism community when it is planning to publish anti-jihadi articles that might cause a jihadi attack against the nation’s defenses forces, the White House’s press secretary said Jan. 12.

“The president … will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform” whenever journalists’ work may provoke jihadist attacks, spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at the White House’s daily briefing.

The unprecedented reversal of Americans’ civil-military relations, and of the president’s duty to protect the First Amendment, was pushed by Earnest as he tried to excuse the administration’s opposition in 2012 to the publication of anti-jihadi cartoons by the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

The White House voiced its objections in 2012 after the magazine’s office were burned by jihadis, followings its publication of anti-jihadi cartoons.

Earnest’s defense of tho 2012 objections came just five days after the magazine’s office was attacked by additional jihadis. Eight journalists, two policeman and a visitor were murdered by two French-born Muslims who objected to the magazine’s criticism of Islam’s final prophet.

In 2012, “there was a genuine concern that the publication of some of those materials could put Americans abroad at risk, including American soldiers at risk,” Earnest said.

“That is something that the commander in chief takes very seriously,” he added, before saying that “the president and his spokesman was not then and will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform.”

In December, Congress approved and the president signed a $585 billion defense budget to train and equip soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen to defend Americans — including journalists — from foreign threats. The nation’s media industry does not have a defense budget to protect soldiers.

Earnest tried to rationalize the president’s opposition to the publication of anti-jihadist materials as a moral duty.

Whenever journalists consider publishing materials disliked by jihadis, “I think there are a couple of absolutes,” he told the reporters.

The first is “that the publication of any kind of material in no way justifies any act of violence, let alone an act of violence that we saw on the scale in Paris,” he said.

The second absolute is the president’s duty to lobby editors and reporters against publishing anti-jihadi information, he said. ”And there is — this president, as the commander in chief, believes strongly in the responsibility that he has to advocate for our men and women in uniform, particularly if it’s going to make them safer,” Earnest said.

He repeated the two-fisted formulation a moment later. ”What won’t change is our view that that freedom of expression in no way justifies an act of violence against the person who expressed a view. And the president considers the safety and security of our men and women in uniform to be something worth fighting for,” he said.

Throughout the press conference, Earnest repeatedly said the media would be able to decide on its own whether to publish pictures, articles or facts that could prompt another murderous jihad attack by Muslim against journalists.

But he did not say that his government has a constitutional and moral duty to use the nation’s huge military to protect journalists from armed jihadis, but instead hinted strongly that journalists should submit to jihadi threats.

“I think that there are any number of reasons that [U.S.] media organizations have made a decision not to reprint the cartoons” after the January attack, he said. “In some cases, maybe they were concerned about their physical safety. In other cases, they were exercising some judgment in a different way. So we certainly would leave it to media organizations to make a decision like this.”

“What I’m saying is that individual news organizations have to assess that risk for themselves,” he said. “I think the point in the mind of the president and certainly everybody here at the White House is that that is a question that should be answered by journalists.”

“I’m confident in saying that for the vast majority of media organizations, that [fear is] not the only factor. But I would readily concede that it is one in the minds of many of those news executives. But again, that is a decision for all of them to make,” he said.

Obama’s willingness to pressure media outlets, to quit defending First Amendment rights and also to mollify jihadis, reflects Obama’s overall policy of minimizing conflict with militant Islam.

Throughout his presidency, Obama has tried to shift the public’s focus away from the jihadi threat toward his domestic priorities.

He also repeatedly praised Islam and Muslims, and criticized criticism of Islam. “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” he told a worldwide TV audience during a September 2012 speech at the United Nations.

“As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam,” he declared in a 2009 speech in Cairo. “It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar [seminary] — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment,” he claimed.

Obama ha also tried to elevate the status of Islam in the West. “As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam,” he told his audience in Cairo. “It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. … I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story.”

To reduce the public’s focus on jihadis, Obama has even named the jihadi threat as a non-specific issue of “violent extremism,” and has repeatedly said jihadis have no connection with Islam. “Those who have studied and practiced this religion would tell you — Islam is a peaceful religion. … [Violent acts are] entirely inconsistent with the basic principles of that peaceful religion,” Earnest said Jan. 12.

But that claim of a peaceful Islam was repeatedly coupled with Obama’s policy of pressuring journalists not to anger aggressive Muslim believers. ”I will say that there have been occasions … where the administration will make clear our point of view on some of those assessments based on the need to protect the American people and to protect our men and women in uniform,” Earnest said.

“I wouldn’t rule out making those kinds of expressions again,” he added.

http://launch.newsinc.com/share.html?trackingGroup=90046&siteSection=dailycaller&videoId=28348669