Author Topic: The United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law  (Read 128318 times)

DDF

  • Guest
Michelle Obama's Speech in New Hampshire - from today
« Reply #250 on: October 13, 2016, 10:43:13 AM »
"It was the last event that I'm going to be doing as first lady for Let Girls Learn and I had the pleasure of spending hours talking to some of the most amazing young women you will ever meet — young girls here in the U.S. and all around the world. And we talked about their hopes and their dreams. We talked about their aspirations. See many of these girls have faced unthinkable obstacles just to attend school. Jeopardizing their personal safety, their freedom, risking the rejection of their families and communities. So, I thought it would be important to remind these young women how valuable and precious they are.

I wanted them to understand that the measure of any society is how it treats its women and girls."

Spoken like the wife of the new head of the United Nations. Nice adjustment to Gandhi's quote as well, assuming women to be inherently "vulnerable."

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56442
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56442
    • View Profile
WaPo/Rogin: Inside the coming war between America and the UN
« Reply #252 on: December 28, 2016, 09:07:36 PM »

Josh Rogin
Inside the coming war between the United States and the United Nations
By Josh Rogin December 28 at 7:01 AM
U.N. Security Council passes resolution on Israeli settlements
Play Video3:36
For the first time in 36 years, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution critical of Israel's Jewish settlements on Palestinian territory. The United States abstained. (Reuters)

Even before Donald Trump’s inauguration as president, Congress is planning to escalate the clash over the U.N. Security Council’s anti-Israel resolution into a full-on conflict between the United States and the United Nations. If Trump embraces the strategy — and all signals indicate he will — the battle could become the Trump administration’s first confrontation with a major international organization, with consequential but largely unpredictable results.

Immediately after the Obama administration abstained Friday from a vote to condemn Israeli settlements as illegal, which passed the Security Council by a vote of 14 to zero, Republicans and Democrats alike criticized both the United Nations and the U.S. government for allowing what Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) called “a one-sided, biased resolution.” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the chairman of the Senate appropriations subcommittee for the State Department and foreign operations, pledged to lead an effort to withhold the U.S. funding that makes up 22 percent of the U.N.’s annual operating budget.

“The U.N. has made it impossible for us to continue with business as usual,” Graham told me right after the vote. “Almost every Republican will feel like this is a betrayal of Israel and the only response that we have is the power of purse.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, never shy about working with Republicans against the Obama administration, told Graham: “Please stand with us, it’s time to take the gloves off,” according to Graham.

In the days since the vote, three Republican senators and their staffs have been working up options behind the scenes for how to convert their threat into action: Graham, Ted Cruz (Tex.) and Tom Cotton (Ark.). They believe they will have support for quick Senate action from both Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and incoming Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a strong supporter of Israel.

There are several options under consideration, two senior Senate aides working on the issue told me. Some are considered “micro” options, such as passing a resolution that would bar any funding that might go to implementing the anti-settlement resolution. Other options include withdrawing the United States from U.N. organizations such as UNESCO or passing legislation to protect settlers who are American citizens and might be vulnerable to consequences of the resolution.

Withholding U.S. contributions to the United Nations could be done in different ways. There are discretionary funds Congress can easily cut off, but the bulk of U.S. support is obligatory, mandated by treaties that Congress has ratified, making them de facto U.S. law. Depending on how drastic the funding cuts are to be, Congress may have to pass new legislation to undo some of the obligations.

Senators are also looking at ways to withhold U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority or perhaps punish the Palestine Liberation Organization representative office in Washington. Republicans in the Senate don’t plan to wait until Trump is actually in office; aides said to expect action as soon as senators return to Washington next week.

“We will make a very strong attempt to do something immediately,” one senior GOP senate aide said. “It is a real moment to reexamine the relationship with the United Nations and what it really does.”

Not all involved agree on whether the effort is simply about pressuring the Security Council to reverse course on the settlements resolution, or to fundamentally challenge a broad range of U.N. practices and reorient the U.S. approach to the United Nations overall.

Rick Santorum, who served in the Senate the last time the United States refused to pay its dues in full, told me that the coming crisis in U.S.-U.N. relations is the perfect chance for those who want to dismantle the organization altogether.

“This has opened up the opportunity for those of us who are very anti-U.N., who think the it has passed its prime, it’s not serving any really good purpose, it’s not helping legitimate governments around the world and it’s outlived its usefulness,” he said. “To the extent we can deconstruct it, the better.”

During the presidential campaign, most observers predicted that if elected, Trump would focus his international-organization ire on NATO, which he often criticized as being obsolete and a burden on U.S. taxpayers. Now, Santorum said, the United Nations could be first up for action.

“The focus will come off NATO and will move squarely onto the U.N.,” he said. “It’s going to be a very raucous time. Barack Obama, with this move, did more damage to the United Nations than he did to Israel.”

Some Republicans in Congress are comparing the coming U.S. response to the anti-settlement resolution to the U.S. opposition in 1975 to a U.N. General Assembly resolution that equated Zionism with racism. U.S. Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan led the U.S. opposition to that resolution and gave a famous speech defending the Jewish state from international persecution. That resolution was eventually repealed.

Other Republican foreign-policy experts see the coming battle as more akin to the effort by then-Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) to withhold portions of America’s U.N. dues in order to pressure the body into reforms. After years of tension, Helms eventually joined with then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) to pass legislation restoring U.S. funding in exchange for a compromise on reforms.

[The Obama administration fires a dangerous parting shot]

President Clinton signed the Helms-Biden legislation, and the Clinton administration negotiated many but not all of the reforms with U.N. leadership. In January 2000, Helms became the first U.S. senator ever to speak directly to the U.N. Security Council, after the deal was struck.


“The interests of the United States are better served by demanding reform and seeing that reform takes place than by removing our influence from the U.N.,” Helms said at the time. “It may surprise people to know that I advocate the reform of the United Nations, not its abolishment.”

Danielle Pletka, who served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff under Helms, said the lesson of that episode is that taking on the United Nations can be done, but not without costs and the risk of retaliation. The United Nations could stop doing things that the United States sees as important. Allied countries that value U.N. operations will be upset if those programs are affected. Also, the dues don’t go just go away.

“When you don’t pay, it’s like a mortgage, the bill just racks up. At the end of the day, we negotiated with the United Nations, but we paid a tax,” Pletka said. “This is a great opportunity for Donald Trump to show us he can negotiate the art of the deal. The Congress can give him leverage.”

There are signs that the Trump administration might be willing to make that deal. Its nominees for secretary of state and U.N. ambassador, Rex Tillerson and Nikki Haley, respectively have no ideological baggage on the issue. Trump himself tweeted that the United Nations “has such great potential but right now it is just a club for people to get together, talk and have a good time. So sad!”

The Security Council’s anti-settlement resolution has opened up a Pandora’s box in Washington, allowing anyone with a grievance against the world body to have their day in the sun. But most in Washington believe that despite the body’s problems, the United States is better off with a functioning United Nations and should seek as much influence there as possible. Congress and the Trump administration must be strategic and thoughtful as they chart out what seems to be an inevitable clash.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 21025
    • View Profile
Re: The United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law
« Reply #253 on: December 29, 2016, 07:54:07 AM »
Defund it and kick it out of the US. I bet Somalia has lots of room for the new UN complex.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 21025
    • View Profile
Way past time to get out
« Reply #254 on: December 29, 2016, 07:44:11 PM »
ian bremmerVerified account
‏@ianbremmer
2016 UNGA Resolutions Against
Israel: 20
Syria: 1
Iran: 1
N Korea: 1
Russia: 1

Seems imbalanced.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13065
    • View Profile
Leave the UN
« Reply #255 on: January 07, 2017, 05:30:19 AM »
It needs us (to fund its corruption and globalist financial and political interests as well as those from countries that skim - no not skim milk) more then we need it. 


Andrew McCarthy:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443642/us-leave-united-nations.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14990
    • View Profile
Re: Leave the UN
« Reply #256 on: January 07, 2017, 12:38:41 PM »
It needs us (to fund its corruption and globalist financial and political interests as well as those from countries that skim - no not skim milk) more then we need it. 
Andrew McCarthy:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443642/us-leave-united-nations.


Repeal and replace, ASAP, s'il vous plaît.

The new organization should have entrance rules so tight that the US doesn't qualify until we pass our own reforms, get5 back some freedoms and balance our budget.  And if we host it, we host it in Peoria or Topeka, not NYC, equal distant between Europe and Asia.

What has the UN done lately about the South China Sea?  How are they doing on Middle East peace?  Did they stop the nuclear program in NK yet?   China and Russia have veto power, are you kidding?  Qaddafi was the head of the Human Rights Commission.  George Orwell couldn't have come up with that.  And the UN has the worst charity record on the planet. 

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13065
    • View Profile
Re: The United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law
« Reply #257 on: January 07, 2017, 12:58:41 PM »
The new organization should have entrance rules so tight that the US doesn't qualify until we pass our own reforms, get5 back some freedoms and balance our budget.  And if we host it, we host it in Peoria or Topeka, not NYC, equal distant between Europe and Asia.

 :-D

The Aleutian islands would be good too. 

1)  Not far from North Korea .  Maybe , just maybe, maybe then the phonies might do something about that  Kim Jong-un in N Korea.  That's right the kid whose father let 1,000,000 of his fellow countrymen starve to death!  Oh but israel is evil.  :roll:

2)  and some kodiak bears.   Maybe the bears could be trained to eat communists and socialists though salmon probably do taste better.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56442
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56442
    • View Profile
Ambassador Haley off to a rockin' start
« Reply #259 on: February 20, 2017, 08:48:38 AM »
"Haley’s Comet" | Editorial of The New York Sun | February 16, 2017 | on Nikki Haley

A star is born is our reaction to the first press briefing by President Trump’s new ambassador at the United Nations. The ex-governor of South Carolina was ridiculed by the Left when the president first sent her nomination up to the Hill, owing to her alleged lack of foreign policy chops. She certainly rang the wake up gong for that crowd this morning, after emerging from her first Security Council monthly meeting devoted to the Middle East. Tough as nails but with a smile and a layer of Southern charm.

The ambassador had just come from the regular monthly Security Council on Middle East issues. She said it was her first such meeting, and “it was a bit strange.” The Security Council, she said, is supposed to discuss how to maintain international peace and security. But the meeting, she said, was not about Hezbollah’s illegal buildup of rockets in Lebanon, it was not about the money and weapons Iran provides to terrorists, it was not how we defeat ISIS, it was not how we hold Beshar al-Assad accountable for the slaughter of thousands of civilians.

“No,” she said, “instead the meeting focused on criticizing Israel, the one true democracy in the Middle East. I am new around here, but I understand that’s how the Council has operated month after month for decades. I am here to say the United States will not turn a blind eye to this anymore. I am here to underscore to the ironclad support of the United States for Israel. I am here to emphasize that the United States is determined to stand up to the U.N.’s anti-Israel bias.”

The ambassador made clear that the Trump administration will not support the kind of resolution from which the Obama administration’s ambassador — Samantha Power — shamefully abstained, though Mrs. Haley was too polite to name the humiliated Ms. Power. “The outrageously biased resolutions from the Security Council and the General Assembly only make peace harder to attain by discouraging one of the parties from going to the negotiating table.”

“Incredibly,” Mrs. Haley said, “the U.N. department of political affairs has an entire division devoted entirely to Palestinian affairs. Imagine that. There is no division devoted to illegal missile launches form North Korea. There is no division devoted to the world’s number one state sponsor of terror, Iran. The prejudiced approach to Israeli-Palestinian issues does the peace process no favors, and it bears no relationship to the reality of the world around us. The double standards are breathtaking.”

The ambassador warned that it is “the U.N.’s anti-Israel bias that is long overdue for change,” and said America will not hesitate to speak out in defense of its friend in Israel. All this was going on while the press was questioning President Trump on what he was going to do about anti-Semitism. If his ambassador to the world body is any example, the answer is plenty. She has the principles of a Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the grit of a John Bolton, and the star power of a Jeane Kirkpatrick, and in her first press briefing she certainly made her point.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56442
    • View Profile
Andrew McCarthy with some interesting analysis of treaty law
« Reply #260 on: February 26, 2017, 08:20:51 AM »
http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Populism--VI--Populism-versus-populism-8592

"So why is the Paris Agreement an issue for Trump? Because, knowing all of this, Obama signed it anyway. He calculated that climate-change pain could be imposed without Congress’s consent—just as he unilaterally subjected the nation to the security risks of the Iran nuclear deal, another multilateral agreement that was never ratified under U.S. law but was “endorsed” by the United Nations (specifically, by the Security Council).

"Alas, Obama’s calculation was shrewd. Transnational progressives have developed cagey ways to circumvent democratic obstacles to their globalist agenda. International agreements are drafted to include terms purporting that they “enter into force” when a certain modest number of nations sign them, regardless of whether this is sufficient to bind any particular signatory nation under its domestic law. The Paris Agreement, for example, is said to have “entered into force” on November 4, 2016, on the strength of acceptance by a mere fifty-five nations (out of 197 that are “parties to the convention”). Once an agreement is “in force,” international lawyers and bureaucrats begin claiming that it has created “norms” with which even non-signatory nations must comply under “customary international law.”

"Moreover, another international agreement, the 1969 Vienna Convention on Treaties, holds that a nation’s signature on a treaty, even if not adequate for ratification under that nation’s law, obliges that nation to refrain from any action that could undermine the treaty’s objectives. Since the United States has never ratified the Convention on Treaties, you might think its provisions are irrelevant to our consideration. But the post–World War II web of multilateral conventions is the maddening thicket of transnational progressivism, where “the law” is whatever end progressives seek to achieve—and the principle of democratic consent is a quaint oddity. The U.S. State Department, a devotee of international legal structures despite their erosions of American sovereignty, tells us that because several other nations have ratified the Convention on Treaties, “many” of its provisions are now binding customary international law even if the treaty remains unratified. Thus—voila!—the conceit that presidents (progressive ones, anyway) may unilaterally subject the nation to international obligations, even ruinous burdens, without any input, much less approval, by the people’s elected representatives."


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13065
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: March 29, 2017, 09:02:27 PM by Crafty_Dog »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14990
    • View Profile
US Sovereignty/International Law/ The Paris "Accord"
« Reply #263 on: June 02, 2017, 06:54:35 AM »
"Consider it a campaign promise rightly kept."  Unconstitutional by design, a feature not a bug.

It takes 4 years to get out of a 'non-binding agreement'.  What??!  Sounds binding.

The agreement holds us to a different standard and cost than our economic partners and competitors.

It's called a "treaty" everywhere else but an "Accord" in the US because liberals control the language and if we called it a treaty it would require 2/3rds of the Senate to confirm.  That pesky constitution again!

Pres. Obama entered the US in the accord with lame duck timing, Sept. 3 2016.  The only election referendum on the issue was Trump's win, asked and answered.

The cost estimate is $100 trillium - likely to go up from there.

The temperature mitigation through the end of the century, year 2100, is 0.3 degrees C by UN models and math, likely overstated by seven-fold, within the margin of error rounding to zero.

There is zero chance that CO2 will be our biggest worry in 2010.  Carbon dioxide will still be essential for life and still have a concentration in the atmosphere of less than one part per thousand.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13065
    • View Profile
Re: The United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law
« Reply #264 on: June 02, 2017, 08:09:28 AM »
""The cost estimate is $100 trillium - likely to go up from there.

The temperature mitigation through the end of the century, year 2100, is 0.3 degrees C by UN models and math, likely overstated by seven-fold, within the margin of error rounding to zero.

There is zero chance that CO2 will be our biggest worry in 2010.  Carbon dioxide will still be essential for life and still have a concentration in the atmosphere of less than one part per thousand."

Doug,

I also love the LEFTIST mantra about leaving the Paris conglomeration of empty promises is that this will kill jobs and clean energy would be boon for the economy and create millions of jobs.

If clean energy is such a great business then let some of these big mouths put *their money* into it.

Let Musk pay for it!  Let Zuckerdouchbag pay for it!  Let GE pay for it.  Let Disney pay for it!  let Jeff Sachs pay for it from his book money!

Come on - they keep telling us what great business this is.
 
Why does it have to be tax payer money?




DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14990
    • View Profile
United Nations/ US Sovereignty, Pope calls for one world government
« Reply #265 on: June 26, 2017, 01:16:02 PM »
Pope Francis called for “a one world government” and “political authority” this week, arguing that the creation of the one world government is needed to combat major issues such as “climate change.”
Speaking with Ecuador’s “El Universo” newspaper, the Pope said that the United Nations doesnt have enough power and must be granted full governmental control “for the good of humanity.”
https://archive.fo/LM08L#selection-807.0-903.216


I have done enough defending of the Catholic Church. My last observation attending is how badly their attendance has fallen. Christianity should be a force for GOOD in the world.  This man should not use his questionable authority in one area to make ignorant proclamations in others. 

The United Nations is a complete failure, should be disbanded, the US shouldn't be in it, rename it an Israel hate group, and the Catholic Church should go under a money audit and be prosecuted under RICO statute for their own shameful behavior and coverup.  Maybe then they won't have time for supporting failed governance and economics. 

I wonder what portion of their massive money machine goes to pay for priests preying on children.  Maybe he should speak out on that instead of siding with the abortion crowd on every other issue.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56442
    • View Profile
Re: The United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law
« Reply #266 on: June 26, 2017, 02:49:34 PM »
Oy vey!  :-o :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 21025
    • View Profile
Re: United Nations/ US Sovereignty, Pope calls for one world government
« Reply #267 on: June 26, 2017, 02:52:12 PM »
Pope Francis called for “a one world government” and “political authority” this week, arguing that the creation of the one world government is needed to combat major issues such as “climate change.”
Speaking with Ecuador’s “El Universo” newspaper, the Pope said that the United Nations doesnt have enough power and must be granted full governmental control “for the good of humanity.”
https://archive.fo/LM08L#selection-807.0-903.216


I have done enough defending of the Catholic Church. My last observation attending is how badly their attendance has fallen. Christianity should be a force for GOOD in the world.  This man should not use his questionable authority in one area to make ignorant proclamations in others. 

The United Nations is a complete failure, should be disbanded, the US shouldn't be in it, rename it an Israel hate group, and the Catholic Church should go under a money audit and be prosecuted under RICO statute for their own shameful behavior and coverup.  Maybe then they won't have time for supporting failed governance and economics. 

I wonder what portion of their massive money machine goes to pay for priests preying on children.  Maybe he should speak out on that instead of siding with the abortion crowd on every other issue.



https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/we-are-witnessing-today-st.-john-paul-iis-prophesy-of-an-anti-church-cathol

We are witnessing St. John Paul II’s prophesy of an ‘anti-Church’: Catholic priest

 Amoris Laetitia , Anti-Church , Anti-Gospel , Catholic , Linus Clovis , Our Lady Of Fatima , Pope Francis , Pope John Paul Ii , Rome Life Forum 2017

ROME, May 18, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) -- St. John Paul II’s 1976 prophetic warning about the rise of an “anti-Church” that would preach an “anti-Gospel” is being fulfilled today by leaders within the Catholic Church, even at the highest levels, said a priest in a talk given at a Catholic conference today in Rome.

Fr. Linus Clovis of Family Life International said in his talk at the Rome Life Forum, organized by Voice of the Family, that the anti-Gospel of the anti-Church is often “indistinguishable from secular ideology, which has overturned both the natural law and the Ten Commandments.”

Image
Fr. Linus Clovis at the 2015 Rome Life Forum. Claire Chretien / LifeSiteNews
“This anti-Gospel, which seeks to elevate the individual’s will to consume, to pleasure and to power over the will of God, was rejected by Christ when tempted in the wilderness. Disguised as ‘human rights,’ it has reappeared, in all its luciferian hubris, to promulgate a narcissistic, hedonistic attitude that rejects any constraint except that imposed by man-made laws,” he said.

Read Fr. Clovis' full talk here.

During his visit to America 41 years ago, Cardinal Karol Wojtyla, the archbishop of Cracow who two years later would become Pope John Paul II, delivered his prophetic message in Philadelphia, on the occasion of the bicentennial anniversary of American Independence. Wojtyle said:

We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel.

We must be prepared to undergo great trials in the not-too-distant future; trials that will require us to be ready to give up even our lives, and a total gift of self to Christ and for Christ. Through your prayers and mine, it is possible to alleviate this tribulation, but it is no longer possible to avert it. . . .How many times has the renewal of the Church been brought about in blood! It will not be different this time.
Clovis said that while the rise of the anti-Church has been happening slowly but steadily over the past decades, it’s emergence has been especially noticeable in the last few years.

“For the past half-century, there has been a growing crisis in the Church, arising as much from a lack of clear and unambiguous teaching, as from the climate of dissent among priests, religious and laity. Within the contemporary Church, the crisis has been brought to fever pitch, if not breaking point, by the rejection of Our Lord’s yes/no paradigm and the undermining of established doctrinal positions by protean pastoral practises,” he said.

He noted that there is a sense among faithful Catholics that “things ecclesiastic and catholic are falling apart and a pastoral anarchy has been loosed upon the Church.” He said that a “hidden exercise of power” is currently at work within the Church that is fueling such anarchy.

[It] can reform the marriage annulment process without the customary consultation of the appropriate Roman dicasteries; issue a broad and scathing rebuke of the Roman Curia in a Christmas address; purge a dicastery’s membership, which effectively vitiate the influence of its Prefect who had stood firmly against innovations injurious both to the teachings on marriage and to the tenets of the liturgy; cripple the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate; and shut down the Melbourne campus of the John Paul II Institute.
Clovis said that accompanying the rise of the anti-Church is a direct assault on the very “pillar of creation” and foundation of the social order, namely, the truth of the relationship between man and woman as expressed in marriage and the family. He recalled how Sister Lucia, one of the Fatima visionaries, once said that “the final battle between the Lord and the kingdom of Satan will be about marriage and the family.”

“It is well known that any tampering with a keystone risks the collapse of the entire building," he said. “The keystone, the basic cell of society is marriage and family.”

And the anti-Church is working its hardest to undermine that keystone.

“With the tacit acceptance of contraception and divorce, the recent ‘merciful’ embracing of remarried civil divorcees and the benign nod to same-sex ‘marriage,’ the keystone has been tampered with and the omega point has been reached,” Clovis said.

He noted how atheistic secularism, which fuels the anti-Church, has been “working for the demise of the family, its driving spirit being the LGBT ideology; its public face, ‘political correctness;’ its Sunday dress, ‘inclusivity and non-judgmentalism.’

He warned Catholics how the anti-Church will try to deceive the faithful by passing itself off as the true Church.

It is self-evident that the Catholic Church and the anti-Church currently co-exist in the same sacramental, liturgical and juridical space. The latter, having grown stronger, is now attempting to pass itself off as the true Church, all the better to induct, or coerce, the faithful into becoming adherents, promoters and defenders of a secular ideology.

Should the anti-Church succeed in commandeering all the space of the true Church, the rights of man will supplant the rights of God through the desecration of the sacraments, the sacrilege of the sanctuary, and the abuse of apostolic power.

Thus, politicians who vote for abortion and same-sex “marriage” will be welcome at the Communion rails; husbands and wives who have abandoned their spouses and children and entered into adulterous relationships will be admitted to the sacraments; priests and theologians who publicly reject Catholic doctrines and morals will be at liberty to exercise ministry and to spread dissent, while faithful Catholics will be marginalised, maligned and discredited at every turn.  Thus, the anti-Church would succeed in achieving its goal of dethroning God as Creator, Saviour and Sanctifier and replacing Him with man the self-creator, the self-saviour and the self-sanctifier.
Clovis said that the anti-Church works to achieve its goal of overcoming the true Church by intimidating the faithful, including the laity, priests, and bishops, into submission.

To achieve its objectives, the anti-Church, in collaboration with the secular powers, uses the law and media to browbeat the true Church into submission. By adroit use of the media, the activists of the anti-Church have managed to intimidate bishops, clergy and most of the Catholic press into silence.  Equally, the lay faithful are terrorised by fear of the hostility, ridicule and hate that would be visited upon them should they object to the imposition of LGBT ideology.

For example, in 2015, the congregation of St Nicholas of Myra in the Archdiocese of Dublin gave a standing ovation to their parish priest when he declared from the pulpit that he was gay and urged them to support same-sex ‘marriage’ in the Irish referendum. It is not difficult to imagine the kind of treatment that an objector would have received. Thus, the oppressive influence of the anti-Church is most clearly seen at work when a person is fearful to openly uphold God’s revelation about homosexuality, abortion or contraception in their parish community.
Adherents to the anti-Church especially target priests and bishops to tow the line of the anti-Gospel, knowing that once they are brought into submission they can influence countless souls away from the true Church. 

Priests and bishops are the immediate and more natural leaders of the laity and they, above all, are caught in the broadening spectrum of fear generated by the anti-Church.  Additionally, because of the clerical vow of obedience and respect, their fear, being reverential, is greatly aggravated, especially when they find their ranks divided; their unity split; long standing sacramental disciplines violated; canon law ignored; their evangelising spirit dismissed as proselytism and solemn nonsense.

In regard to their persons, they are labelled as little monsters throwing stones at poor sinners, or who reduce the sacrament of reconciliation to a torture chamber or, hide behind the Church’s teachings, sitting on the chair of Moses and judging at times with superiority and superficiality. 

As clerical sons, they see themselves as less deserving of a papal embrace than Italy’s arch-abortionist Emma Bonino and even less worthy of rehabilitation than renowned false prophet and global population and abortion advocate, Paul Ehrlich. 

As priests, they are told they owe an apology to gays and that the ‘great majority’ of Catholic marriages they would have blessed are invalid; in addition, they are called sayers of prayers and, for considering Mass attendance and frequent confession as important, are branded Pelagians. 

As Catholics, knowing that the Five First Saturdays were requested in reparation for blasphemy against our most Blessed Lady, they are personally affronted by the scurrilous musings that, on Calvary, where She became the Mother of all those redeemed by Christ, the Holy Virgin of Fatima perhaps, desired in Her heart to say to the Lord “Lies! Lies! I was deceived.”  As ‘trees of the forest shake before the wind,’ so clerical hearts quake with fear at the possibility that they could actually be more Catholic than the Pope!
Clovis called Pope Francis’ influence within the Church a “great and true blessing” since the Pope’s ambiguous teaching have prompted the anti-Church to emerge from the shadows in clear view of all the faithful. This now gives the faithful a clear choice regarding which master they will follow.

“A hidden conflict has been raging in the Church for over one hundred years: a conflict explicitly revealed to Pope Leo XIII, partially contained by St. Pius X, unleashed at Vatican II.  Under Francis, the first Jesuit pope, the first pope from the Americas and the first pope whose priestly ordination was in the New Rite, it is now full blown, with the potential of rendering the Church smaller but more faithful,” he said.

He said that Francis’ most recent Exhortation Amoris Laetitia is an example of a force at work within the Church today that helps establish the dividing line between the anti-Church and the true Church of Jesus Christ.

“The Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia is the catalyst that has divided not only bishops and Episcopal Conferences from each other but, priests from their bishops and from each other, and the laity, anxious and confused,” he said.

“As a Trojan horse, Amoris Laetitia spells spiritual ruin for the entire Church. As a gauntlet thrown down it calls for courage in overcoming fear. In either case, it is now poised to separate the anti-Church of which St. John Paul II spoke from the Church that Christ founded.  As the separation begins to take place, each one of us, like the angels, will have to decide for himself whether he would rather be wrong with Lucifer than right without him,” he added.

Clovis tied his main points to the 100th anniversary of Our Lady appearing in Fatima. He said that she “proposed a strategy which, if adopted would secure the salvation of a great number of souls.”

“The strategy required that, in order to ‘appease God, who was already so deeply offended,’ three major conditions should be satisfied, namely, a reform of morals with full adherence to natural and divine laws, the Five First Saturdays devotion and the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary,” he said.

“Then to further emphasise how perilous the approaching times would be, the Virgin, with motherly concern, warned of the consequences of ignoring Her message: wars, Russia spreading her errors, the persecution of the Church and of the Holy Father.  She, nonetheless, concluded Her message with a vestige of hope: ‘in the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph and a period of peace will be given to the world,’” he added.

Clovis said that Catholics seeking to be faithful to Christ and the Church he founded need not be afraid of the present turmoil they are witnessing.

“At Baptism, we became members of the Church Militant and, at Confirmation, soldiers of Christ; we, therefore, have been recruited and armed for deadly combat against the three implacable enemies of our souls: the world, the flesh and the devil,” he said.

“Recognising that ‘we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places,’ we fight, like the Apostles, taking the martyrs for our models and Christ Jesus, Himself as our reward,” he added.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14990
    • View Profile
United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law, G20 - The Real Communique
« Reply #268 on: July 12, 2017, 10:46:41 AM »
US withdrawal from the Paris accord screwed up the the press release coming out of the G20.  A site in Australia picked up the real communique as intended:

“We, the leaders of the G20 (and thousands of hangers-on), met in Hamburg, Germany, on July 7-8, at cost to taxpayers of hundreds of millions of euros.

“We remain amazed and grateful that the world’s media continues to cover this luxurious circus, unrivalled in production of inanities, year after year. We, as the world’s premier body for economic discussion, are proud of our record in lifting waffle to levels of sophistication unimaginable in an earlier era.

“The media and the political class can achieve more together than by acting alone.
“We once again met at a time of profound change amid sustained continuity. We are determined to calibrate and co-ordinate our policy frameworks to foster economic growth that is confident, strong and nice. Growth has been too wonky and lopsided, with an insufficient level of sharing.

“We undertake to consult often, widely and effectively, via landline and mobile telephone, Facebook messenger, WeChat (in China), including through use of GIFs where appropriate.

“We have come together as one to make totally unverifiable undertakings in support of three appealing nouns that we agreed at last year’s Hangzhou summit in China: resilience, sustainability, and fun. In the interests of avoiding international awkwardness we have resolved never to raise, discuss or even allude to the rationale for, or outcome of, the British general election earlier this year in front of the British Prime Minister Theresa May.

“We acknowledge that Ivanka is amazing. She is so amazing. She is absolutely terrific. We also fully support the aspirations of women and girls and applaud in particular Saudi Arabia’s undertaking to make women’s issues the centrepiece of its summit in 2020.

“We condemn actions by North Korea that risk impairing global harmony. Sad!

“We have secured the services of distinguished diplomat Hans Blix, who will spearhead a cross-country delegation charged with conveying our sentiments to North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. We indicate in the strongest terms our determination to defend western, eastern, southern and northern values.

“We extend an invitation to South Australia’s Premier Jay Weatherill, and his 17 media advisers, to update the G20 on the success of his government’s bold climate saving initiatives at the 2018 summit in Buenos Aires, where, inspired by practice at APEC, we will dress up as lithium batteries for an official photograph to signal our support.

“We acknowledge differences of opinion among members on the efficacy of the Paris Agreement on climate change, and now strenuously undertake to limit global temperature increase to no more than 2.16 degrees Celsius by 2104…

“As part of our new Partnership with Africa we urge Africa to consider new ways to be less poor as part of our global efforts to reduce terrorism and the flow of refugees into G20 countries.

“We also welcome establishment of the Kleptomania Mitigation Taskforce, which will examine innovative ways to curb inappropriate use of foreign aid, to be spearheaded by Rwanda and Congo as part of the African Union’s Agenda 2063."
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/07/the-g20-hangover.php

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13065
    • View Profile
Re: The United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law
« Reply #269 on: September 20, 2017, 06:28:51 PM »
coming from the most successful diplomatic giant of the past century this really means a lot:

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/madeleine-albright-united-nations-donald-trump-speech/2017/09/20/id/814705/


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14990
    • View Profile
Re: The United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law
« Reply #271 on: December 21, 2017, 11:09:04 AM »
Short list of countries that support the US:

https://twitter.com/noa_landau/status/943893607647449088/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.haaretz.com%2Fisrael-news%2F1.830498

Besides Israel and the US voting against the condemnation of the the US were a few small Pacific islands, Honduras, Guatemala and Haiti.

Hating us less than the others were those abstaining including:
Australia, Argentina, Canada, Hungary, Mexico, Panama, Philippines, Poland

Siding with the Palestinians over the US: Most nations including Britain, France, Germany, India, Japan

Taking names and remembering.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56442
    • View Profile
Bolton: How to defund the UN
« Reply #272 on: December 26, 2017, 12:13:26 PM »
How to Defund the U.N.
A few of its agencies do useful work. American taxpayers shouldn’t pay for the many that don’t.Angerer/Getty Images
By John Bolton
Dec. 25, 2017 3:17 p.m. ET
310 COMMENTS

As an assistant secretary of state in the George H.W. Bush administration, I worked vigorously to repeal a hateful United Nations General Assembly resolution equating Zionism with racism. Foreign diplomats frequently told me the effort was unnecessary. My Soviet counterpart, for example, said Resolution 3379 was only a piece of paper gathering dust on a shelf. Why stir up old controversies years after its 1975 adoption?

We ignored the foreign objections and persisted because that abominable resolution cast a stain of illegitimacy and anti-Semitism on the U.N. It paid off. On Dec. 16, 1991, the General Assembly rescinded the offensive language.

Now, a quarter-century later, the U.N. has come close to repeating Resolution 3379’s original sin. Last week the U.N. showed its true colors with a 128-9 vote condemning President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

This seemingly lopsided outcome obscured a significant victory and major opportunity for the president. Thirty-five countries abstained, and 21 didn’t vote at all. Days earlier the Security Council had endorsed similar language, 14-1, defeated only by the U.S. veto. The margin narrowed significantly once Mr. Trump threatened to penalize countries that voted against the U.S. This demonstrated once again that America is heard much more clearly at the U.N. when it puts its money where its mouth is. (In related news, Guatemala announced Sunday it will move its embassy to Jerusalem, a good example for others.)

While imposing financial repercussions on individual governments is entirely legitimate, the White House should also reconsider how Washington funds the U.N. more broadly. Should the U.S. forthrightly withdraw from some U.N. bodies (as we have from UNESCO and as Israel announced its intention to do on Friday)? Should others be partially or totally defunded? What should the government do with surplus money if it does withhold funds?

Despite decades of U.N. “reform” efforts, little or nothing in its culture or effectiveness has changed. Instead, despite providing the body with a disproportionate share of its funding, the U.S. is subjected to autos-da-fé on a regular basis. The only consolation, at least to date, is that this global virtue-signaling has not yet included burning the U.S. ambassador at the stake.

Turtle Bay has been impervious to reform largely because most U.N. budgets are financed through effectively mandatory contributions. Under this system, calculated by a “capacity to pay” formula, each U.N. member is assigned a fixed percentage of each agency’s budget to contribute. The highest assessment is 22%, paid by the U.S. This far exceeds other major economies, whose contribution levels are based on prevailing exchange rates rather than purchasing power parity. China’s assessment is just under 8%.

Why does the U.S. tolerate this? It is either consistently outvoted when setting the budgets that determine contributions or has joined the “consensus” to avoid the appearance of losing. Yet dodging embarrassing votes means acquiescing to increasingly high expenditures.

The U.S. should reject this international taxation regime and move instead to voluntary contributions. This means paying only for what the country wants—and expecting to get what it pays for. Agencies failing to deliver will see their budgets cut, modestly or substantially. Perhaps America will depart some organizations entirely. This is a performance incentive the current assessment-taxation system simply does not provide.

Start with the U.N. Human Rights Council. Though notorious for its anti-Israel bias, the organization has never hesitated to abuse America. How many know that earlier this year the U.N. dispatched a special rapporteur to investigate poverty in the U.S.? American taxpayers effectively paid a progressive professor to lecture them about how evil their country is.

The U.N.’s five regional economic and social councils, which have no concrete accomplishments, don’t deserve American funding either. If nations believe these regional organizations are worthwhile—a distinctly dubious proposition—they are entirely free to fund them. Why America is assessed to support them is incomprehensible.

Next come vast swaths of U.N. bureaucracy. Most of these budgets could be slashed with little or no real-world impact. Start with the Office for Disarmament Affairs. The U.N. Development Program is another example. Significant savings could be realized by reducing other U.N. offices that are little more than self-licking ice cream cones, including many dealing with “Palestinian” questions. The U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees could be consolidated into the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees.

Many U.N. specialized and technical agencies do important work, adhere to their mandates and abjure international politics. A few examples: the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. They shouldn’t be shuttered, but they also deserve closer scrutiny.

Some will argue incorrectly that unilaterally moving to voluntary contributions violates the U.N. Charter. In construing treaties, like contracts, parties are absolved from performance when others violate their commitments. Defenders of the assessed-contribution model would doubtless not enjoy estimating how often the charter has been violated since 1945.

If the U.S. moved first, Japan and some European Union countries might well follow America’s lead. Elites love the U.N., but they would have a tough time explaining to voters why they are not insisting their contributions be used effectively, as America has. Apart from risking the loss of a meaningless General Assembly vote—the Security Council vote and veto being written into the Charter itself—the U.S. has nothing substantial to lose.

Thus could Mr. Trump revolutionize the U.N. system. The swamp in Turtle Bay might be drained much more quickly than the one in Washington.

Mr. Bolton is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of “Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad” (Simon & Schuster, 2007). He served as U.S. ambassador to the U.N., 2005-06.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14990
    • View Profile
United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Groups: G7?
« Reply #273 on: June 07, 2018, 11:38:53 AM »
We still need a new international organization - for guidance, not governance.  G7 will meet tomorrow.  Group of 7, wikipedia:  "These countries, with the 7 largest advanced economies in the world,..."  What?

Nice that the group now excludes Russia, not close to top 10 but part of the former G8 or 7+1.  They were included in the past for their nuclear threat??

Also excluded is China, world's second largest economy, India, 6th, and Brazil's economy is larger than Italy's.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/022415/worlds-top-10-economies.asp

If economy is measured per capita, plenty of others would jump up on the list.

We and our friends define what 'advanced' means and certainly we should be able to meet with any group of like minded people of mutual agreement.  We'll see what comes out of this that is positive and relevant.

But we are still in urgent need to form a new global group of significance to take over functions of the failed UN with new credibility.  The group in my mind would have criteria for membership that are realistic and attainable but not automatic.  Libya and Syria won't be leading the human rights commission and Hamas and Hezbollah won't be voting on the legitimacy of Israel's defensive actions.  G7 proves we can be discriminating.  Looking back again to the Heritage index, an association of free countries should have to hit some kind of minimum freedom level in all of the important areas in order to have a vote and a turn at the podium.  Not a group where Chavez lectures us and Kruschev pound his shoe.

Mark it up on Trump's accomplishments as soon as he gets the ball rolling.  And then de-fund the UN.  We'll pay for one vote at the UN, not the lion's share to be treated like a mouse.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56442
    • View Profile
Ending the Theater of the Absurd
« Reply #274 on: June 22, 2018, 09:20:38 AM »
Ending The ‘Theater of the Absurd’ At The UNHRC
by Gregg Roman
The Hill
June 20, 2018
https://www.meforum.org/articles/2018/ending-the-theater-of-the-absurd-at-the-unhrc

It is possible that there is no more misplaced and absurdly titled international body than the United Nations Human Rights Council. Though the name sounds noble, its work is anything but, so it is entirely correct that the United States no longer plays along with this macabre charade and has officially withdrawn from the organization.

Like all United Nations bodies, the UNHRC is a sum of its parts and, on closer inspection of the countries that make up the council such as Afghanistan, Qatar, Cuba and China, it is clear that the “inmates are running the asylum.” 

Only a minority of the 47 nations on the UNHRC are considered “free” by the independent NGO Freedom House. The majority of nations currently represented on this self-styled “human rights” body do not allow basic freedoms for their own people, let alone concern themselves with global civil liberties.
 
The UNHRC disproportionately focuses on Israel while ignoring abuses of repressive autocracies like China.

In fact, many repressive countries seek a seat on the council not to advance the vision of Eleanor Roosevelt, chair of the committee that drafted and approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but to serve as a barrier against the possibility of investigation and condemnation. It’s a strategy that has worked well for many countries where there is no democracy, freedom of religion, protections for minorities, or women’s rights.

During more than 50 UNHRC sessions, only 14 of 193 countries have been condemned, leaving the serial human rights-abusing nations completely unscathed.

One could argue that the only matter of concern to many of these repressive dictatorships is to single out one country: the State of Israel. There have been far more resolutions adopted against Israel than against all the other 192 nations on earth combined.

In addition, the UNHRC’s Article 7 singles out the “human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied territories,” the only region-specific issue on the council’s agenda every month.

All of this means that the United States has no business being on a body that uniquely condemns one of its strongest allies and serves to bolster and defend autocracies, dictatorships, monocracies and regimes that massacre and repress their own people and others.

There is no justification for the presence of the United States on the UNHRC, and our leaving it sends a clear message to allies and foes alike that the situation of repressive regimes using the United Nations to shield their abuses and distract and deflect attention toward the one Jewish state stands against the lofty vision of human rights, equality and equity.

It also will hopefully shame the few other free democracies that carry on the charade that takes place on the banks of Lake Geneva. Perhaps it can even lead to some meaningful reform.

In 2003, when the UNHRC’s predecessor, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, elected the murderous regime of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi as chair, for many this was the final straw.

This prompted then-U.N. secretary-general Kofi Annan to call for scrapping the commission, which he said was plagued with “politicization,” “selectivity” and a “credibility deficit,” all of which “cast a shadow on the reputation of the United Nations system as a whole.”

Some might argue, quite rightly, that the UNHRC is actually worse than its predecessor. However, there is no moral voice from above to call for its disbanding. Thus, it is left to the United States to force its hand.

By withdrawing from the UNHRC, the United States has dented the U.N. body’s credibility. Moreover, the reduction in funding which the U.S. announced, across the United Nations sphere, will force the multilateral organization to take a look at itself and see where it is going wrong. The United States is the largest contributor to the United Nations, paying 22 percent of the organization's annual budget.

The United Nations is fast descending into a completely politicized body that attacks democracies and provides a space for rogue regimes to run the multilateral sphere. This hurts not only the United States and its interests, but certainly acts against the mandate the United Nations created for itself.

The United States has taken the moral high ground by leaving the UNHRC. This is part of this Trump administration’s message of standing firm against opponents and not turning a blind eye to allies that hurt America and its interests.  This action should put the international community on notice that normal service will not be resumed in the “Theater of the Absurd.”

Gregg Roman is director of the Middle East Forum, a nonprofit organization that promotes American interests.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56442
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: October 30, 2018, 07:43:24 AM by Crafty_Dog »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14990
    • View Profile
United Nations/ US Sovereignty, UN helping the Caravan with US taxpayer money
« Reply #277 on: October 30, 2018, 07:20:04 AM »
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/migrant-caravan-u-s-sovereignty/
"The U.N. is committing resources to the caravan. In essence, it uses U.S. taxpayers' money to fund a violation of their own border. That way, the U.S. can join all the other countries with a mass immigration problem.

As the UN News service reported, "A priority for UNHCR (the UN's refugee agency), which has mobilized extra staff and resources to help . Those making the journey in Mexico's southern borderlands, is ensuring migrants are informed on their rights to asylum. In an agency video, a UNHCR protection associate said many migrants were simply unaware asylum was an option."

In other words, the U.N. has set up shop in Mexico and is pushing these migrants to go to the U.S. Once again, the U.N. violates a member nation's right to protect its own borders."
------------------------------------
Maybe one day after the election would be a good day to inform the UN that Nikki Haley will be our last ambassador and that they already received our last payment.  Use it wisely.  The UN facility will very possibly be bought by the largest developer in the area.  Take your anti-Americanism podium and diplomatic immunity and ...

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56442
    • View Profile
Re: The United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law
« Reply #278 on: October 30, 2018, 07:45:21 AM »
You have the essence right Doug, but note the weasel words:

"ensuring migrants are informed on their rights to asylum"


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56442
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56442
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56442
    • View Profile
Defense One's BS attack on Trump's cancellation of Arms Trade Treaty bill
« Reply #283 on: May 01, 2019, 06:53:45 AM »


https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/04/trump-withdrawal-arms-trade-treaty-could-harm-us-industry/156621/?oref=d-river&fbclid=IwAR1v2F-WeL5oJFz0yhz-XXbKmNMzV_XwhoLusaaiP5X5wbHsoWeUrzarE-Y

"The U.S. defense industry’s involvement helped ensure that the ATT reflected the realities of the global arms trade and did not undermine legitimate and legal business. To the contrary: when implemented effectively, the ATT helps level the playing field by requiring other countries to adopt standards similar to those that U.S. companies must follow. While Russia and China have not joined the treaty, the ATT provides a principled basis for the United States and its allies to challenge these countries’ arms exports, where appropriate, as inconsistent with international norms."

Oy vey.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13065
    • View Profile
new UN ambassador
« Reply #284 on: August 01, 2019, 07:26:27 AM »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Craft

she and coal billionaire third husband are big donors to Trump
she was ambassador to Canada previously

he father a staunch crat .  she a can

not sure about her qualifications frankly but then again the UN is a joke anyway.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56442
    • View Profile
Re: The United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law
« Reply #285 on: August 08, 2019, 12:04:14 AM »
Pretty weak, and the personal trips back home typify a certain impression of Trump and some of his appointments.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14990
    • View Profile
United Nations/ UN putting a Slave State Mauritania on Human Rights Council
« Reply #286 on: October 17, 2019, 07:25:47 AM »
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/un-set-to-elect-slave-state-to-human-rights-committee-36310

Geneva, Switzerland, Oct 16, 2019 / 04:00 pm (CNA).- Mauritania, the west African nation where slavery remains a widespread practice, is expected to be voted on to the United Nations’ Human Rights Council on Thursday.

According to its website, the UNHRC is “an inter-governmental body within the United Nations system responsible for strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights around the globe and for addressing situations of human rights violations and make recommendations on them.”
-----------------------
The number of slaves in the country has been estimated by the organization SOS Slavery to be up to 600,000 (or 17% of the population).
"The Abolition season". Bbc.co.uk. BBC World Service. Retrieved April 20, 2017.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specials/1458_abolition/page4.shtml

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56442
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56442
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14990
    • View Profile
Re: China gets seat on UN Human Rights Council, International Organizations
« Reply #290 on: April 06, 2020, 06:08:25 AM »
https://www.foxnews.com/world/china-un-human-rights-council-coronavirus-response

I'm searching for words to react to this that don't involve profanity.

Exhibit A:  The Chinese doctor who first spoke out about coronavirus, was jailed along with 8 others, and died. 

When do we disband UN, WHO, etc and form new institutions with nations that share basic human rights values. 

Russia and China are permanent members of the security council with veto power while they work non-stop against US and world interests.  In what kind of world do we consent to that?

I don't know about the first short 4 years tied up by opponents in fake Russian collusion and impeachment buffoonery, but a two term President has responsibility for fixing what is wrong during his or her time in office.  UN is all wrong.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13065
    • View Profile
China has the money
« Reply #291 on: April 06, 2020, 10:32:12 AM »
UN, WHO

money explains nearly everything

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14990
    • View Profile
United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law, WHO
« Reply #292 on: April 09, 2020, 07:27:31 AM »
Previously:

Crafty:  "Looking for the info on the background of the head of the WHO (Somali?) having a terror background"
---------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tedros_Adhanom
---------------
"I could have swore he had something shady in there.
Thank you any way."
---------------

Let's not give up on this just because wikipedia didn't have it.  Mark Steyn among others mentioned his shadyness.  Was Ethiopia a communist regime.  Was he put in as a stooge for China.

OTOH, his background isn't what matters.  His governance has been somewhere between awful and criminal.

Just posted by GM and previously in these threads:  WHO, Jan 14, Wuhan virus is not spread person to person.  For all their money, for all their expertise, WHO did not determine this; they took regime of China's word for it.  Is that incompetence, or criminal negligence?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14990
    • View Profile
Re: United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law, WHO
« Reply #293 on: April 09, 2020, 07:35:05 AM »
https://www.wsj.com/articles/lost-in-beijing-the-story-of-the-who-11586365090?mod=opinion_lead_pos10

Lost in Beijing: The Story of the WHO
China broke the World Health Organization. The U.S. has to fix it or leave and start its own group.
By Lanhee J. Chen  [director of domestic policy studies in the public policy program at Stanford University]
April 8, 2020

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director-general of the World Health Organization, speaks in Geneva, April 6.

The World Health Organization isn’t just “China centric,” as President Trump called it on Tuesday. It is also broken and compromised. The WHO fell short in its dithering reaction to the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa, which claimed more than 11,000 lives. Now its response to the coronavirus pandemic shows it is willing to put politics ahead of public health. The way the WHO has consistently acted to placate China’s leaders makes clear the need for fundamental reform.

The U.S. is the biggest financial contributor to the WHO—more than $400 million in 2019, when China sent only $44 million, according to the U.S. State Department. Mr. Trump suggested that the U.S. might hold its funding while his administration takes a “good look” at what the country is getting for its money. He and Congress should go further.

The Coronavirus Surge


SUBSCRIBE
While Washington pays, Beijing works behind the scenes to influence WHO leaders. The current director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, was backed strongly by the Chinese government during his campaign for the job. Mr. Tedros was a controversial pick, dogged by allegations of having covered up cholera outbreaks in his native Ethiopia, where he served as health minister (2005-12) and foreign minister (2012-16). During those years, China invested in Ethiopia and lent it billions of dollars. Shortly after winning his WHO election, Mr. Tedros traveled to Beijing and lauded the country’s health-care system: “We can all learn something from China.”

Under Mr. Tedros’s leadership, the WHO has accepted China’s falsehoods about the coronavirus and helped launder them into respectable-looking public-health assessments.

On Jan. 14, before an official WHO delegation had even visited China, the group parroted Beijing’s claim that there was “no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission.” Two weeks later, after China had reported more than 4,500 cases of the virus and over 70 people in other countries were sick with it, Mr. Tedros visited China and heaped praise on its leaders for their “transparency.”

Recall that China waited six weeks after patients first saw symptoms in Wuhan to institute a lockdown there. During this time Chinese authorities censored and punished physicians who tried to sound the alarm, repeatedly denied that the virus could be transmitted between humans, and held a public banquet in Wuhan for tens of thousands of families. In the meantime, more than five million people left or fled Wuhan, according to the city’s mayor. This included the patient with the first confirmed case of the virus in America.

The WHO finally declared a public-health emergency on Jan. 30, after nearly 10,000 cases of the virus had been confirmed. China’s reported figures rose in early February to more than 17,000 infections and 361 deaths, yet Mr. Tedros rebuked Mr. Trump for restricting travel from China and urged other countries not to follow suit. He called the virus’s spread outside China “minimal and slow.” It took until March 11 for the WHO to declare a pandemic. By that point the official world-wide case count was 118,000 people in 114 countries.

China’s influence is also apparent in the WHO’s exclusion of Taiwan. The WHO didn’t even bother replying to Taiwanese inquiries in December about whether the coronavirus could, contrary to Beijing’s claims, be transmitted between humans.

Last month a Hong Kong TV reporter asked Bruce Aylward, who leads the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus, if the organization would reconsider its refusal to allow Taiwan to join. Dr. Aylward, on a remote video connection, sits silent and expressionless for nearly 10 seconds before the reporter prompts him again: “Hello?”

“I’m sorry,” he finally says, “I couldn’t hear—I can’t hear your question, Yvonne.”

“Let me repeat the question,” she says.

“No, that’s OK. Let’s move to another one then.”

When she presses him on Taiwan, he terminates the connection. The reporter calls back and tries a different tack: “I just want to see if you can comment a bit on how Taiwan has done so far in terms of containing the virus.”

His reply: “Well, we’ve already talked about China, and, you know, when you look across all the different areas of China, they’ve actually all done quite a good job.”

The exchange demonstrates how the WHO prioritizes politics over public health. It has internalized Beijing’s view of Taiwan and seeks to praise China’s leaders at every turn. And at no point during the crisis has the WHO substantively investigated the Chinese regime’s claims about the virus or been transparent about the thinking behind its decisions.

As the biggest financial contributor to the WHO, the U.S. has the leverage to push for radical reform. Congress should condition all future funding on the WHO’s explaining in detail how it reaches its public-health decisions and rigorously and independently investigating the extent of disease outbreaks.

The U.S. should work aggressively to change the culture and leadership of the WHO. The Trump administration took a good first step in January by creating a special envoy at the State Department focused on countering China’s attempts to control international organizations. The WHO’s next director-general must not be a rubber stamp for Beijing.

If efforts to transform the WHO are ineffective, the U.S. may have no choice but to walk away and start over. That could mean creating an alternative organization open to any country willing to abide by higher standards of transparency, good governance and the sharing of best practices. The world needs an organization that can be trusted to address public-health problems that transcend borders—if not the WHO, then something else.

Mr. Chen is a fellow at the Hoover Institution and director of domestic policy studies in the public policy program at Stanford University.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2020, 10:19:25 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14990
    • View Profile
United Nations/ WHO/ US Sovereignty/International Law
« Reply #294 on: April 10, 2020, 11:10:42 AM »
WHO document from January 30, 2020 excerpted.  What a bunch of fluff.  They have been covering for China and not doing their own job from the start.

https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/30-01-2020-statement-on-the-second-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-outbreak-of-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)

Statement on the second meeting of the International Health Regulations (2005) Emergency Committee regarding the outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)
30 January 2020 Statement Geneva, Switzerland
العربية中文FrançaisРусскийEspañol
The second meeting of the Emergency Committee convened by the WHO Director-General under the International Health Regulations (IHR) (2005) regarding the outbreak of novel coronavirus 2019 in the People’s Republic of China, with exportations to other countries, took place on Thursday, 30 January 2020, from 13:30 to 18:35 Geneva time (CEST).
...
Representatives of the Ministry of Health of the People’s Republic of China reported on the current situation and the public health measures being taken. There are now 7711 confirmed and 12167 suspected cases throughout the country. Of the confirmed cases, 1370 are severe and 170 people have died. 124 people have recovered and been discharged from hospital.

The WHO Secretariat provided an overview of the situation in other countries. There are now 83 cases in 18 countries. Of these, only 7 had no history of travel in China. There has been human-to-human transmission in 3 countries outside China. One of these cases is severe and there have been no deaths.

Conclusions and advice
The Committee welcomed the leadership and political commitment of the very highest levels of Chinese government, their commitment to transparency, and the efforts made to investigate and contain the current outbreak. China quickly identified the virus and shared its sequence, so that other countries could diagnose it quickly and protect themselves, which has resulted in the rapid development of diagnostic tools.
...
The Committee agreed that the outbreak now meets the criteria for a Public Health Emergency of International Concern and proposed the following advice to be issued as Temporary Recommendations.

The Committee emphasized that the declaration of a PHEIC should be seen in the spirit of support and appreciation for China, its people, and the actions China has taken on the frontlines of this outbreak, with transparency, and, it is to be hoped, with success. In line with the need for global solidarity, the Committee felt that a global coordinated effort is needed to enhance preparedness in other regions of the world that may need additional support for that.
...
The Committee does not recommend any travel or trade restriction based on the current information available.

The Director-General declared that the outbreak of 2019-nCoV constitutes a PHEIC and accepted the Committee’s advice and issued this advice as Temporary Recommendations under the IHR.
...
Countries are reminded that they are legally required to share information with WHO under the IHR.    (Did China do that - in a timely manner??)
« Last Edit: April 10, 2020, 11:14:15 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14990
    • View Profile
United Nations/ WHO / US Sovereignty/International Law
« Reply #295 on: April 16, 2020, 07:24:58 AM »
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/04/15/jimmy-carter-distressed-over-trump-halting-who-funding/

US fund to WHO 500 million and the Chinese 40 million

yet the WHO leader covers up for the Chinese
he must be getting cash under the table  - must be

Yes.  Must be.  It happens all the time and there is no consequence.

The United States is the largest donor to the WHO, providing more than US$400 million in 2019, roughly 15 per cent of its budget.
Tedros added: “WHO is reviewing the impact of our work of any withdrawal of US funding and we will work with partners to fill any gaps and ensure our work continues uninterrupted.”

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/3080127/coronavirus-latest-us-economy-contracts-sharply

We waited too long to clean up these organizations.  China is happy to take up the slack of the US leaving, and lead the corrupt world organizations in our absence into, I guess, more bad health, more corruption and more bad governance.

What was the price paid for all the other UN money scandals?  Nothing??  Oil for food?  All the IPCC crap?  Now we find out "world Health Organization" is just somebody else's deep state slush fund, funded by us.  Where is the WHO warehouse stocking $3 billion  per year of masks, gloves and ventilators?  Where is the world protection for the jailed whistleblower doctors?  If we have to wait for health news to reach the media We need new organizations to replace the old with new checks in place, such as zero based budgeting.   that learn from what happened and prevent it from happening again.  If you haven't accomplished your mission or can't account for every dime spent honestly in the pursuit, your department or division loses all funding and is replaced by someone else who will do that job.

There will be plenty of money to fund a new world health watchdog for decades coming out of reparations from the Communist Party of China.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14990
    • View Profile
Serious Questions for WHO
« Reply #296 on: April 24, 2020, 06:56:16 AM »
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2020/04/23/key-questions-for-the-world-health-organization/?utm-access=powerline

If the WHO is to remain a credible international organization, it must answer these questions—publicly and in detail.

In view of ongoing controversies surrounding the World Health Organization’s response to COVID-19, we have isolated the most important questions that need to be answered in order to form an objective assessment of the organization’s record. These questions have been formulated after research of Chinese and other open sources.

When did the WHO receive information about COVID-19?

According to the pro-Beijing South China Morning Post, owned by Jack Ma (owner of the firm Alibaba and a member of the Chinese Communist Party), the first case of COVID-19 in Wuhan, China, was confirmed on November 17, 2019. But according to the official website of the WHO, it first received a report from China about the virus outbreak on December 31.

Before that date, did the WHO receive or discover any other information about the outbreak? If so, what was the organization’s reaction? What did Chinese authorities say in their first report to the WHO? Can the public see that report? If not, why not?

Was the WHO aware of China’s suppression of research and information about COVID-19?

On January 1, 2020, the day after China’s report, Hubei province health authorities ordered the company that first identified and sequenced the virus to stop testing, destroy all samples, and keep information secret. According to press reports, two days later, central health authorities issued a similar official order to testing facilities across the country. If the WHO was aware of these things, how did it react to China’s cover-up?

What did the WHO do with information received from Taiwan about the risk of human-to-human transmission of COVID-19?

It is now well-known that on December 31, Taiwan alerted the WHO about the risk of human-to-human transmission of the new virus. What is less known is what the WHO did upon receiving the alert from Taiwan. Did the organization pass on the concerns to other countries?

Was the WHO aware of Chinese doctors becoming infected with COVID-19, even as the organization denied that the disease could be transmitted between individuals?

Like the Chinese government, the WHO officially denied until January 20 that COVID-19 could be transmitted from human to human. But between January 1 and January 11, at least seven doctors contracted the virus. The WHO was presumably aware that infected doctors are the most telling indicator of human-to-human transmission. Was the WHO aware of doctors infected in China during this time? Or did Chinese authorities not inform the WHO of these cases?

Why did the WHO continue to deny human transmission after confirming a case of COVID-19 in Thailand on January 13, 2020?

The WHO official timeline records that on January 13, “Officials confirm a case of COVID-19 in Thailand, the first recorded case outside of China.” Why then did the organization continue to claim at its January 14 press conference that there was no evidence showing human-to-human transmission, and no case of doctors infected in China or Thailand?

Why didn’t the WHO visit Wuhan hospitals where COVID-19 patients were being treated?

On January 20 and 21, a day before the Wuhan lockdown was declared, WHO experts from its China and Western Pacific regional offices conducted a brief field visit to Wuhan. The delegation visited the Wuhan Tianhe Airport, Zhongnan Hospital, the Hubei provincial Center for Disease Control (CDC), including the BSL3 laboratory in China’s CDC. Why did the delegation not visit Wuhan Central Hospital, Jinyintan Hospital, or Wuhan Pneumonia Hospital—that is, the main hospitals treating infected patients? Did the WHO request such visits?

Did the WHO receive information from Zhongnan Hospital head Dr. Wang Xinghuan about the spread of COVID-19?

On January 19, the day before the WHO delegation’s visit, top Wuhan public authorities came to inspect Zhongnan Hospital, and instructed the hospital administrators and professionals to be “mindful of political implications about what you are going to say to WHO.” The hospital head Dr. Wang Xinghuan responded that, “I must tell them the truth. Have we learned any lesson from SARS? Saving lives is the biggest politics, so is telling the truth.” That night, worried that Wang would reveal what he knew, the city government sent an official “friend” to talk to him. Wang told the “friend” that political integrity “requires us to stand with the people, which is good for the Party’s overall image.” Can the WHO reveal what Dr. Wang told the delegation on January 20?

Given the massive evacuation from Wuhan during the week of January 20, why did the WHO wait until January 30 to declare the outbreak a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC)?   

BBC health reporter James Gallagher’s January 18 report begins: “The number of people already infected by the mystery virus emerging in China is far greater than official figures suggest, scientists have told the BBC. There have been more than 60 confirmed cases of the new coronavirus, but UK experts estimate a figure nearer 1,700.”

During the WHO delegation’s visit in Wuhan, residents desperate to avoid the virus were scrambling to leave the city for destinations in China and throughout the world. Wuhan Mayor Zhou Xianwang confirmed at a January 26 press conference that more than five million Wuhan residents had left in the past week. Was the WHO delegation aware of this mass evacuation? Why was a PHEIC declaration not made at the WHO’s meeting on January 22-23?

What took place when the WHO’s Director-General met with Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping and other top Chinese leaders on January 28?

On January 28, a senior WHO delegation led by Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus traveled to Beijing to meet China’s leadership, learn more about China’s response, and offer technical assistance.

Tedros met with Xi Jinping and Foreign Minister Wang Yi, but did not meet with the official head of the Chinese government’s response, Premier Li Keqiang. Did Tedros request a meeting with Li? What did Tedros learn in China? Was his trip political or professional in nature?

Given China’s suppression of information, failure to contain the COVID-19 epidemic, and delays in reporting on the nature of COVID-19, why did the WHO’s Director-General praise the Chinese response and, indeed, the Chinese “system”?

In January 30, at the WHO news conference to declare the outbreak a PHEIC, Tedros hailed the CCP system, Xi Jinping’s leadership, and China’s response: “As I have said repeatedly since my return from Beijing, the Chinese government is to be congratulated for the extraordinary measures it has taken to contain the outbreak, despite the severe social and economic impact those measures are having on the Chinese people.” He went on to note that

the speed with which China detected the outbreak, isolated the virus, sequenced the genome, and shared it with WHO and the world are very impressive, and beyond words. So is China’s commitment to transparency and to supporting other countries. In many ways, China is actually setting a new standard for outbreak response, and it’s not an exaggeration.

At the same conference, he said, “Let me be clear. This declaration is not a vote of no confidence in China. On the contrary, WHO continues to have the confidence in China’s capacity to control the outbreak.” He seemed to feel the need to add later: “I’ll repeat this. Let me be clear. This declaration is not a vote of no confidence in China. On the contrary. WHO continues to have confidence in China’s capacity to control the outbreak.”

Given the facts laid out above, why did the WHO’s Director-General make such false claims? If the WHO was unaware of these facts at the time, does it now still stand by what Tedros said at the news conference? Does he still believe China was committed to “transparency”? Why did Tedros praise and defer to China?

Why didn’t Tedros recommend restricting Chinese travel and trade on January 30?

At the January 30 conference, Tedros repeatedly stressed that the WHO did not recommend—and indeed opposed—any restrictions on Chinese travel and trade. Given the above information, and especially the Wuhan Mayor’s admission on January 26 that more than five million Wuhan residents had escaped the city, why was Tedros opposed to restrictions on Chinese travel and trade? Does the WHO now admit that this judgment was incorrect?

Why did the WHO continue to oppose restrictions on Chinese trade and travel through the end of February?

As agreed by the two sides, China and the WHO convened Chinese and foreign experts to form a joint mission to investigate epidemic prevention and control in China. Starting on February 16, the joint mission visited Beijing, Guangdong, Sichuan, and Wuhan of Hubei province successively, ending on February 24.

The team leaders of the joint mission—Dr. Bruce Aylward, former WHO Assistant Director-General and senior advisor to the Director-General, and Dr. Liang Wannian, head of the Expert Panel on COVID-19 Response of China’s National Health Commission—held a press conference in Beijing before Aylward left China. At the press conference, Aylward continued to oppose restrictions on Chinese travel and trade. In retrospect, does the WHO think this was sensible?

Why didn’t the joint China-WHO mission inspect the infected areas of Wuhan?

At the end of the February 24 press conference, Washington Post Beijing bureau chief Anna Fifield asked the WHO’s Dr. Aylward why he was not in quarantine after staying in Wuhan over the weekend. Aylward said he didn’t go to any “dirty” areas in Wuhan and that he had been tested for the coronavirus that morning. He left China immediately without quarantining himself for 14 days. It is obvious that by “dirty areas,” Aylward meant infectious areas.

Why did the WHO experts on the mission to study and investigate the viral outbreak not go to the infected area? (The WHO delegation visiting Wuhan on January 20-21, 2020, also does not seem to have gone to “dirty areas.”) Did the WHO experts on the mission have freedom to choose where they went, what hospitals they studied, and what people to talk to—doctors, the infected, relatives of the deceased, or people on streets for that matter? Or was the mission itinerary and agenda dictated by the Chinese authorities?

Why did the WHO’s Dr. Aylward lavish praise on China’s putative success in containing COVID-19?

At the same press conference, and without having personally seen infected areas of Wuhan and other places in China, Aylward lavished praise on the government’s success in containing the virus. But when a BBC reporter asked him to what extent he thought a cover-up and censorship played a role in allowing the virus to accelerate at the rate that it did, he replied, “I don’t know, frankly, didn’t look at that. I’m just being completely honest. . . .”

One purpose of the press conference was to make recommendations for a global response. Why, then, did an expert charged with that task not consider whether China or any country had made mistakes? Why did Aylward try to avoid that question? Does the WHO now think this approach was appropriate?

Why did the WHO wait until March 11 to declare COVID-19 a global pandemic? Why did Dr. Aylward continue to minimize the scope and threat of COVID-19?

At the press conference, Dr. Aylward also said, “Because every day we stopped to think about this disease and make decisions, should we do it or not, this virus will take advantage and almost double the number of cases. We have to move fast.” This shows that he understood the vital importance of speed. By March 4, as the number of cases and death toll soared in many countries, it had long met the criteria of transmission between people, high fatality rates, and worldwide spread.  Yet on March 4, in an interview with New York Times reporter Donald McNeil, he said, “We don’t have a global pandemic.”

Has the WHO run models to estimate how many lives could have been saved if it had acted more quickly to declare COVID-19, respectively, a public health emergency of international concern and a global pandemic?


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 13065
    • View Profile
Re: The United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law
« Reply #298 on: April 29, 2020, 04:09:47 PM »
what does this shit got to do with epidemics and world health

let gates keep them afloat.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56442
    • View Profile