House GOP targets the U.N.

House GOP
targets the U.N.

By: Tim Mak
August 30, 2011 06:08
AM EDT
House Republicans are planning to introduce legislation Tuesday that will
force major changes at the United Nations, an organization that the bill’s author has
called a “stew of corruption, mismanagement and negligence.”

The bill, by Republican House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, would require the UN adopt a voluntary
budget model, in which countries selectively choose which UN agencies to
fund.

The bill is expected to be introduced on Tuesday, and will also end funding
for Palestinian refugees and limit the use of U.S. funds only to projects
directly outlined by Congress.

An aide familiar with the legislation told
Bloomberg News
that shifting the UN budget to a voluntary system would
encourage competition for funds and better performance from UN agencies.

Ros-Lehtinen’s leverage for change at the U.N. is the large amount of the
international body’s budget that the American taxpayer has traditionally been
responsible for. The United States pays 22 percent of the UN’s regular
operations budget, and is assessed 27 percent of the peacekeeping budget. U.S.
payments totaled $3.35 billion in 2010, of which $2.67 billion was spent on
peacekeeping operations worldwide.

This Republican vision on foreign affairs stands in stark contrast to that of
President Obama’s, which has focused recently on multilateralism and
international consensus.

But Republicans are not the only ones concerned about growing spending at the
United Nations. Speaking on behalf of the United States, senior U.S. diplomat
Joseph Torsella recently objected to a nearly 3 percent cost of living raise to
the approximately 5,000 UN employees in New York City, saying that “a raise is
inappropriate this time of global fiscal austerity, when member state
governments everywhere are implementing drastic austerity
measures.”

© 2011 POLITICO LLC

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PLANS CAMPAIGN TO ‘STRENGTHEN’ UN…

Susan
Rice kicks off U.N. series

By: Mike Allen and Jake
Sherman

February 11, 2011 09:27 AM EST

Susan Rice, President Barack Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, will
argue in a major address Friday evening that the U.S. should “strengthen” — not
“starve” — the world body.

The address is the first in a series of
speeches — to continue this spring – making the case to the American people
about why the U.N. matters to national security, and how it is being
improved.
House Republicans failed this week in trying to get $180
million in overpaid dues back from the United Nations. The effort was widely
panned by New Yorkers in Congress as damaging to security.
The ambassador will be speaking to the World Affairs Council of Oregon, in
Portland.
“The U.N. provides a real return on our tax dollars by
bringing 192 countries together to share the cost of providing stability, vital
aid, and hope in the world’s most broken places,” Rice says in prepared
remarks.
“Because of the U.N., the world doesn’t look to America to
solve every problem alone. … We’re far better off working to strengthen the U.N.
than trying to starve it—and then having to choose between filling the void
ourselves, or leaving real threats untended

Obama and the War Against the Jews

Obama and the War Against the Jews

Posted By David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin On June 25, 2010 @ 12:25 am In FrontPage | 31 Comments

In a letter to President Obama this week, 87 Senators urged [1] the president to support Israel’s right to self-defense against the threats of terrorism from Hamas and Hezbollah and a nuclear-bound Iran that has repeatedly pledged to wipe Israel off the map. In another time, such counsel would be redundant. For most of Israel’s 60-year existence, the Jewish state has been able to count on the stalwart support of its American ally against the many enemies arrayed against it. As Arab states launched wars with exterminationist intent, and as the international community undermined Israel through the agency of the United Nations, America alone stood in Israel’s corner.

Under President Obama, however, such support for an embattled friend is no longer automatic. As Iran races virtually unimpeded toward a nuclear weapon, the Obama administration scolds Israel for daring to build new houses in its capital of Jerusalem. While Hamas, aided by Turkish jihadists, arms for a new war against Israel, the White House demands that Israel exercise a suicidal restraint. As Israel becomes ever more isolated, the Obama administration continues to reach out to its enemies in the Arab and Muslim world. In their new pamphlet, David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin trace the deterioration of the U.S.-Israeli relationship under President Obama, now at its lowest point in three decades. And they show that by emboldening Israel’s enemies, the administration is sowing the seeds of a new conflict, one will that could make it complicit in a new and devastating war against Israel. As a result of President Obama’s wrongheaded policies, Israel’s security – and America’s – is increasingly imperiled.

To read the pamphlet, click here [2].

To order the pamphlet, click here [3].

Egyptian minister: Obama told me he is a Muslim, who supports the Muslim agenda.

Egyptian minister: Obama told me he is a Muslim

Obama told me he is still a Muslim, who supports the Muslim agenda.

  Very few media has picked up what Egypt Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit said on Nile-TV in regards to Obama confirming he is a Muslim. 

This was a statement by Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit on Nile-TV. It was made on the «Round table show».

This is the statement recorded:

Adul Gheit said he had a one-on-one meeting with Obama, where the US President told him that He was still a Muslim, the son of a Muslim father, the step son of Muslim stepfather, that his half brothers in Kenya are Muslims, and that he was sympatetic towards the Muslim agenda.

Adul Gheit claimed Obama told the Arabs to show patience. Obama promised that once he overcame some domestic issues, like the Health care reform, he would show the Muslim World how to deal with Israel.

 Read the full article

Obama, a ‘Strategic Catastrophe’
Israeli officials say it’s not Iran that is Israel’s greatest threat | Aviel Schneider



Netanyahu to Obama: Let my people…STAY!

Although Israeli officials publicly play down the crisis in relations between Jerusalem and Washington, privately the language is much different. Sources close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu describe Obama as a “strategic catastrophe” for Israel.

Officials in the Prime Minister’s Office, speaking on condition of anonymity to the nation’s top newspapers, see the Obama administration as a serious threat to the future of the State of Israel. On the record, Israel and the US have a “strategic partnership that is unbreakable”; off the record, the terminology is blunt to say the least.

“President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have drawn a clear line, supporting the Palestinian position at the expense of Israel,” said one Netanyahu confidant. “It is insane, it is sick. Relations between Jerusalem and Washington are simply disastrous; the situation has never been so dangerous. This US President wants to establish a Palestinian state at any price and hand them Jerusalem on a silver platter.”

Netanyahu has repeatedly distanced himself from such statements, but commentators say the government speaks with a forked tongue. “Israel’s relations with the US are at a low point, and Obama poses a danger to Israel,” wrote Nahum Barnea in the nation’s biggest newspaper Yediot Ahronot.

The feeling among the Israeli public is that Obama is appeasing the Muslim world at the expense of Israel.

“The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim,” said Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit on Nile TV. That could explain why Obama has instructed that the term “Islamic extremism” no longer be used in official government documents and statements.

Furthermore, the US is now accusing Israel of harming American interests in the Middle East. General David Petraeus, the head of US Central Command, said Israel’s intransigence on resolving the conflict with the Palestinians is endangering US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even the US Congress considers Obama’s behavior toward Netanyahu humiliating. Three-quarters of the House of Representatives, 337 of 435 members, signed a bipartisan letter to Clinton expressing “deep concern over recent tension” between the two countries, and demanding that it be smoothed over quickly and in private.

“Obama is a real problem for Israel,” a senior official told told Yediot. “He is Israel’s biggest strategic catastrophe.”

The newspaper also quoted another official who believes that for the first time Washington has switched sides. “The Obama White House is putting pressure only on Israel but does not expect anything from the Palestinians,” he said. “These American demands are unacceptable.”

“The Americans know very well that Israeli construction has always been happening in East Jerusalem and building in Jewish neighborhoods has never been frozen,” said another official. “The Americans use excuses like [the Jewish neighborhood of] Ramat Shlomo and the Shepherd Hotel [another Jewish building project in East Jerusalem] to confront Netanyahu.”

So during Passover, Netanyahu invited Nobel Prize-winning author and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel to his private residence in Caesaria. He urged Wiesel, who is an American citizen, to make it clear to his good friend Obama how important Jerusalem is to the Jewish people.

“Jerusalem was, is and always will be the united capital of Israel,” said Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat. “Construction in all parts of Jerusalem will continue.”

According to a poll by the Independent Media Review & Analysis, 70 percent of Israeli Jews oppose a construction freeze in East Jerusalem, compared to only 19 percent who support it. The survey also found that 69 percent believe the division of Jerusalem with international control of the Old City would lead to ongoing conflict rather than peace.

Officials in Netanyahu’s inner circle believe Obama’s strategy is to force a change of government in Israel. By forcing Israeli concessions on the “settlement” issue, hawks could bolt the coalition, pushing Netanyahu into an alliance with the dovish Kadima party. Kadima is led by former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who, under the previous Olmert government, offered the Palestinians an independent state in 97 percent of the disputed territories with a capital in East Jerusalem.

Obama has been buoyed by his domestic success in passing the historic health care reform bill. And he may believe that he can extend that victory to the international arena by resolving the Middle East conflict. But if Obama continues to underestimate Israeli resolve on Jerusalem, his peace efforts are doomed to failure.

My comment:

Few American and International media seems to be covering this news event in Egypt.

I wounder why?

Are they embarrassed that the American voters have been fooled to vote a Muslim into the seat of the Commander in Chief of United States of America?

Or have the Obama Administration been able to convince the press, that this media story from Egypt is false?

Under any circumstances, the Obama Hussein Administration has shown us that they favor the Islamic World. The word «Islamic Terrorism» is now deleted form the vocabulary in the US. Islam shall from now on only be presented to the American public as a religion of peace.

Netanyahu to International Community: Stop the Hypocrisy

Netanyahu to International Community: Stop the Hypocrisy

 

Posted By P. David Hornik On June 3, 2010 @ 12:38 am In FrontPage | 106 Comments

 

The IDF has released two more videos from the incident Monday morning on the Mavi Marmara, the largest in the Turkish-organized six-ship flotilla that challenged Israel’s blockade of Gaza, and the only one to prepare a violent ambush. One of these two videos is even more dramatic than the one released on Monday [1], now viewed by over a million on YouTube, that shows Mavi Marmara “peace activists” among other things beating the soldiers with iron bars.

The relatively less dramatic [2] of the two newly released videos shows the “activists”—actually jihadists seeking “martyrdom” [3]—attacking the soldiers with a stun grenade, a box of plates, and water hoses as they try to board the ship. The other newly released video is actually almost purely audial footage [4] of a frenetic exchange between soldiers on the Mavi Marmara and the nearby IDF ship. The former, in a state of acute panic, shout that they need reinforcements, are being fired at from all directions, and have to be evacuated immediately. For a while the jihadists can be heard chanting something in the background.

The iron-bars video was released only late Monday afternoon after the “Israel kills peace activists” media-storm had already swept through the world for eight or nine hours, and some in Israel have bitterly charged that releasing it a good deal earlier, if not immediately, could have saved Israel much of the media and diplomatic damage. The reason for the delay was a concern for military morale: seeing soldiers of the Naval Commandos—one of the most legendary of all IDF units—being abjectly beaten, and in one case thrown over the side of the boat, is not the sort of imagery the IDF and Israel itself want to project of these fighters.

But if the iron-bars video is problematic in that regard, the new one in which the soldiers shout, in panic, for their lives is even more so. Why, then, was it released now, when the UN Security Council, with President Obama’s acquiescence [5], has already condemned Israel over the incident, the UN Human Rights Council is preparing another Goldstone-type “investigation,” [6] and Israel has generally been dragged through another worldwide round of condemnation? This new video proves beyond a doubt to any reasonable human being that the soldiers finally opened fired, killing nine of their attackers, solely to save their own lives. But what good could it do at this point?

The answer is that Israel realizes its troubles from this incident are not over and indeed are just beginning. Another ship, the Rachel Corrie (named after the young anti-Israeli activist accidentally killed by an IDF bulldozer in 2003), is already on its way [7] to Gaza from Malta; while carrying only fifteen activists, Irish prime minister Brian Cowen has described it as Irish-owned and is calling on Israel to let it through. A group called the European Campaign to End the Siege on Gaza claims to be planning a new, much larger flotilla than the one intercepted by Israel this week. Newly elected British prime minister David Cameron is calling on Israel [8] to lift the Gaza blockade altogether.

In other words, the democratic world is now getting into the act too—with a vengeance. It was one thing for increasingly-Islamist, Iran- and Syria-friendly, Hamas-supporting Turkey to send the first flotilla. It is quite another thing—and well beyond the usual, de rigueur, but shameful cooperation with Arab-, Islamic-, and “nonaligned”-bloc calumny against Israel in the UN—for Western governments to start getting on this bandwagon as well.

It was in response to the increasingly alarming situation that Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu gave a brief, terse statement [9] to the nation Wednesday night in which he said: “The state of Israel faces an attack of international hypocrisy. This is not the first time we have faced this; two years ago we faced a massive attack of missiles fired by Hamas who hid behind civilians. Israel went to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties; but whom did the UN condemn? It condemned Israel.”

Noting that “It is our right according to international law to prevent arms smuggling to Gaza and that is why the naval blockade was put in place,” Netanyahu pointed out that two ships intercepted by the Israeli navy in recent years—the Francop [10] in 2009 and the Karine-A [11] in 2002—were carrying hundreds of tons of Iranian-supplied weapons, and that while the smuggling of Iranian weapons into Gaza through tunnels continues, what can be delivered by sea is incomparably vaster and would result in an Iranian port in Gaza threatening not only Tel Aviv but also “other countries in the region.”

Turning finally to the uproar over the Mavi Marmara, Netanyahu, noting that he had talked personally with the wounded soldiers and heard firsthand accounts of how their lives were endangered, stated:

The soldiers defended their lives with incomparable restraint. What would any other country do?… I ask the international community, what would you do instead? We’ll continue to defend our citizens and assert our right to self-defense, which is my first duty as prime minister.

It is important that we stay united on this issue, which is a matter of life and death.

The questions Netanyahu raised are indeed very much open. It is no longer clear whether the international community, including its democratic component, is prepared to tolerate the soldiers of the Jewish state shooting back when shot at by a mob, and no longer clear whether it is prepared to countenance the Jewish state defending itself, or existing, at all. Israel, meanwhile, is still trying to make its case, hardly confident that it makes a difference.