Tag Archive for: United Nations

UN Deletes Article Titled ‘The Benefits of World Hunger.’ Was It Real or Satire?

The author of the article in question told FEE it was not a parody.


UN Chronicle, the official magazine of the United Nations, recently deleted a 2008 article titled “The Benefits of World Hunger.”

The article, which now leads to an “error page,” was written by George Kent, a now retired University of Hawaii political science professor. In the article, Kent argued that hunger is “fundamental to the working of the world’s economy.”

“Much of the hunger literature talks about how it is important to assure that people are well fed so that they can be more productive,” Kent wrote. “That is nonsense. No one works harder than hungry people. Yes, people who are well nourished have greater capacity for productive physical activity, but well-nourished people are far less willing to do that work.”

UN Chronicle deleted the article after it began to cause a stir on social media. The magazine said Kent’s article should not be taken literally, contending that it was a work of parody.

“This article appeared in the UN Chronicle 14 years ago as an attempt at satire and was never meant to be taken literally. We have been made aware of its failures, even as satire, and have removed it from our site.”

At first glance, there seems to be little reason to doubt the United Nations. As some writers have noted, previous works written by Kent include Ending World Hunger, The Political Economy of Hunger: The Silent Holocaust, and Freedom from Want: The Human Right to Adequate Food.

These titles hardly suggest that Kent sees global hunger as a good thing. In light of this, some contended that he was taking an approach not unlike Jonathan Swift, whose famous essay “A Modest Proposal” cheekily argued that Irish families should alleviate their mean condition by selling excess children to the wealthy for food.

After reading the UN’s tweet, Yahoo’s report, and several other pieces of commentary on the subject, I initially agreed that Kent’s article likely was written as satire. However, closer examination and a brief conversation with Kent revealed that is not the case.

First, it’s important to note that Kent himself denies the article was intended as a form of satire.

“I don’t think the UN would have published it if they thought it was satire or advocacy,” Kent told Climate Depot in a recent phone interview.

In the interview, Kent explains he was not advocating global hunger but was intending to be “provocative” by saying certain individuals and institutions benefit from global hunger.

“No, it is not satire,” Kent told Marc Morano, founder and editor of Climate Depot. “I don’t see anything funny about it. It is not about advocacy of hunger.”

I reached out to Kent and asked if the quotes were accurate, and he told me they were, adding that he intends to publish a paper this fall that will further detail his views.

“Marc understood me very well,” Kent told me in an email. “I hope my current paper on who benefits from hunger helps to make my position clear to everyone involved in this discussion.”

Additionally, the article’s concluding paragraph supports Kent’s claim that the work was not designed as either satire or advocacy. A careful reading of the text suggests Kent is being quite literal when he writes that some people benefit from global hunger.

“For those of us at the high end of the social ladder, ending hunger globally would be a disaster. If there were no hunger in the world, who would plow the fields?” Kent wrote. “Who would harvest our vegetables? Who would work in the rendering plants? Who would clean our toilets? We would have to produce our own food and clean our own toilets. No wonder people at the high end are not rushing to solve the hunger problem. For many of us, hunger is not a problem, but an asset.”

One senses in these words disapproval. The global poor exist because the wealthy require them to exist. Global hunger exists because humans are simply not doing the moral and necessary things to eradicate it.

But what are those things? A glimpse at Kent’s 2011 Ending Hunger Worldwide offers a clue. In the summary of the book, readers are told the keys to tackling global hunger are “building stronger communities” and challenging “dominant market-led solutions.”

In Kent’s view, one gathers, global hunger is not a complex problem that is being addressed by free market capitalism; it’s a moral one that requires empowering intellectuals like Kent to solve it.

It’s also worth noting that reviews of Kent on Rate My Professor—which gives him a rating of 1.9 out of 5—suggest he’s, well, perhaps a bit of an ideologue.

“Avoid this man with your life. Very opinionated and if your opinion differs, you will fail. He’s the worst professor i’ve had,” one reviewer wrote.

“Horrible professor if you are not politically aligned with his values you WILL FAIL,” another contended.

“Very opinionated and unhelpful,” opined another. “Very critical and extremely boring. Unsupportive and irritating.”

Whether Kent is a good professor or not, or whether his article was satire or literal, are questions that ultimately do not matter a whole lot in the larger scheme of things. What does matter are the policies that cause global hunger and the policies that alleviate global hunger.

And on this front, there has been stunning progress in recent decades. As Our World in Data shows, the percentage of undernourished people in developing countries has plummeted in recent years, falling from 35 percent in 1970 to 13 percent in 2015.

How this happened is not a mystery. As economist Bob Murphy noted in FEE.org, the proliferation of free market capitalism has “gone hand-in-hand with rapid and unprecedented increases in human welfare.”

“As the World Bank reports, the global rate of ‘extreme poverty’ (defined as people living on less than $1.90 per day) was cut in half from 1990 to 2010. Back in 1990, 1.85 billion people lived in extreme poverty, but by 2013, the figure had dropped to 767 million—meaning the number of those living on less than $1.90 per day had fallen by more than a billion people.’”

Ironically, no better example of this can be found in recent decades than China, which has achieved nothing short of an economic miracle in recent decades. China saw its percentage of underweight children fall from 19 percent in 1987 to 2.4 percent in 2013. As recently as 1990, 66 percent of Chinese people lived in extreme poverty. By 2015, that figure was less than one percent.

How did China achieve this economic miracle? By pivoting to privatization following the death of Party Chairman Mao Zedong (1893-1976), as I pointed out in 2019.

In 1979, China adopted its “household responsibility system,” giving many farmers ownership of their crop for the first time. This was followed by Communist Party leaders opening China to foreign investment, curbing price controls and protectionism, and implementing mass privatization of its economy.

The “market-led solutions” that Kent has disparaged have worked wonders for hunger alleviation. The same cannot be said for initiatives hatched by the central planners at the United Nations, the organization that published Kent’s controversial article on hunger.

Sri Lanka’s current food crisis stems directly from an effort to shift the country’s agriculture sector to organic farming, which saw the import of fertilizers banned and led the country to become an importer of rice instead of an exporter virtually overnight.

Many writers and thinkers are blaming Sri Lanka’s crisis on the global rise of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance), which was started in 2004 under the auspices of—you guessed it—the United Nations to encourage “sustainable development.”

And people are right to blame ESG. Writing for the World Economic Forum in 2016, economist Joseph Stiglitz said “Sri Lanka may be able to move directly into… high-productivity organic farming…”

Sri Lanka did. By doing so, the nation earned an ESG score of 98/100—and caused a food crisis that resulted in one president’s resignation and food insecurity for millions of people.

This is a tragedy. And while George Kent is clearly wrong—there are no benefits to world hunger—one begins to understand why his 15-year-old article published by the United Nations is suddenly sparking so much interest

It’s not just Sri Lanka, after all. The NetherlandsCanada, and other countries are all making headlines with food schemes that are likely to goose their ESG score—but cause serious problems at a time when global hunger is on the rise for the first time in decades.

In light of current global policies, anti-population rhetoric, and the track record of twentieth century collectivist food schemes—HolodomorCambodia, and Mao’s Great Leap Forward, which saw tens of millions starve to death because of government policies—George Kent’s “The Benefits of World Hunger” article hit too close to home.

(Editor’s Note: We’ve posted George Kent’s 2008 entire article below since the United Nations removed the article from their site so readers can determine for themselves Kent’s purpose in writing the article.)

We sometimes talk about hunger in the world as if it were a scourge that all of us want to see abolished, viewing it as comparable with the plague or aids. But that naïve view prevents us from coming to grips with what causes and sustains hunger. Hunger has great positive value to many people. Indeed, it is fundamental to the working of the world’s economy. Hungry people are the most productive people, especially where there is a need for manual labour.

We in developed countries sometimes see poor people by the roadside holding up signs saying “Will Work for Food.” Actually, most people work for food. It is mainly because people need food to survive that they work so hard either in producing food for themselves in subsistence-level production, or by selling their services to others in exchange for money. How many of us would sell our services if it were not for the threat of hunger?

More importantly, how many of us would sell our services so cheaply if it were not for the threat of hunger? When we sell our services cheaply, we enrich others, those who own the factories, the machines and the lands, and ultimately own the people who work for them. For those who depend on the availability of cheap labour, hunger is the foundation of their wealth.

The conventional thinking is that hunger is caused by low-paying jobs. For example, an article reports on “Brazil’s ethanol slaves: 200,000 migrant sugar cutters who prop up renewable energy boom”. While it is true that hunger is caused by low-paying jobs, we need to understand that hunger at the same time causes low-paying jobs to be created. Who would have established massive biofuel production operations in Brazil if they did not know there were thousands of hungry people desperate enough to take the awful jobs they would offer? Who would build any sort of factory if they did not know that many people would be available to take the jobs at low-pay rates?

Much of the hunger literature talks about how it is important to assure that people are well fed so that they can be more productive. That is nonsense. No one works harder than hungry people. Yes, people who are well nourished have greater capacity for productive physical activity, but well-nourished people are far less willing to do that work.

The non-governmental organization Free the Slaves defines slaves as people who are not allowed to walk away from their jobs. It estimates that there are about 27 million slaves in the world, including those who are literally locked into workrooms and held as bonded labourers in South Asia. However, they do not include people who might be described as slaves to hunger, that is, those who are free to walk away from their jobs but have nothing better to go to. Maybe most people who work are slaves to hunger?

For those of us at the high end of the social ladder, ending hunger globally would be a disaster. If there were no hunger in the world, who would plow the fields? Who would harvest our vegetables? Who would work in the rendering plants? Who would clean our toilets? We would have to produce our own food and clean our own toilets. No wonder people at the high end are not rushing to solve the hunger problem. For many of us, hunger is not a problem, but an asset.

AUTHOR

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘Will Sell Tesla Stock Right Now’: Elon Musk Challenges UN To Explain How $6 Billion Can Solve World Hunger

Elon Musk vowed Sunday to sell his Tesla stock if a United Nations (UN) official could prove the claim that a fraction of the billionaire’s wealth could put an end to world hunger.

Musk, who is currently the richest man in the world, reacted to a recent statement by UN World Food Program (WFP) Director David Beasley, in which the official asked for only 2% of Musk’s fortune to alleviate an acute hunger crisis.

“$6 billion to help 42 million people that are literally going to die if we don’t reach them. It’s not complicated,” Beasley said at the time, according to CNN.

“If WFP can describe on this Twitter thread exactly how $6B will solve world hunger, I will sell Tesla stock right now and do it,” Musk tweeted, adding that the data had to be “open source accounting” for the public to check its accuracy.

“Headline not accurate. $6B will not solve world hunger, but it WILL prevent geopolitical instability, mass migration and save 42 million people on the brink of starvation. An unprecedented crisis and a perfect storm due to Covid/conflict/climate crises,” Beasley responded in the thread.

The WFP director then proposed discussing the issue in person, quipping that the matter was not “as complicated as Falcon Heavy,” a SpaceX rocket, and promising to be “on the next flight” to Musk if he agreed.

“Please publish your current & proposed spending in detail so people can see exactly where money goes. Sunlight is a wonderful thing,” Musk replied to the proposal.

COLUMN BY

SHAKHZOD YULDOSHBOEV

Contributor.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

REPORT: Elon Musk Is Living In A 375-Square-Foot Home

Sen. Barrasso: Joe Biden Going To G20 ‘To Wave The White Flag Of Surrender’ Over Energy Dependence

Energy Secretary Blows Off Biden’s Failure To Pass Infrastructure, Claims He’s Uniting Democrats

Trump Man of the Century

Happy New Year! There is much to celebrate!

Clearly President Donald J. Trump is the man of the year. But history will call him the man of the century as President Trump has begun to not only resurrect America but to redirect all of humanity.

“I am asking you to believe in yourself again and I am asking you to believe in America. And if we do that then all together we will make America strong again, we will make America wealthy again, we will make America safe again, and we will make America great again. God bless you!” – Donald J Trump

The Voice of God 

I will never forget that chilling moment when Donald Trump was accepting the GOP nomination for President of the United States at the RNC Convention. It was as though the voice of God was speaking through this man when Donald Trump said – “I am your voice”.

Some say that Trump cant’ handle the storm. I say, Trump is the storm! Batten down the hatches and get ready for an unprecedented 2019 as Trump takes on the deep state and shadow government of this world.

We’re just getting started. 2019 will prove to be an unprecedented and historical year with what lies ahead. Remain connected. Stay the course, Spread the truth. And know this – we are winning!

Fear not we are on God’s side and dealing in truths. They are on the side of evil and dealing with all that evil dishes out. Fear? The opposite of love is not hate, it is fear. Don’t go there. Chose love. Surround yourself with like minded people who understand the times and expand this circle of influence. Get involved in the business of resurrecting America. What  can be more important than that?

May God continue to provide protection, good health and wisdom to our amazing leader, Donald Trump, the man of the century. 

America’s Second Revolution

Remain connected and informed. Subscribe to John Michael Chamber’s free blog. Receive in your e-mail in box, notifications of John’s weekly articles. Let your voice be heard. Chat with John. FREE SUBSCRIPTION. 

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

The U.N. Has Absolutely No Idea How Economic Growth Works by Daniel J. Mitchell

I’ve been at the United Nations this week for both the 14th Session of the Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters as well as the Special Meeting of ECOSOC on International Cooperation in Tax Matters.

As you might suspect, it would be an understatement to say this puts me in the belly of the beast (for the second time!). Sort of a modern-day version of Daniel in the Lion’s Den.

These meetings are comprised of tax collectors from various nations, along with U.N. officials who – like their tax-free counterparts at other international bureaucracies – don’t have to comply with the tax laws of those countries.

In other words, there’s nobody on the side of taxpayers and the private sector (I’m merely an observer representing “civil society”).

I could share with you the details of the discussion, but 99 percent of the discussion was boring and arcane. So instead I’ll touch on two big-picture observations.

What the United Nations gets wrong: The bureaucracy assumes that higher taxes are a recipe for economic growth and development.

I’m not joking. I wrote last year about how many of the international bureaucracies are blindly asserting that higher taxes are pro-growth because government supposedly will productively “invest” any additional revenue. And this reflexive agitation for higher fiscal burdens has been very prevalent this week in New York City. It’s unclear whether participants actually believe their own rhetoric. I’ve shared with some of the folks the empirical data showing the western world became rich in the 1800s when fiscal burdens were very modest. But I’m not expecting any miraculous breakthroughs in economic understanding.

What the United Nations fails to get right: The bureaucracy does not appreciate that low rates are the best way of boosting tax compliance.

Most of the discussions focused on how tax laws, tax treaties, and tax agreements can and should be altered to extract more money from the business community. Participants occasionally groused about tax evasion, but the real focus was on ways to curtail tax avoidance. This is noteworthy because it confirms my point that the anti-tax competition work of international bureaucracies is guided by a desire to collect more revenue rather than to improve enforcement of existing law. But I raise this issue because of a sin of omission. At no point did any of the participants acknowledge that there’s a wealth of empirical evidence showing that low tax rates are the most effective way of encouraging tax compliance.

I realize that these observations are probably not a big shock. So in hopes of saying something worthwhile, I’ll close with a few additional observations

  • I had no idea that people could spend so much time discussing the technicalities of taxes on international shipping. I resisted the temptation to puncture my eardrums with an ice pick.
  • From the moment it was announced, I warned that the OECD’s project on base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) was designed to extract more money from the business community. The meeting convinced me that my original fears were – if possible – understated.
  • A not-so-subtle undercurrent in the meeting is that governments of rich nations, when there are squabbles over who gets to pillage taxpayers, are perfectly happy to stiff-arm governments from poor nations.
  • The representative from the U.S. government never expressed any pro-taxpayer or pro-growth sentiments, but he did express some opposition to the notion that profits of multinationals could be divvied up based on the level of GDP in various nations. I hope that meant opposition to “formula apportionment.”
  • Much of the discussion revolved around the taxation of multinational companies, but I was still nonetheless surprised that there was no discussion of the U.S. position as a very attractive tax haven.
  • The left’s goal (at least for statists from the developing world) is for the United Nations to have greater power over national tax policies, which does put the UN in conflict with the OECD, which wants to turn a multilateral convention into a pseudo-International Tax Organization.

P.S. The good news is that the folks at the United Nations have not threatened to toss me in jail. That means the bureaucrats in New York City are more tolerant of dissent than the folks at the OECD.

Republished from International Liberty.

Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review.

Obama administration lied, exposed as architect of anti-Israel UN action

“It also has come to light that Kerry held a meeting in December with senior Palestinian diplomat Saeb Erekat. Documents believed to have been leaked by Egypt confirm that Kerry and Erekat discussed forwarding the resolution, a charge that senior White House officials continue to deny.”

The Obama administration will leave behind a long, long record of dishonesty and betrayal.

“White House On Defense After Being Exposed as Architect of Anti-Israel U.N. Action,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, December 29, 2016:

Senior Obama administration officials are scrambling to provide explanations after multiple reports, including in the Washington Free Beacon, identified the White House as being a chief architect of a recent United Nations resolution condemning the state of Israel, according to conversations with multiple former and current U.S. officials.

On the heels of the hotly contested resolution, which condemned Israel for building homes in its capital, Jerusalem, senior Obama administration officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden, have been identified as leading the charge to ensure the anti-Israel measure won approval by the U.N. Security Council.

The administration’s denials of this charge broke down during the past several days as multiple reporters confirmed the Obama administration worked behind-the-scenes to help shape and forward the resolution.

The Free Beacon disclosed on Monday that Vice President Joe Biden phoned Ukraine’s president to ensure that country voted in favor of the resolution. While the White House issued multiple denials, further reports from Israel and Europe have confirmed a phone call between the leaders did in fact take place.

It also has come to light that Kerry held a meeting in December with senior Palestinian diplomat Saeb Erekat. Documents believed to have been leaked by Egypt confirm that Kerry and Erekat discussed forwarding the resolution, a charge that senior White House officials continue to deny.

White House National Security Council official Ned Price described such a meeting as a “total fabrication,” despite public documents highlighting the powwow between Kerry and Erekat.

One senior Obama administration official who spoke to the Free Beacon said the White House did not help draft the resolution, as Israeli leaders have suggested in recent days.

“We’ve been entirely clear that this was an Egyptian resolution,” said the official, explaining that the effort did not originate with the White House. Reports of a meeting between Kerry, Erekat, and White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice are not correct, the official said.

However, these claims have been disputed by multiple sources who spoke to the Free Beacon both on and off the record about the situation.

Jonathan Schanzer, a Middle East expert and vice president for research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told the Free Beacon that he spoke with U.S. officials in September who admitted that “a U.N. measure of some shape or form was actively considered,” a charge that runs counter the White House’s official narrative.

“We know that this administration was at a minimum helping to shape a final resolution at the United Nations and had been working on this for months,” Schanzer said.

“This isn’t terribly dissimilar from the administration’s attempts to spin the cash pallets they sent to Iran,” he added, referring to the administration’s efforts to conceal the fact that it sent the Iranian government some $1.7 billion in cash.

“The fact is, the administration has been flagged as being an active participant in this U.N. resolution,” Schanzer said. “Now they wish to try to spin this as inconsequential. This was an attempt by the administration to lead from behind, as they have done countless times in the past and which has failed countless times in the past.”

As with the meeting between Kerry and Erekat, the phone call between Biden and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has been confirmed multiple times by a plethora of sources in the United States, Israel, and Europe following the Free Beacon’s initial report.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a weekly cabinet meeting that “the Obama administration initiated [the resolution], stood behind it, coordinated on the wording and demanded that it be passed.”

The administration has not yet addressed the discrepancy between its own narrative and that being revealed in the press….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Guinea President: “Terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. Indeed, Islam is a religion of peace.”

Spain: Snipers and armed police to guard public areas amid jihad terror fears

Obama’s ‘final solution’ for the state of Israel

On December 28th, 2016 John Kerry gave his final speech as the outgoing U.S. Secretary of State.  Kerry’s “Remarks on Middle East Peace” lasted 1 hour and 13 minutes. In his speech Kerry outlined President Obama’s “final solution” for the state of Israel.

One phrase struck me. Kerry stated, “Israel can be Jewish or democratic – not both.”

But Israel is already Jewish and democratic. There have been Israeli Arab members of the Knesset ever since the first Knesset elections in 1949. There are currently 17 Arab members of the Knesset, and 59 former Arab members. Kerry asked:

How would Israel respond to a growing civil rights movement from Palestinians, demanding a right to vote, or widespread protests and unrest across the West Bank? How does Israel reconcile a permanent occupation with its democratic ideals? How does the U.S. continue to defend that and still live up to our own democratic ideals?

Israel already recognizes the right of every Israeli citizen, Jew or Arab or Christian or Druz, el al, to vote. Israel has been dealing with terrorism against the Jewish state since 1949 and throughout its history, from ancient Rome to the PLO and HAMAS.

The U.S. continues to defend Israel because it is the basis, the foundation, of our own democratic ideals. Founding Father John Adams in a letter to F. A. Van der Kemp dated February 16, 1808 wrote:

“I will insist the Hebrews have [contributed] more to civilize men than any other nation. If I was an atheist and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations …

They are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth. The Romans and their empire were but a bubble in comparison to the Jews. They have given religion to three-quarters of the globe and have influenced the affairs of mankind more and more happily than any other nation, ancient or modern.”

There are no Jewish members of the PLO nor in HAMAS, which controls the Gaza strip. Additionally, those nations surrounding Israel are Muslim and undemocratic, abiding by shariah laws that reject non-Muslims. Why? Because the Koran says so.

So what is Kerry projecting on behalf of President Obama? What has been, and clearly is, Obama’s “final solution” to end the conflict in the Middle East?

Answer: A Jew free Palestinian state.

Kerry focused on Jewish “settlements” in Judea and Samara, historic land that has belong to and had been occupied by, the Jewish people for thousands of years. Kerry sees these settlements as the existential threat to a two state solution stating:

So the settler agenda is defining the future of Israel. And their stated purpose is clear. They believe in one state: greater Israel. In fact, one prominent minister, who heads a pro-settler party, declared just after the U.S. election – and I quote – “the era of the two-state solution is over,” end quote. And many other coalition ministers publicly reject a Palestinian state. And they are increasingly getting their way, with plans for hundreds of new units in East Jerusalem recently announced and talk of a major new settlement building effort in the West Bank to follow.

Then Kerry asks, “So why are we so concerned? Why does this matter? Well, ask yourself these questions: What happens if that agenda succeeds? Where does that lead?”

May I suggest that a one state solution leads to what now exists in the Jewish state of Israel. A pluralistic society where all segments of the population, regardless of religious affiliation or ethnicity, live in peace side by side as individuals.

Kerry laments:

So if there is only one state, you would have millions of Palestinians permanently living in segregated enclaves in the middle of the West Bank, with no real political rights, separate legal, education, and transportation systems, vast income disparities, under a permanent military occupation that deprives them of the most basic freedoms. Separate and unequal is what you would have. And nobody can explain how that works. Would an Israeli accept living that way? Would an American accept living that way? Will the world accept it?

Under a united Jewish state of Israel Palestinians do have access to real political rights, education, transportation systems, serve in the IDF and have enhanced economic opportunities in what is know as “the startup nation.”

If you want to know what an independent Palestinian state would look like and act just look at the Gaza strip. A radicalized Islamic state that is Jew free where its citizens have no political rights and suffer under a regime more interested in arming itself for the sole purpose of killing non-Muslims and an exporter of terrorism globally.

The only option going forward for President-elect Trump is a one state solution.

As David Friedman, President-elect Trump’s nominee to become the ambassador to Israel said in a pre-election interview with The Algemeiner in early November:

“It is inconceivable there could be a mass evacuation on that magnitude, in the unlikely event that there was an otherwise comprehensive peace agreement,” Friedman said. “It makes no sense for Judea and Samaria to be ‘Judenrein [void of Jews],’ any more than it makes sense for Israel to be ‘Arabrein [void of Arabs].’ It’s not fair.”

The two-state solution is dead. Long live the one-state solution.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

How Barack Obama fooled the Jews and betrayed them once he had their money

Security Council Resolution 2334: The Legal Significance

John Kerry is Dead Wrong about Israeli Settlements by Gregg Roman The Los Angeles Times

Obama and Kerry Seek to Make Israel Indefensible

Kerry Takes a Parting Shot at Israel in Middle East Speech

RELATED VIDEO: Tom Trento, Director of The United West hosts Dr. Andy Bostom and Ken Abramowitz in studio to deconstruct the devastating decision by the Obama Administration to abstain from voting on the UN National Security Council, regarding the issue of “settlements” in Israel.

The Malice of the Leader of the Democratic Party

President Barack Obama is the leader of the Democratic Party. It is expected that after he leaves office on January 20th, 2017 he will continue to be the de-facto leader of the Democratic Party.

His legacy is the legacy of the Democratic Party.

In my column “How Democrats Fundamentally Changed from the Party of JFK to the Party of BHO” I asked, “Where are the Blue Dog Democrats? Purged from the BHO Party? As Ronald Reagan once said he did not leave the Democratic Party, rather the Democratic Party left him. So it is with many Democrats. The BHO Party has left them in the lurch.”

The Democratic Party has become the party of protests, anarchists and tribalism. They cling to illusions of racism, bigotry and embrace an anti-American world view. 

We have been writing about how President Obama has warmly embraced Islam as a person, as President and as the leader of the Democratic Party. Since his election in 2008 there has been malice, with forethought, against America in general and Israel in particular.

In a May 2015 column Dissected: President Obama’s Anti-Israelism Jerry Gordon wrote:

Both Vic Rosenthal’s Abu Yehuda  blog post, “For Obama it’s a Moral Crusade” and Brett Stephens’ Tuesday Wall Street Journal column,“The Rational Ayatollah Hypothesis” suggest that the President’s comments sinuously convey anti-Israelism.

Rosenthal gives the following evidence:

Some of the reasons I and others find Obama anti-Israel are these:

  1. His stubborn attempts to force Israel into a suicidal agreement with the Palestinians.
  2. His acceptance (regardless of his words) of a nuclear-armed Iran, and his efforts to stop Israel from acting against it.
  3. His open contempt for our Prime Minister.
  4. His taking the Turkish president’s side in the Mavi Marmara affair, and forcing PM Netanyahu to apologize to the Turks.
  5. His acceptance of Hamas claims that the IDF acted ‘disproportionally’ in Gaza (as shown by his demand for an immediate cease-fire and imposition of an arms embargo during the recent war).
  6. The aforementioned leaks about Israeli actions in Syria and elsewhere.
  7. His acceptance of the anti-Israel narrative that Israel’s right to exist rests on the Holocaust and that it must be balanced against the rights of the ‘deserving’ Palestinians (as expressed in his 2009 Cairo speech).
  8. His attempts to interfere in Israeli politics, including trying to defeat Netanyahu at the polls. It’s ironic that American money was used to help get out the presumably anti-Netanyahu Arab vote — and then Obama bitterly criticized Netanyahu for telling his supporters that they should get out and vote because the Arabs were!
  9. The double standard he displays: compare his condemnation of the PM for his election-day remark with his lack of response to the daily barrage of Israel-hatred and veneration of terrorists coming from the official Palestinian media. Or look at his expressed concern for Palestinians suffering the indignities of checkpoints against his failure to mention the almost daily Jewish victims of Palestinian terrorism.

I could go on, but this should be enough to show that the belief that Obama is anti-Israel is substantive, not simply a political reflex as he suggests.

Obama and Democratic Party have now shown malice toward Israel.

This malice began when Obama was first elected to the Presidency. His remarks about embracing Israel, and its people, and having their backs was a fabrication, a political calculation to lure them into a spiraling chamber of death.

The Nazis tried to exterminate the Jews under Adolf Hitler. President Obama has given the followers of Mohammed another signal that its alright to exterminate the state of Israel – the definition of malice. Obama with one abstention has made possible the unthinkable.

Lutheran Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, an opponent of Adolf Hitler, wrote, “Not to act is to act, not to speak is to speak.” Obama chose not to act, not to speak, at the United Nations on December 23rd, 2016.

That is his and the Democratic Party’s legacy.

RELATED ARTICLES:

John Bolton: ‘The Two-State Solution Is Dead’

With New Resolution, the UN Drives Stake into Israeli-Palestinian Peace Hopes

Our World: Obama’s war against America

Israel will share ‘evidence’ of Obama-UN collusion with Trump, ambassador says

Netanyahu rips U.S.: ‘Friends don’t take friends to the Security Council’

Israel summons US ambassador over UN vote

Obama’s War on Israel: Netanyahu’s Remarks on UN Resolution at Lighting of the First Chanukah Candle

Security Council Resolution 2334 and a Strategy for Israel

Obama’s malice, May’s shame. Drain the UN swamp by Melanie Phillips

Obama’s self-defeating settlements policy

U.S. May Back Additional UN Security Council Moves Tied to Paris Peace Conference

Obama Sets Stage for Jerusalem’s Destruction and Biblical Judgment on U.S.

President Obama let an anti-settlement resolution pass the UN Security Council, breaking his word to Israel and abandoning our best ally in the Middle East to those who hate Israel–maybe setting the stage for a Biblical prophecy written in Zechariah 14.

“The day of the Lord comes…all nations [United Nations?] will gather against Jerusalem to battle. The city shall be taken and the houses rifled and the women ravished…Then shall the Lord go forth to fight against those nations.”

“The day of the Lord” has already been signaled by several ‘when-then’ signs in 2015,” says Dr. Richard Ruhling, author on Bible prophecy. He cites the Iran Nuclear Treaty, also promoted by Obama as a “peace and safety” sign in 1 Thessalonians, chapter 5. The rare solar eclipse on the equinox and blood moon also signals “the day of the Lord” in the last verses of Joel 2.

But how will God “fight against those [Muslim] nations as stated above? In the Bible, God says, “There is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning.” Isaiah 46:9,10. In the book of beginnings, the 22nd chapter of Genesis, God tested Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son, Isaac. Muslims say the son was Ishmael and they celebrate the ram sacrifice, calling it Al-Adha. Which is the true holy book?

The Bible offers further detail with a militant ram sacrificed in Daniel 8. We know Alexander the Great conquered the Medes and Persians (named in verse 20) at the Battle of Arbela in 331 BC. But Gabriel told Daniel that his vision was “at the time of the end.” Verse 17.

Iraq and Iran are where the Medes and Persians were. The end-time application is half fulfilled as Saddam is dead. Iraq and Iran are enemies of Israel, but Israel was also the son of Isaac. The sparing of Israel is the sparing of Isaac when militant Islam is sacrificed. What’s coming will show the Bible as the true holy book.

Moderate Muslims are closer to biblical religion than much of the US with its alcohol, tobacco, drugs, sex, crime, violence, Hollywood, TV, perversions and rock music that their leaders hate and call it Christianity.

One problem is Israel’s large secular component that has little interest in its spiritual heritage in spite of godly leaders like Netanyahu. The US is no better. 60 million abortions and a re-defining of marriage by the Supreme Court invites judgment on the US as well, says Ruhling who sees Passover as the time when judgment came to Jerusalem in 70 AD.

If Jerusalem suffers judgment at Passover in April, America should expect judgment a month later as clues like “the days of Noah” suggest. Destruction came with Passover timing, but in the 2nd spring month.

Then Muslims or Palestinians in Jerusalem claiming victory over the Jews, should beware. “The Lord shall roar…from Jerusalem and the heavens and earth shall shake.” Joel 3. They will get the message, but so will the US as the earthquake initiates ‘the day of the Lord’ in Joel’s 2nd chapter, 10th verse.

How history repeats may be reminiscent of God executing judgment on Egypt and taking Israel to a covenant, later saying, “I am married to you” in Jeremiah 3. Paul included that history of the Exodus when he said, “All these things happened to them for tupos—types… ends of the world.” 1 Corinthians 10.

EDITORS NOTE: For more information, readers can visit Ruhling’s website at http://MayJudgmentDay.com or get a copy of his eBook, The Alpha & Omega Bible Code.

Democrats Abandoned Isreal on December 23, 2016: A date that will live in Infamy

The leader of the Democratic Party has decided to abandon Israel on December 23rd, 2016 and Democrats knew full well that he would. To understand why this happened one must read President Obama’s 2012 speech to the United Nations.

Barack Obama said in a speech before the United Nations on September 25th, 2012 that, “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.”

Democrats stood by the President, knowing that he was speaking directly to the Arab world, Israel, and those in the United States and beyond, who did not fully embrace the “religion of peace.”

Democrats knew their President stood squarely on the side of Islam and Islamists and they did nothing.

President Obama commented on Benghazi stating:

That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.  Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.

It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well — for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and every faith.  We are home to Muslims who worship across our country.  We not only respect the freedom of religion, we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe.  We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video.  And the answer is enshrined in our laws:  Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

This about Tunisia, now a hot bed of terrorism and the home of the Berlin Christmas market slaughter:

It has been less than two years since a vendor in Tunisia set himself on fire to protest the oppressive corruption in his country, and sparked what became known as the Arab Spring.  And since then, the world has been captivated by the transformation that’s taken place, and the United States has supported the forces of change.

We were inspired by the Tunisian protests that toppled a dictator, because we recognized our own beliefs in the aspiration of men and women who took to the streets.

This about the Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt:

We insisted on change in Egypt, because our support for democracy ultimately put us on the side of the people.

This about Yemen:

We supported a transition of leadership in Yemen, because the interests of the people were no longer being served by a corrupt status quo.

This about Libya:

We intervened in Libya alongside a broad coalition, and with the mandate of the United Nations Security Council, because we had the ability to stop the slaughter of innocents, and because we believed that the aspirations of the people were more powerful than a tyrant.

And this about Syria:

And as we meet here, we again declare that the regime of Bashar al-Assad must come to an end so that the suffering of the Syrian people can stop and a new dawn can begin.

Each of these statements were honey to the ears of Democrats and the Arab world and the Muslim community.  But for those who understood his real message, knew it was a death knell for the Israelis, Syrians, Libyans, Egyptians, Yemenis, Europeans and Americans.

Obama was saying that the future belongs to Islam. History will call December 23rd, 2016 a date that will live in infamy but the foundation of the betrayal of the Christian world was laid on September 25th, 2012.

And Democrats were silent.

RELATED ARTICLE: Obama’s malice, May’s shame. Drain the UN swamp by Melanie Phillips

President Obama’s act of folly and betrayal of Israel

President Obama yours was the unkindest abstention in the history of the U.S. actions as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. Yesterday, in a deliberate act of retribution and in consort with four council members, two imperialist Islamic member states of the Organization of Islamic States, Malaysia and Senegal, New Zealand  and Venezuela, an ally of Iran, you abandoned the Jewish nation of Israel; this country’s only democratic ally in the Middle East, Israel.

This act of infamy was given a standing ovation by all 14 members of the Security Council. The Palestinian representative declared it a “day of victory.”

Israeli UN Ambassador Danny Danon demurred, calling it a “victory for terrorism.”

History will mark your action as an ignominious faithless act of betrayal of your oath of office and long-standing friendship of America towards the Jewish nation of Israel. A nation that shares the foundational values of our country.

Your abstention and the vote of UN Security Council approving Resolution 2334 dismembers Israel’s eternal capital of Jerusalem violating its existing right to negotiate just and secure borders.

Your act and that of the Security Council will not bring peace. Instead it will inflame Islamic terrorism against our ally Israel.

You have brought shame and dishonor on your office and reputation of this country and its people you were elected to faithfully serve.Your legacy following the end of your final term in office is forever tarnished by this act of folly.

The irony of your misguided conduct comes on the eve of the Jewish Festival of Hanukkah, meaning ‘consecration’, celebrating the victory two millenia ago by the Maccabees, the few against the many, blessed by Ha Shem. These warrior priests rose up with the cry of the High Priest Mattisyahu, “whoever is for for God, follow me.” Their mortal combat achieved a victory over the foreign tyrannyof Syrian-Greek despot, Antiochus, occupying ancient Judea. It was a victory in furtherance of the inalienable right of freedom to worship emblazoned in the First Amendment of our Constitution. An ancient victory that also affirmed the State of Israel’s right to the land of its Jewish fore-bearers and descendants.

Your action Friday , December 23, 2016 suborned that ancient legacy that this country was founded on to uphold 234 years ago with fight for Independence from another occupying tyranny.

It will now be left to a new Congress and your successor as President to redress your betrayal of our country and ally Israel.

Full text of UNSC resolution, approved Dec. 23, demanding Israel stop all settlement activity

The Times of Israel

Approved by 14-0, with US abstaining, text seeks action ‘to reverse the negative trends on the ground that are imperiling the two-state solution’

Text of Egyptian-drafted resolution 2334 on settlements, approved by the UN Security Council, on December 23, 2016.

The Security Council,

Reaffirming its relevant resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 446 (1979), 452 (1979), 465 (1980), 476 (1980), 478 (1980), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), and 1850 (2008),

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,

Reaffirming the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice,

Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions,

Expressing grave concern that continuing Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperilling the viability of the two-State solution based on the 1967 lines,

Recalling the obligation under the Quartet Roadmap, endorsed by its resolution 1515 (2003), for a freeze by Israel of all settlement activity, including “natural growth”, and the dismantlement of all settlement outposts erected since March 2001,

Recalling also the obligation under the Quartet roadmap for the Palestinian Authority Security Forces to maintain effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantling terrorist capabilities, including the confiscation of illegal weapons,

Condemning all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction,

Reiterating its vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,

Israel's UN ambassador Danny Danon addresses the Security Council on October 19, 2016. (UN Photo)

Israel’s UN ambassador Danny Danon addresses the Security Council on October 19, 2016. (UN Photo)

Stressing that the status quo is not sustainable and that significant steps, consistent with the transition contemplated by prior agreements, are urgently needed in order to (i) stabilize the situation and to reverse negative trends on the ground, which are steadily eroding the two-State solution and entrenching a one-State reality, and (ii) to create the conditions for successful final status negotiations and for advancing the two-State solution through those negotiations and on the ground,

1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;

2. Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard;

3. Underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations;

4. Stresses that the cessation of all Israeli settlement activities is essential for salvaging the two-State solution, and calls for affirmative steps to be taken immediately to reverse the negative trends on the ground that are imperilling the two-State solution;

5. Calls upon all States, bearing in mind paragraph 1 of this resolution, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967;

6. Calls for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction, calls for accountability in this regard, and calls for compliance with obligations under international law for the strengthening of ongoing efforts to combat terrorism, including through existing security coordination, and to clearly condemn all acts of terrorism;

7. Calls upon both parties to act on the basis of international law, including international humanitarian law, and their previous agreements and obligations, to observe calm and restraint, and to refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric, with the aim, inter alia, of de-escalating the situation on the ground, rebuilding trust and confidence, demonstrating through policies and actions a genuine commitment to the two-State solution, and creating the conditions necessary for promoting peace;

8. Calls upon all parties to continue, in the interest of the promotion of peace and security, to exert collective efforts to launch credible negotiations on all final status issues in the Middle East peace process and within the time frame specified by the Quartet in its statement of 21 September 2010;

9. Urges in this regard the intensification and acceleration of international and regional diplomatic efforts and support aimed at achieving, without delay a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Roadmap and an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967; and underscores in this regard the importance of the ongoing efforts to advance the Arab Peace Initiative, the initiative of France for the convening of an international peace conference, the recent efforts of the Quartet, as well as the efforts of Egypt and the Russian Federation;

10. Confirms its determination to support the parties throughout the negotiations and in the implementation of an agreement;

11. Reaffirms its determination to examine practical ways and means to secure the full implementation of its relevant resolutions;

12. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council every three months on the implementation of the provisions of the present resolution;

13. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama’s malice, May’s shame. Drain the UN swamp by Melanie Phillips

‘The Crescent Must be Above the Cross’: Muslim Persecution of Christians 2016

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Trump Influenced Egypt to Delay a U.N. Resolution that would have irreparably harmed Israel

A vote was scheduled by the U.N.for this past Thursday concerning Israeli settlements which would have irreparably harmed Israel. In the past the U.S. would have vetoed such a resolution. However it is now reported Obama wasn’t going to veto it.

Fortunately for Israel Donald Trump in an unusual move for a President Elect publicly called for Obama to veto the resolution sending Egypt a clear message of Trump’s position. As a result Egypt has postponed a vote on the resolution. This will give President Trump the opportunity to veto it when it is rescheduled.

From all of us who support Israel, thank-you President Elect Trump.


Trump influenced Egypt’s decision to postpone anti-Israel UN vote, diplomats say

Egypt postponed a vote on an anti-Israel UN resolution it had sponsored shortly after US President-elect Donald Trump called for a veto of the measure, which would have condemned Israeli building in Judea and Samaria.

US President-elect Donald J. Trump has implicitly called for outgoing US President Barack Obama to veto a UN Security Council resolution scheduled for Thursday afternoon, which would have condemned Israeli construction in all areas gained by the Jewish state during the Six-Day War in 1967, when it was threatened with extinction by the surrounding Arab countries.

“The resolution being considered at the United Nations Security Council regarding Israel should be vetoed,” Trump wrote on his Facebook page. “This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position and is extremely unfair to all Israelis.”

“As the United States has long maintained, peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations,” Trump added.

Read more…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Israel and the rising new West by Caroline B. Glick

Security Council likely to vote on settlements Friday despite Egyptian reversal

How Mark Steyn Skillfully Out-smarted ‘Open Borders’ Advocates

Everyone has been sending me the below video of the debate in Toronto on Friday on the issue of mass migration going on literally around the world, but most visibly now in Europe.

Yesterday, I finally watched the debate and it was all everyone said it was!

Here at World Net Daily, reporter Leo Hohmann gives us the highlights.  You may watch the video of the full debate below. He begins:

Mark Steyn

Mark Steyn

Mark Steyn delivered a stinging rebuke of the progressive stance on mass migration of mostly male Muslim refugees into Europe at a recent debate in Toronto.

Steyn faced off April 1 with opponents in the Spring Munk Debates on the issue of refugee resettlement and whether Western countries should welcome thousands of Muslims from the Middle East and Africa.

The Munk Debates, founded by Peter Munk, allow the audience to pick the winners based on online voting. When the dust had settled, Steyn’s team was declared the winner. The scores are based on how many viewers report their positions being changed on the issue from pro to con or vice versa.

When the debate started, 77 percent of viewers reported being in favor of refugee resettlement as put forth by the Emma Lazarus poem on the Statue of Liberty: “Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

By the end of the debate, only 55 percent agreed with that position and the “cons” moved from 23 percent to 45 percent.

Steyn, and his debating partner Brit Nigel Farage, won by changing the minds of 22% of the debate audience which came in stacked against them with 77% in favor of supporting those lines in the d*** Emma Lazarus poem, which by the way, I said here should be removed from the Statue of Liberty for its role in perpetuating a historical inaccuracy.

Louise Arbour

Louise Arbour

Continue Hohmann’s summary and then near the end note this mention from Pro-refugee debater, Louise Arbour former UN Commissioner for Human Rights.

Arbour said her definition of a “refugee,” based on the current state of armed conflict, should include “virtually every civilian who is not a combatant unless he is a war criminal.”

I can’t impress upon you enough how important it is to stop this campaign to change the definition of what defines a “refugee.”

Every chance they get the one-worlders are promoting this idea that any unhappy person on the move is a legitimate refugee entitled to special treatment wherever he or she wants to go.  A legitimate refugee must be able to prove that he/she is persecuted for his religion, race, political persuasion and so forth.

Someone migrating to get a job, or healthcare, or running from crime or war is NOT a legitimate refugee! 

If you have never read Mark Steyn’s “America Alone: The End of the World as we Know It,” you must.  Here at Amazon. When first published a decade ago, Steyn, in analyzing the demographic time bomb Europe was facing, could not have imagined the size and scope of the present invasion and how it would speed up the inevitable end of Europe as we know it.

By the way, most “refugee” advocates in the US are also attempting to expand the definition of ‘refugee’ to include the Unaccompanied Alien Children flooding our borders in recent years.

VIDEO: Global Refugee Crisis Debate: Louise Arbour + Simon Schama vs Nigel Farage + Mark Steyn:

VIDEO: Donald Trump on the ‘future of American Relations’ with our ‘cultural brother’ Israel

On Monday, March 21, 2016 leading GOP Presidential candidate Donald Trump spoke at the AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington, D.C. In this speech he laid out his  position on support for the State of Israel. He spoke on the Iran “bad” deal and Iran’s proxies in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon,  Yemen and the threat to Saudi Arabia.

Trump laid out three strategies to deal with Iran:

  1. Stand against all of Iran’s efforts to “destabilize and dominate” the region (Middle East).
  2. Totally “dismantle Iran’s global terror network.”
  3. Enforce the Iran nuclear deal like “you’ve never seen a contract enforced before.”

Trump then called out the “utter weakness and incompetence” of the United Nations. Trump said the UN is not a friend to democracy, freedom, the United States or Israel.

Trump’s comment “with President Obama in his final year, yeah!” got a standing ovation.

Trump noted that Obama may be the “worst thing” that ever happened to Israel. Trump called any effort by the Obama administration to impose any UN imposed agreement between Israel and the Palestinians a “total disaster.” Trump said as President he would veto any such resolution.

Trump was adamant that rewarding Palestinian terror knife attacks, such at that which slaughtered American veteran and West Point graduate Taylor Force in Tel Aviv, cannot happen, ever.

Trump repeatedly stated he would veto any attempt by the UN to impose its will on the Jewish state of Israel.

Trump said as President “the days of treating Israel as a second class citizen will end, on day one.” Palestinian incitement and Jew hatred has to stop, said Trump. Glorifying martyrdom is a “barrier to peace.” Palestinians must end the “education of hatred, and end it now.”

He noted that Obama continually punishes our friends and rewards our enemies. He called Hillary Clinton a “total disaster.”

Trump observed that when America stands with Israel the chances of peace rises “exponentially.” He promised to move the U.S. embassy to the “eternal capital of Israel, Jerusalem” and that there is “no daylight between America and its most reliable ally Israel.”

He concluded with “my Daughter Ivanka Is about to have a beautiful Jewish baby.”

Trump’s speech was a major foreign policy statement on the Middle East in general and toward Israel specifically. He set his red lines in the sand.

Now we must wait for November 8th to see if he will be the man to implement them.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump: If I win, it will be incredible news for Israel

Trump Affirms his Support for Israel

Anti-Trump Protesters Taunt Jews at AIPAC With Nazi Imagery

Making Eli’s Chicago Cheesecake — A Job Americans won’t do?

The new UN High Commissioner for Refugees, after visiting Senator John McCain in Washington and signing an agreement to get more money from U.S. taxpayers, visited Eli’s Cheesecake Company in Chicago.

McCain and Grandi

Arizona Senator John McCain [photo right] warmly greets new UN High Commissioner for Refugees as Grandi comes to D.C. for his annual dip into the U.S. Treasury. Grandi is ‘head hunter’ for American big business.

We learn that a federal refugee contractor lines up jobs for refugees with Eli’s!

Contractor RefugeeOne took in $2.1 million from taxpayers in 2014 to act as an employment service for refugees.  It brags that it brought 16,000 refugees to Chicago since 1982!

What! no Americans willing to make cheesecake? Or, is there some special tax incentive for Eli’s to hire foreign labor?

The UN trumpets the news here:

CHICAGO, United States, March 18 (UNHCR) – During a week-long visit to the United States, the head of the United Nations refugee agency welcomed Washington’s longstanding commitment to resettling more refugees than any other country and emphasized that managing the refugee crisis is a global responsibility.

Speaking on a visit to Chicago, where he met with refugees, US lawmakers and resettlement agencies, UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi said: “Resettlement addresses the needs of the most vulnerable and is the safest way to move people from one country to another. Refugees flee terror, they don’t bring terror to countries. Their arrival is very carefully vetted, so there should be no fear.”

[….]

While in the Midwestern city, Grandi visited RefugeeOne, a Chicago area non-profit that works with refugeesfleeing war, persecution and terror, helping them to build new lives of safety, dignity and self-reliance.

Marc_Schulman

Eli’s CEO Marc Schulman

 

Finding employment is a major step for a refugee to become self-reliant and one of the businesses that RefugeeOne has long partnered with is Eli’s Cheesecake Company, which has been employing refugees for over 25 years.

[….]

“It takes UNHCR to protect us, RefugeeOne to place us in jobs and people like Marc to help us become productive,” he added, referring to the President of Eli’s Cheesecake Company.

Eli’s CEO Marc Schulman gets cheap immigrant labor and bakes cakes for Obama!

RefugeeOne is a subcontractor of three BIG contracting agencies of the US State Department:  Church World Service, Episcopal Migration Ministries, and Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service.

So, no low income Americans want the jobs? Or, it just isn’t cool enough for these Christian charities to help Americans first?

See Leo Hohmann at WND about African Americans being hammered by competition with immigrant labor, here.

The United Nations Must Consider This Torture by Haley Halverson

The United Nations must recognize that all individuals have an inherent right to be free from the sexual exploitation, objectification, and violence which are inherently found in prostitution and pornography.

The experiences of physical, mental, and verbal abuse commonly experienced in both pornography and prostitution are consistent with torture and should be addressed accordingly. This is why the National Center on Sexual Exploitation submitted two important reports to help inform the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Juan Méndez, as he formulates a thematic report on gender perspectives on torture. These documents, The Gender-Based Torture Found in the Pornography Industry and On a Street Corner Near You: Pimps as Practitioners of Torture, addressed research and precedent in international codes that the UN ought to apply to a formal recognition of pornography and prostitution as forms of torture.

This would not be the first time that the United Nations addressed prostitution and pornography as forms of exploitation.

At the International Conference on Population and Development in 1994, it was stated that, “Countries should take effective steps to address the neglect, as well as all types of exploitation and abuse, of children, adolescents and youth, such as abduction, rape and incest, pornography, trafficking, abandonment and prostitution.”(1) The United Nations must continue to build upon this history of recognizing the harms of these interrelated industries.

Due to the advent of the Internet, the problem of pornography has especially escalated to a pervasive and globe scale. An individual in Africa can watch the torture of an American woman, while someone in Germany can be downloading the digital evidence of sexual abuse that occurred in the Middle East.

One of the world’s largest pornographic websites recently released an annual review that revealed statistics on porn consumption by country. By percentage of traffic, the United States was the primary consumer of the videos, followed by the U.K., India, Canada, Germany, France, Australia, Italy, Brazil, and Mexico. The violent and sexualized torture that is inherently part of the nature of pornography must be recognized on an international level.

The treatment experienced by female pornography performers and prostituted persons is often identical to the treatment of women who are recognized as torture victims. It is therefore time for the United Nations to take a stand, and to fight for the dignity of all.

DOWNLOAD THE GENDER-BASED TORTURE FOUND IN THE PORNOGRAPHY INDUSTRY REPORT HERE.*

*Trigger warning for descriptions of scenarios and themes in pornography


(1) International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD). (1994). 5.9. Retrieved February 02, 2016

ABOUT HALEY HALVERSON

Untitled design-5DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS

Haley Halverson joined the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE) as Director of Communications in May of 2015. Haley cares deeply about human rights and the issue of sexual exploitation, particularly regarding those exploited in the sex industry. In her role, Haley acts as a spokesperson for NCOSE and oversees strategic messaging development, press outreach, email marketing, social media marketing, and creative video production.

Prior to working at NCOSE, Haley wrote for Media Research Center. Haley graduated from Hillsdale College (summa cum laude) where she double majored in Politics and interdisciplinary religious studies, and conducted a senior thesis on the abolitionist argument regarding prostitution. During her studies, she studied abroad at Oxford University and established a background in policy research through several internship experiences in the DC area.

Since arriving at NCOSE, Haley has appeared on, or been quoted in, several outlets including the New York Post, the Washington Times, USA Radio Network, CBC News, The Rod Arquette Show, the Christian Post, Lifeline with Neil Boron, KCBS San Francisco Radio, LifeSiteNews, News Talk KGVO, and American Family News.

RELATED ARTICLES:

| | | | |