Tag Archive for: United Nations

1/4 Billion Women and Girls Were Mutilated by Islamic Female Genital Mutilation Practices

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

But the UN claims that female mutilation is a Christian, Jewish and European practice.

A staggering number.

The UN recently commemorated its ‘International Day of Zero Tolerance for FGM’ by not mentioning Islam in any way, but by mentioning that 230 million, almost a quarter of a billion women and girls, were mutilated by the traditional practice that is especially prevalent in the Muslim world of ‘female genital mutilation’ whose purpose is to prevent women from having normal sex lives and can lead to serious injury and major risks during pregnancy.

The UN frenetically dances around the Islamic factor in all this. Its official FAQ claims that  “although female genital mutilation is not endorsed by either Islam or Christianity, supposed religious doctrine is often used to justify it” implying that FGM is a Christian practice.

Then it even more feebly tries to link FGM to Jews.  “Although often perceived as being connected to Islam, perhaps because it is practised among some Muslim groups, not all Islamic groups practise it, and many non-Islamic groups do, including some Christians, Ethiopian Jews and followers of certain traditional African religions.”

Not all Muslims. Look that way, the UN urges, at Christians and Jews.

Then the UN promotes a list of where FGM is practiced that focuses on Europe and Western nations.

Europe: Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Oceania: Australia, New Zealand.

The Americas: Canada, Colombia, United States of America.

Who exactly is practicing FGM in Belgium, Norway and Switzerland? If FGM a traditional Polish or British practice?

The FGM Swiss website has a picture of a blond woman. Let’s see who actually does it in Switzerland.

A Somali woman from canton Neuchâtel has been sentenced to eight months’ prison over the genital mutilation of her two daughters, in the first Swiss case of its kind after a law change.

Those Swiss Somalis again.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Afghan Taliban’s New Criminal Procedure Code Institutionalizes Abuse Against Women And Children, Legalizes Slavery, Stipulates Differential Punishments For Islamic Religious Scholars And Ordinary Afghans

In Interview, Afghan Taliban Spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid Defends Afghanistan’s New Penal Code: ‘A Woman Who Has A Husband… But Fails To Fulfill Her Husband’s Rights… Should Be Held Accountable’

Ilhan Omar’s Husband Under Investigation

UK Muslim Scouts Call for Cutting Off Heads

Israeli Analyst on Iran’s Ballistic Missile Program

Tennessee: National Socialist firebombing suspect tried to give list of Israel-linked individuals to Hizballah

UK: 13-year-old Muslim screaming ‘Allahu akbar’ stabs two classmates, one in neck, cops search for motive

Netherlands: Dutch police arrest 15 people for spreading Islamic State propaganda

UK’s Leftist Government Muzzles Adviser on ‘Islamist Threat’

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

CFACT Report Takes Down UN Assault on Plastic

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Plastics are a great equalizer.

Thanks to plastic, never before in history have the necessities of life been so plentiful and affordable.

Plastics make an abundance of food, clothing, shelter, transportation, healthcare, and information technology available to all.

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s 2030 Plastics Agenda for Business, launched in November 2025 with UNEP backing, promotes a “circular economy” through mandates and bureaucratic control.

CFACT’s report, The Next Plastics Playbook: Inside the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s 2030 Business Agenda by Melanie Collette, reveals it as a push for one-size-fits-all global regulation that could undermine plastics’ immense benefits.

You are almost certainly reading this on a plastic device. You’re probably wearing plastic as well.

Lightweight, corrosion-resistant plastics cut transport costs and, crucially, make essentials affordable. Plastic packaging extends food shelf life, reduces waste, and delivers staples like rice, oil, and medicine to remote or low-income areas.

Plastic is essential to our entire economy, so naturally, the UN wants in.

Plastics drive the world economy, contribute trillions in value, employ millions globally, support jobs in manufacturing and healthcare, and are essential to human well-being.

The UN plastic agenda risks stifling these advantages by favoring big corporations over smaller ones and imposing rigid rules that ignore local needs, eroding sovereignty and consumer choice.

True progress requires voluntary innovation and evidence-based, localized solutions — not centralized UN mandates.

As the climate agenda crumbles, we dare not permit a UN bureaucratic comeback under the guise of saving us from plastic.

Read the full CFACT report.

For nature and people too.

©2026 . All rights reserved.

IMMINENT COLLAPSE: Trump’s Boycott Leaves UN ‘on Brink of Bankruptcy’, Says Secretary-General

/in , , , , , , , /by

Excellent. The UN is an evil and corrupt organization. The UN has among other things empowered and enriched brutal dictatorships, tinpot nations, and terrorist organizations, spread antiSemitism at a scale not seem since pre-Holocaust Nazi Germany, and seeks to inflict global governance on the world. The world would be a much safer place if this horrific organization went bankrupt and dismantled in short order.

American taxpayers are funding a corrupt UN apparatus that coddles jihadists and condemns their victims. Enough.

Trump’s boycott leaves UN ‘on brink of bankruptcy’, says secretary-general

The Telegraph, Jan 30, 2026

The United Nations is on the brink of bankruptcy after Donald Trump cut funding, its secretary-general said.
Antonio Guterres said the organisation was at risk of “imminent financial collapse” and could run out of cash by July.

He blamed unpaid fees and a budget rule that forces the global body to return unspent money, according to a letter seen by Reuters on Friday.

Read more.

AUTHOR

Geller Report Staff

POSTS ON X:


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

Trump Admin Withdrawing From ‘Anti-American’ Global Climate Change Regimes

/in , , , , , , , , , , , /by

The White House announced Wednesday that the U.S. is exiting 66 international organizations and treaties, including a landmark climate change entity joined in 1992.

The Trump administration found that the listed international organizations, conventions and treaties did not serve America’s interests. Notable exits pertaining to global efforts to combat climate change include two United Nations entities: the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the last of which the U.S. joined in 1992 under President George H.W. Bush.

“Today, President Trump announced the U.S. is leaving 66 anti-American, useless, or wasteful international organizations. Review of additional international organizations remains ongoing,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote on X Wednesday. “These withdrawals keep a key promise President Trump made to Americans — we will stop subsidizing globalist bureaucrats who act against our interests. The Trump Administration will always put America and Americans first.”

The presidential memorandum notes that the exits follow a February 2025 executive order and subsequent recommendations from the Secretary of State.

“I have considered the Secretary of State’s report and, after deliberating with my Cabinet, have determined that it is contrary to the interests of the United States to remain a member of, participate in, or otherwise provide support to the organizations listed,” the presidential memorandum reads.

Notably, Trump signed an executive order to exit the Paris Agreement under the UNFCCC on his first day back in the Oval Office, The Paris Agreement is a global climate change compact marked by a pledge to lower emissions.

The Wednesday announcement also said the U.S. will leave the Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals, and Sustainable Development, the International Energy Forum, U.N. Energy and the U.N. Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women.

“For United Nations entities, withdrawal means ceasing participation in or funding to those entities to the extent permitted by law,” the announcement said.

AUTHOR

Audrey Streb

DCNF Energy Reporter

RELATED ARTICLE: Paris Agreement Ten Years Later: ‘Failed’

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

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

PERKINS: The Two-State Problem

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

Benjamin Franklin once observed, “Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other.” In other words, experience eventually instructs those slow to understand — but in matters of national security and biblical truth, time is not a luxury we possess.

Last week, the U.N. Security Council approved a U.S.-drafted resolution intended to bring lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. The intentions behind it are understandable; we all desire peace. But peace must be pursued with clear eyes, anchored in both biblical truth and historical reality. Over the last 53 years, roughly a dozen major peace proposals have not only failed but have, tragically, helped cultivate the violent ideology that erupted on October 7, 2023.

Each of those proposals rested on the same false premise: that Israel would or could surrender the land at the heart of its nation to create a Palestinian state. Such a concession would be suicidal for Israel’s security. Worse still, the continual promise — dangled by the international community and now again by the United States — fuels rather than calms hostility. It signals to Palestinian leaders that the world still believes the lie that Israel and the Jewish people stand in the way of their identity, prosperity, and future. In other words, the Jews are the problem.

It is telling that the only successful peace agreements — Egypt-Israel, Jordan-Israel, and the Abraham Accords — have all been negotiated between Israel and sovereign states, not the Palestinians. This underscores a hard but necessary truth: regional peace is achievable, but only when it does not demand Israel relinquish sovereignty over land that is at the very core of its identity, history, and covenant.

I was reminded of this in the spring of 2005, when I sat in a meeting here in Washington as Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and senior members of the Bush administration laid out the Gaza disengagement as a bold new path to peace. My objection came in the form of a single question: Is this consistent with what the Bible says about the land and the Jewish people?

I didn’t get an answer on that day. But October 7 provided the tragic answer.

In the aftermath of that horrific day, I walked through a kibbutz where walls were spattered with the blood of women and children. I stood at the site of the Nova music festival and felt the weight of knowing that American policy decisions helped create the conditions that allowed such evil to flourish. I led the delegation I was with in a prayer of repentance for what America allowed. I am determined not to remain silent while new seeds are being planted that could yield an even darker harvest.

I close with another quote, from the prophet Jeremiah: “They have also healed the hurt of My people slightly, saying, ‘Peace, peace!’ when there is no peace.”

AUTHOR

Tony Perkins

Tony Perkins is president of Family Research Council and executive editor of The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Taking action to defend America from the UN’s first global carbon tax

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Joint Statement by Secretary of State Rubio, Secretary of Energy Wright, and Secretary of Transportation Duffy

President Trump has made it clear that the United States will not accept any international environmental agreement that unduly or unfairly burdens the United States or harms the interests of the American people.  Next week, members of the IMO will vote on the adoption of a so-called NZF aimed at reducing global carbon dioxide gas emissions from the international shipping sector.  This will be the first time that a UN organization levies a global carbon tax on the world.

The Administration unequivocally rejects this proposal before the IMO and will not tolerate any action that increases costs for our citizens, energy providers, shipping companies and their customers, or tourists.  The economic impacts from this measure could be disastrous, with some estimates forecasting global shipping costs increasing as much as 10% or more.  We ask you to join us in rejecting adoption of the NZF at the October meeting and to work together on our collective economic and energy security.

The NZF proposal poses significant risks to the global economy and subjects not just Americans, but all IMO member states to an unsanctioned global tax regime that levies punitive and regressive financial penalties, which could be avoided.  The United States is considering the following actions against nations that support this global carbon tax on American consumers:

  • Pursuing investigations and considering potential regulations to combat anti-competitive practices from certain flagged countries and potential blocking vessels registered in those countries from U.S. ports;
  • Imposing visa restrictions including an increase in fees and processing, mandatory re-interview requirements and/or revisions of quotas for C-1/D maritime crew member visas;
  • Imposing commercial penalties stemming from U.S. government contracts including new commercial ships, liquified natural gas terminals and infrastructure, and/or other financial penalties on ships flagged under nations in favor of the NZF;
  • Imposing additional port fees on ships owned, operated, or flagged by countries supporting the framework; and
  • Evaluating sanctions on officials sponsoring activist-driven climate policies that would burden American consumers, among other measures under consideration.

The United States will be moving to levy these remedies against nations that sponsor this European-led neocolonial export of global climate regulations.  We will fight hard to protect our economic interests by imposing costs on countries if they support the NZF.  Our fellow IMO members should be on notice.

From the U.S. Secretary of State

The United Nations Is About to Tax You

By The Editorial Board · Wall Street Journal

A new global climate tax would be the ultimate in taxation without representation.

Voters are showing their opposition to the net-zero climate agenda whenever they get the chance. But that isn’t stopping the United Nations, which this week is poised to impose what amounts to a global tax on carbon emissions. Yes, this is the definition of taxation without representation.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO), a U.N. body based in London, hopes at its meeting this week to secure final approval for its “net-zero framework” for shipping. The measure would impose charges per metric ton of carbon-dioxide that ships emit above certain limits; the tax would be $100 or $380 per metric ton depending on various factors. That could translate to an annual tax take of $10 billion-$12 billion.

Continue reading.

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

Trump Administration Is Trying to Kill a UN Carbon Tax on Global Shipping

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) will vote this week whether to approve new regulations authorizing them to charge maritime shipping companies for their carbon emissions. The measure would be the first ever carbon tax on maritime commerce and the first ever tax collected directly by a U.N. agency, which is unaccountable to the consumers who must pay higher prices as a result. Before the extraordinary session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) convened on Tuesday, the Trump administration issued an ultimatum warning countries against voting for the measure.

In a lopsided vote of 63-16, the MEPC approved the 120-page draft regulation during its 83rd session on April 7-11. The regulation implements a “net-zero framework” (NZF) by requiring all maritime shipping to achieve “net-zero” carbon emissions by 2050, with intermediate targets set for 2030 and 2040.

“Net”-zero carbon emissions is not the same as absolute zero. According to the regulations, ships that emit less carbon gain “surplus units,” while ships that exceed the emission threshold “will have to acquire remedial units,” said the IMO. Operating companies can cover these remedial units by “Transferring surplus units from other ships;?Using surplus units they have already banked; [or] Using remedial units acquired through contributions to the IMO Net-Zero Fund.”

In effect, the IMO regulation would take the “cap-and-trade” scheme used to limit industrial pollutants and apply it to emissions of carbon dioxide, a gas necessary for all plant life on earth. For carbon emissions above this cap, the IMO would collect what is effectively a carbon tax, to be held in a green energy fund and used on unspecified projects.

“This is the first instance we can find of the U.N. claiming the ability to levy a tax — the revenues from which will be paid directly into a U.N.-controlled fund,” wrote The Wall Street Journal editors. “That’s bad enough as an invitation to opaque special dealing and corruption. But the IMO also contemplates using the funds for ‘just-transition initiatives in developing countries’ and to ‘mitigate negative impacts’ of climate change on ‘vulnerable States.’ In other words, this is another income redistribution scheme for whatever ideas the U.N. bureaucracy deems worthy.”

The regulations would impose a two-tier tax of either $100 or $380 (depending on certain factors) per metric ton of carbon dioxide emissions, resulting in an estimated $10 billion to $12 billion collected from shipping companies. By 2035, “a mid-size carrier relying exclusively on very low sulfur fuel oil (VLSFO) … could face more than $1.5 million in additional annual expenses, or 17 to 20% of fuel costs,” according to researchers at Columbia University.

The carbon tax aims to nudge the shipping industry away from fossil fuels by making it so expensive to run fossil fuels that ships powered by non-carbon alternatives become economically viable. Currently, the leading non-carbon alternatives include green ammonia (which is two to four times as expensive as VLSFO), bio-methanol (5.7 times as expensive), and e-methanol (6.3 times as expensive).

Fuel is one of the primary cost inputs for maritime shipping, which accounts for approximately 90% of international trade. Such an increase in shipping costs could raise the cost of imported goods for Americans by up to 10%.

This is a significant impact for very little gain. Maritime shipping accounts for only 3% of man-made carbon dioxide emissions, meaning that the IMO regulations will impose a huge burden on the global shipping industry, for only a marginal reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

The regulations would amend Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), which entered into force on October 2, 1983. Adopted in 2005, Annex VI limits emissions of harmful pollutants such as sulphur oxide, nitrous oxides, ozone-depleting substances, and particulate matter. In 2011, Annex VI was amended with energy efficiency requirements “aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

While Annex VI of MARPOL does control air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions, it does nothing so radical as phasing out fossil fuels. But that is exactly what the new regulations proposed by the MEPC would do.

For decades, U.N. agencies, including the IMO, have been pushing an anti-fossil fuel agenda based in climate ideology, but never to this extent. In 2018, the IMO published a strategy with the 2050 target of cutting in half the carbon emissions level of 2008. In 2023 — with the far-left Biden administration now steering U.S. policy — the IMO updated this strategy with an aspiration to eliminate carbon emissions entirely by the same date. However, this aspiration lacked the radical plan to achieve this goal through a U.N.-imposed carbon tax.

In April, the IMO was already counting its unhatched chickens with a detailed timeline: the new regulations would be officially adopted in October 2025, detailed implementation guidelines would be approved in the spring of 2026, and the regulations would enter into force in 2027, 16 months after adoption. But now, the Trump administration is trying to throw a last-minute wrench into that scheme.

Proponents for the IMO carbon tax form an unusual coalition of developed European nations and Pacific island nations. Low-lying Pacific nations are greatly concerned about rising sea levels, buy into the notion that this phenomenon is connected to manmade carbon emissions, and therefore seek to reduce those emissions to save their island homes.

Meanwhile, European nations have already implemented strict carbon emission standards at home, which puts them at a commercial disadvantage compared to other nations; they see this as an opportunity to level the playing field by imposing Europe-style carbon regulations on other nations. Thus, in a representative statement, Finland declared that the proposed IMO carbon tax would “even out the imbalance in international regulation of maritime emissions and level out the competitive environment, between the EU and the rest of the world.” After the Trump administration warned countries against voting for the plan, the European Union reaffirmed its support.

Perhaps surprisingly, the shipping industry has also endorsed the regulatory scheme. “Without the Framework, shipping would risk a growing patchwork of unilateral regulations,” read a joint statement from industry and labor associations on October 9.

In other words, shipping companies would appreciate the convenience of having to meet only one global standard, instead of different regulations in different countries. Or at least the shipping companies operating under stricter standards would like their competitors to bear the same burden. As for the higher costs these regulations would impose on global shipping, this statement proves that the shipping industry expects to pass those higher costs on to consumers.

The statement was signed by most of the world’s shipping industry: the Asian Shipowners’ Association (ASA), European Shipowners (ECSA), International Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH), International Bunker Industry Association (IBIA), International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF), International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), and the World Shipping Council (WSC). The ASA represents approximately 50% of the world merchant fleet, ECSA represents 35%, and the ICS represents over 80%.

On October 10, the day after the industry endorsement, the Trump administration published a full broadside attack on the scheme. In a joint statement, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, and Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy threatened “actions against nations that support this global carbon tax on American consumers:

  • “Pursuing investigations and considering potential regulations to combat anti-competitive practices from certain flagged countries and potential blocking vessels registered in those countries from U.S. ports;
  • “Imposing visa restrictions including an increase in fees and processing, mandatory re-interview requirements and/or revisions of quotas for C-1/D maritime crew member visas;
  • “Imposing commercial penalties stemming from U.S. government contracts including new commercial ships, liquified natural gas terminals and infrastructure, and/or other financial penalties on ships flagged under nations “in favor of the NZF;
  • “Imposing additional port fees on ships owned, operated, or flagged by countries supporting the framework; and
  • “Evaluating sanctions on officials sponsoring activist-driven climate policies that would burden American consumers, among other measures under consideration.”

“This will be the first time that a UN organization levies a global carbon tax on the world,” the statement declared. “The Administration unequivocally rejects this proposal before the IMO and will not tolerate any action that increases costs for our citizens, energy providers, shipping companies and their customers, or tourists. The economic impacts from this measure could be disastrous.”

The Trump administration had issued a similar, but less detailed, statement of opposition on August 12, arguing that the standards would “conveniently benefit China by requiring the use of expensive fuels unavailable at global scale. These standards would also preclude the use of proven technologies that fuel global shipping fleets, including lower emissions options where U.S. industry leads such as liquified natural gas (LNG) and biofuels.”

In comments submitted to the MEPC, the U.S. again argued that the proposed regulations irrationally penalized low-emission fossil fuels like LNG, as well as decrying the scheme’s excessive revenue accumulation in pursuit of ill-defined goals.

The U.S. is part of another unusual coalition in opposition to the regulations. The nations most opposed to the regulation are oil-producing countries, which includes many of America’s geopolitical adversaries. In the April vote, the 16 countries to oppose the regulations included Iran, Lebanon, Russia, Venezuela, and Yemen.

A coalition of six oil-producing nations submitted their own comment in opposition to the regulation, arguing that tax collection and the creation of a green energy fund is entirely outside of the scope of the MARPOL convention, and there is no prior precedent for a U.N. agency to require financial contributions for the non-compliance of private entities, rather than sovereign parties.

The final outcome remains unclear. The IMO usually operates based upon consensus, but the regulation vote may force it to a rare ballot vote, in which the resolution would need to carry a two-thirds majority to pass.

Thus, the regulation would require support by 72 out of the 108 member states who have ratified MARPOL Annex VI — but only if they all show up. At the April vote, only 79 nations had delegates present for the vote. Since 63 countries already voted for the regulation in April, the U.S. would either need a sizable majority of undecided countries to vote against, or it would need some countries to switch their votes. Reportedly, some countries are considering switching their votes, including Philippines, Turkey, Argentina, and Australia.

While the Trump administration threatens economic sanctions, Saudi Arabia is whipping its own votes against the measure with promises of economic opportunity and other sweeteners. Saudi Arabia may also have offered to pay the travel costs for representatives of countries not present in April, if they will vote against the measure. Such an energetic campaign suggest one thing: either way, the vote will be close.

Ironically, the U.N.’s International Maritime Organization appears poised to hold a rare vote of member countries on an issue without any popular buy-in at all. “Voters are showing their opposition to the net-zero climate agenda whenever they get the chance. But that isn’t stopping the United Nations,” wrote The Wall Street Journal editors. “Yes, this is the definition of taxation without representation. … It’s an attempt by climate-obsessed politicians to entrench their agenda before voters in democracies can kill it.”

American voters elected Donald Trump to stop exactly this sort of woke agenda at home. Can he carry enough countries along to stop it at the world stage?

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Trump Admin May Have Eyes On New Regime Change War

/in , , , , , , , , , , , /by

The United States is reportedly planning to target drug traffickers in Venezuela, raising questions about the possibility of regime change in the country.

U.S. military officials are considering attacking drug traffickers in the coming weeks within the borders of Venezuela, four sources told NBC News.

“We’ll see what happens. Venezuela is sending us their gang members, their drug dealers and drugs. It’s not acceptable,” the White House told NBC, referencing a previous statement from Trump.

The report follows rising tensions over drugs and the mobilization of U.S. forces in the Caribbean.

Throughout September, President Donald Trump authorized striking several boats allegedly carrying drugs and drug traffickers.

“BE WARNED — IF YOU ARE TRANSPORTING DRUGS THAT CAN KILL AMERICANS, WE ARE HUNTING YOU!” Trump declared in a Truth post on September 15, attaching a video of the second boat strike. “The illicit activities by these cartels have wrought DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES ON AMERICAN COMMUNITIES FOR DECADES, killing millions of American citizens. NO LONGER.”

The attacks sparked the ire of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

Maduro responded to the first strike on Sept. 2 by flying two F-16 fighter jets over a U.S. Navy destroyer two days later, according to Time magazine.

Maduro claimed the U.S. was seeking “to intimidate and seek regime change,” and that the U.S. was “looking for a military incident,” according to the Associated Press.

Trump has denied regime change in Venezuela is a goal of his administration, Time reported Sept. 6.

“We’re not talking about that,” he told reporters.

Maduro helped spearhead the Cartel of the Suns, a drug-trafficking group, and has a $50 million bounty for his arrest, according to the Department of State.

Republican representatives have warned that Maduro could face consequences.

In an interview published Sept. 13, Republican Florida Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart said Maduro has three options: leave now, end up in prison for the rest of his life or end up like Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani, which he describes as “basically being reduced to dust in a plastic bag.”

“Those are the three options that Maduro, the Maduro regime and those around them have,” Díaz-Balart added.

Florida Republican Rep. Carlos Gimenez posted in August that “Maduro’s days are numbered.”

The U.S. planned to deploy 10 F-35 fighter jets to the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico, bolstering its already strong presence in the area, sources told Reuters in September.

“So we’re not going to have a cartel, operating or masquerading as a government, operating in our own hemisphere,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a mid-September interview with Fox News.

“The President of the United States made clear that he’s not going to allow cartels, that cartel or any other cartel, to operate with impunity in our hemisphere and send drugs towards the United States. And he’s going to use the U.S. military and all the elements of American power to target cartels who are targeting America.”

U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth deemed Maduro “effectively a kingpin of a drug narco state” and added that he “should be worried” in an interview with Fox News.

“The Trump administration has carefully constructed a policy rationale that this is not ‘regime change’ for the sake of exporting democracy to the world’s benighted peoples,” former National Security Council and U.S. State Department official, José Cárdenas, told Newsweek.

“It is a national security initiative meant to eliminate a source of tons of cocaine from entering the United States. Main Street, USA, can identify with that,” he continued.

Trump recently detailed his plans to crack down on drug traffickers in his address to the United Nations (UN).

“We’ve recently begun using the supreme power of the United States military to destroy Venezuelan terrorists and trafficking networks led by Nicolás Maduro,” Trump said at the United Nations General Assembly. “To every terrorist thug smuggling poisonous drugs into the United States of America, please be warned that we will blow you out of existence.”

“Maduro is not the legitimate leader of Venezuela; he’s a fugitive of American justice who undermines regional security and poisons Americans and we want to see him brought to justice. The U.S. is engaged in a targeted counter-drug cartel operation,” State Department Principal Deputy Spokesperson Tommy Pigott told The Daily Caller in a Statement.

AUTHOR

Derek VanBuskirk

Reporter

RELATED ARTICLES:

Hegseth Declares War On Fat Generals

Philadelphia Raises Chinese Communist Flag

Schumer’s Bid To Shut Down Government Exposes Democratic Fissures

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

The ‘Divided Nations’ Spits on the United States and Israel

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

As the General Assembly convened in New York, the world body’s historic failures to protect human rights can no longer be ignored.

he United States today remains the largest donor to the United Nations. It contributed close to $13 billion in 2023, accounting for more than a quarter of funding for the body’s collective budget.

As a founding member of the United Nations and the host for its headquarters, the United States has been a chief guide and major funder of the organization for nearly eighty years.

The United States today remains the largest donor to the United Nations … over 25% of its budget out of 193 members!

On September 23, 2025, the United Nations demonstrated to the entire world its disdain for the host country of the United Nations and for its most enduring ally, Israel. Although the President of the Security Council was formally requested to schedule its meeting on a date that did not directly conflict with the first Holy Day of the Jewish New Year, the immediate denial was easily predictable, as the date was specifically chosen to denigrate, offend, insult, and exclude the Jews from a meeting focused on Israel, such that Israel could not represent its own interests.

This is the habitual mistreatment and blatant, glaring prejudice by the Divided Nations/United Nations against the Jewish State for generations.

WATCH: From Balfour to Betrayal: UK Hands Palestine the Win

Let’s Get the U.N. Out of the U.S.

As the General Assembly convenes in New York, the world body’s historic failures to protect human rights can no longer be ignored

This week, New York City observed an annual ritual. As the United Nations opens its General Assembly, large parts of Manhattan shut down. Each September, as a lifelong New Yorker, I listen to the minor complaints, think about fifty-plus years of my own human-rights activism and corresponding U.N. disappointments, and grit my teeth: what are a few disappointments, and some traffic jams, next to world peace?

But this year the General Assembly corresponds with something bigger than a traffic jam: the end of the Syrian civil war, the first state-sponsored genocide of the 21st century, with over 400,000 souls held to the accounting of a world that failed to stop the slaughter. This year, it’s time for a modest proposal—a substantive move that would pack a symbolic punch. Let’s get the United Nations out of the United States.

Continue reading.

2024 UNGA Resolutions on Israel vs. Rest of the World

From 2015 through 2023, the UN General Assembly has adopted 154 resolutions against Israel and 71 against other countries. For texts and voting sheets, see the UN Watch Database, which will be updated to include the 2024 UNGA resolutions after they are published by the UN in January 2025.

The UN Watch Database also documents that from 2006 through 2024, the UN Human Rights Council has adopted 108 resolutions against Israel, 45 against Syria, 15 against Iran, 10 against Russia, and 4 against Venezuela.

The 2024 UNGA Resolutions: 18 on Israel vs. 7 on Rest of World

In 2024, the UNGA is expected to adopt 18 resolutions on Israel and only seven resolutions on the entire rest of the world, which include one resolution each on North Korea, Iran, Syria, Myanmar, Russia for its violations in Georgia, Russia for its occupation of Crimea, and the United States for its embargo on Cuba, as detailed in the charts below.

We note that the chart below lists 19 resolutions on Israel. This includes the resolution titled Assistance to the Palestinian People, which is more balanced than the others, is adopted by consensus, and, therefore, is deemed non-condemnatory.

UN Watch opposes the adoption of one-sided and counterproductive resolutions at the United Nation. We have launched a campaign urging countries to oppose them. Click here to take action: Demand that your country end its biased votes that demonize Israel.

Resolution Extracts Analysis
“The occupied Syrian Golan” [A/C.4/79/L.15]

4th Committee Vote (Nov. 21, 2024) 

  • 152 Yes (Including UK and all of the EU)
  • 5 No (United States, Israel, Argentina, Tonga, Papua New Guinea)
  • 23 Abstain

 

Plenary Vote (Dec. 4, 2024)

  • 150 Yes (Including UK and all of the EU)
  • 4 No (United States, Israel, Papua New Guinea, Tonga)
  • 25 Abstain
 “Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken or to be taken by Israel, the occupying Power, that purport to alter the character and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan are null and void…” Ignores the existence of the Syrian Civil War and its security implications for Israel and the civilians of the Golan Heights. Also ignores Syria’s history of shelling Israeli communities, its leader’s calls for a “war of annihilation” against Israel, and Syria’s 1967 aggression that led to its loss of the territory. Also neglects Syria’s sponsorship of the enemies of the peace process, and its support for terrorism. Falsely claims that Israel is oppressing and imposing Israeli citizenship on the Arab population of the Golan Heights.
“Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan” [A/C.4/79/L.16]

4th Committee Vote (Nov. 21, 2024) 

  • 152 Yes (Including UK, Canada, & most of EU)
  • 9 No (Including United States, Israel, Argentina, Hungary)
  • 19 Abstain

 

Plenary Vote (Dec. 4, 2024)

  • 151 Yes (Including UK, Canada, & most of EU)
  • 9 No (Including United States, Israel, Argentina, Hungary)
  • 19 Abstain
 “Reaffirms that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan are illegal and an obstacle to peace and economic and social development…”

“Recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 19 July 2024 by the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences arising from Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and from the illegality of Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory…”

 Adopts Palestinian position on issues that Oslo Accords left to negotiations, such as settlements and borders. Israel is treated with disdain in comparison to praise and deference to governments in other country resolutions. Makes sweeping legal pronouncements on disputed matters, for example by accusing Israel of violating international law for ordering demolitions of illegally built structures in territory over which it has administrative control. Makes an immoral equivalence between Palestinian terror and violence and Israeli countermeasures. Specifically condemns incitement by “Israeli settlers,” but fails to expressly condemn widespread, official terrorist and antisemitic incitement by Palestinian officials, media and education.
“Assistance to Palestine refugees” [A/C.4/77/L.13]

4th Committee Vote (Nov. 21, 2024) 

  • 165 Yes (Including UK, Canada, & all of EU)
  • 3 No (Israel, Argentina, Tonga)
  • 9 Abstain (Including United States)

 

Plenary Vote (Dec. 4, 2024)

  • 171 Yes (Including UK, Canada, & all of EU)
  • 3 No (States, Israel, Argentina, Papua New Guinea)
  • 9 Abstain (Including United States, Cameroon, Panama, Paraguay)
 “Expressing grave concern at the especially dire situation of the Palestine refugees under occupation, including with regard to their safety, well-being and socioeconomic living conditions…” Resolution serves Arab states that seek to preserve Palestinians as pawns in political campaign to delegitimize Israel. Intent and effect of singling out Palestinian from all refugee claims in the world is to isolate and demonize Israel. Omits any reference to Lebanon’s discrimination against Palestinian refugees in that country or the Syrian Assad regime’s collective punishment of Palestinian refugees in that country and their treatment as second-class citizens. Redundant to three other resolutions adopted on same day (see in this chart) dealing with refugees and UNRWA.
“Palestine refugees’ properties and their revenues” [A/C.4/79/L.14]

4th Committee Vote (Nov. 21, 2024) 

  • 162 Yes (Including UK, Canada, & all of EU)
  • 6 No (Including United States, Israel, Argentina)
  • 10 Abstain

 

Plenary Vote (Dec. 4, 2024)

  • 164 Yes (Including UK, Canada, & all of EU)
  • 6 No (Including United States, Israel, Argentina)
  • 9 Abstain
 “Reaffirms that the Palestine refugees are entitled to their property and to the income derived therefrom, in conformity with the principles of equity and justice…” One-sided resolution ignores claims of 900,000 Jewish refugees displaced from Arab lands. Repeats statements previously established for purpose of censuring Israel and is redundant to other resolutions. Prejudges negotiations.
“The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East” [A/C.1/79/L.2]

1st Committee Vote (Nov. 1, 2024) 

  • 148 Yes
  • 5 No (Israel, United States, Argentina, Palau, Micronesia)
  • 30 Abstain

 

Plenary Vote (Dec. 2, 2024)

  • 153 Yes
  • 5 No (Israel, United States, Argentina, Palau, Micronesia)
  • 27 Abstain
 “Recalling that Israel remains the only State in the Middle East that has not yet become a party to the Treaty…” Resolution singles out Israel while ignoring menacing actions of other states, including Iran’s illegal efforts to acquire nuclear weapons in defiance of Security Council and IAEA resolutions. Ignores overt and repeated threats against the existence of Israel by neighboring states in the region.
“Oil slick on Lebanese shores” [A/C.2/79/L.9]

2nd Committee Vote (Nov. 13, 2024) 

  • 161 Yes
  • 7 No (Including United States, Canada, Israel, Argentina)
  • 9 Abstain

 

Plenary Vote (Dec. 19, 2024)

  • 167 Yes
  • 9 No (Including United States, Canada, Israel, Argentina)
  • 6 Abstain
 “Reiterates, for the nineteenth consecutive year, its deep concern about the adverse implications of the destruction by the Israeli Air Force of the oil storage tanks in the direct vicinity of the Lebanese Jiyeh electric power plant for the achievement of sustainable development in Lebanon…” One-sided resolution completely ignores Hezbollah’s role in launching hostilities, firing 4,000 rockets and burning 500,000 trees in Northern Israel. Ignores Lebanon’s non-compliance with SC Resolutions on dismantling Hezbollah. Singles out Israel as only country to be censured under Sustainable Development agenda item.
“Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources” [A/C.2/ 79/L.40] 

2nd Committee Vote (Nov. 13, 2024) 

  • 159 Yes
  • 7 No (Including United States, Canada, Israel, Argentina)
  • 11 Abstain

 

Plenary Vote (Dec. 19, 2024)

  • 162 Yes
  • 8 No (Including United States, Canada, Israel, Argentina)
  • 10 Abstain
 “Expressing its grave concern also about the widespread destruction caused by Israel, the occupying Power, to vital infrastructure, including water pipelines, sewage networks and electricity networks, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory…” One-sided resolution denies Israel’s right to self-defense by describing every preventative measure as conspiracy against Palestinian resources. Omits mention of Palestinian terrorism or any Palestinian obligation. Also omits Palestinian harm to natural resources, such as destruction of Gaza greenhouses delivered intact by Israel; Hamas’ commandeering of international aid money to fund the construction of terror tunnels rather than to rebuild destroyed infrastructure; environmental pollution caused by Palestinian tire burning; destruction of flora and fauna with arson balloons and kites; and refusal to develop their own water resources and deal with their own sewage as required by the Oslo Accords.
“The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination” [A/C.3/79/L.49]

3rd Committee Vote (Nov. 14, 2024) 

  • 170 Yes (Including UK, Canada, & all of EU)
  • 6 No (Israel, United States, Argentina, Paraguay, Micronesia, Nauru)
  • 9 Abstain

 

Plenary Vote  (Dec. 17, 2024)

  • 172 Yes (Including UK, Canada, & all of EU)
  • 7 No (Including United States, Israel, Argentina, Paraguay)
  • 8 Abstain
 “Recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 19 July 2024 by the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences arising from Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and from the illegality of Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” Redundantly asserts a principle that Israel has already recognized. Out of hundreds of self-determination claims worldwide, resolution singles out one: the claim against Israel. Omits Palestinian obligation under the Road Map to dismantle terrorist infrastructure before a state is to be created. The Committee already adopts a self-determination resolution for the whole world titled “Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination” while singling out Israel with this one resolution for Palestinian self-determination.
“Palestine Refugees Budget” [A/RES/79/256]

Plenary Vote (Dec. 24, 2024)

  • 125 Yes (Including the United States, China, Russia)
  • 8 No (Including Israel, Argentina, Paraguay, Malta)
  • 32 Abstain (Including the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, France)
 “Expresses deep concern over recent legislative actions that aim to obstruct the Agency’s operations, which significantly hinder the Agency’s ability to fulfil its mandate, and recalls in this regard General Assembly resolution ES-10/25 of 11 December 2024.; Condemns in the strongest possible terms the killing of Agency staff and all acts of violence against civilians…; Condemns in the strongest possible terms the destruction of installations, facilities and vehicles under the United Nations flag.” This resolution, adopted in the context of Israel’s post-October 7th war against Hamas, clearly targets Israel even though it does not mention either Israel or Hamas by name. It fully endorses UNRWA, whose employees perpetrated atrocities on October 7, 2023, stating that “no organization can replace or substitute the capacity and mandate to serve Palestine refugees.”; Furthermore, the resolution criticizes “legislative Actions that aim to obstruct the Agency’s operations,” clearly referring to the November 2024 Israeli Knesset legislation banning UNRWA.; The resolution also strongly condemns the killing of Agency staff and the destruction of UN property. Since Israel is the party attacking in Gaza and the resolution fails to hold Hamas accountable either for starting the war or for embedding itself in the Gaza civilian infrastructure in violation of international law, including by launching rockets from, storing weapons in, and constructing tunnels under schools and hospitals, there is no doubt the condemnation is directed at Israel.; Moreover, Israel called for a vote on the resolution and voted against it.
“Admission of new Members to the United Nations” [A/RES/ES-10/23]

Plenary vote (May 10, 2024)

  • 143 Yes
  • 9 No (Including United States, Israel, Argentina, Hungary, Czechia)
  • 25 Abstain
 “Reaffirming its resolutions 43/176 of 15 December 1988 and 77/25 of
30 November 2022 and all relevant resolutions regarding the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, which, inter alia, stress the need for the withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem…”“Calls for renewed and coordinated efforts by the international community
aimed at achieving without delay an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967…”		 In the context of upgrading Palestine’s status at the UN, the resolution blames the Israeli occupation and settlements for the lack of peace, while ignoring Palestinian rejectionism and terrorism. Even worse, this upgrade rewards Palestinian terrorism while Israel is still in the midst of a war against Hamas for its brutal October 7 attack on Israeli communities. It sends a message to the Palestinian leadership, to Hamas, and to Hamas’s sponsor the Islamic Republic of Iran, that terrorism against Israelis pays off. At the same time, it erodes Israel’s right to self-defense.
“Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory” [A/RES/ES-10/24]

Plenary vote (Sept. 18, 2024)

  • 124 Yes
  • 14 No (Including United States, Israel, Argentina, Hungary)
  • 43 Abstain
 “Demands that Israel brings to an end without delay its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which constitutes a wrongful act of a continuing character entailing its international responsibility, and do so no later than 12 months from the adoption of the present resolution…”

“Demands that Israel comply without delay with all its legal obligations
under international law, including… withdrawing all its military forces from the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including its airspace and maritime space…”

 Reaffirms a biased and one-sided advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice which singled out Israel as a roadblock for peace and declared that “Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful.” This resolution also ignores Israel’s right to security and defense by demanding Israel remove its military forces from the areas of Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank.
“Support for the mandate of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East” [A/ES-10/L.32]

Plenary vote (Dec. 11, 2024)

  • 159 Yes (Including UK, Canada, & most of EU)
  • 9 No (Including United States, Israel, Argentina, Paraguay)
  • 11 Abstain (Including Austria, Netherlands, Hungary, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Czechia)
 “Deplores the legislation adopted by the Israeli Knesset on 28 October
2024…”“Deeply concerned also about attempts to discredit the Agency, as well as attempts to undermine and terminate its operations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem…”“Underscores the imperative of reparations, in accordance with international law, for all losses, damage and destruction sustained by the Agency in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and calls upon the Secretary-General to undertake the necessary assessments to this end.”		 Repeats the false claim that UNRWA is irreplaceable while condemning Israeli legislation to limit the agency over its well-documented ties to terrorism. The resolution all but ignores these ties, noting that UNRWA fired nine employees involved in October 7 and praising UNRWA’s commitment to neutrality. The resolution omits any mention of Hamas tunnels and military infrastructure built under UNRWA facilities, the pattern of senior UNRWA educators like Fathi Al-Sharif in Lebanon and Suhail Al-Hindi in Gaza who simultaneously held leadership positions in Hamas, or the hateful content taught in UNRWA schools to impressionable Palestinian children who dream of invading Israel, killing Jews, and becoming martyrs.
“Demand for ceasefire in Gaza” [A/ES-10/L.33]

Plenary vote (Dec. 11, 2024)

  • 158 Yes (Including UK, Canada, & most of EU)
  • 9 No (Including United States, Israel, Argentina, Hungary, Czechia)
  • 13 Abstain (Including Ukraine, Slovakia, Cameroon, Georgia, Albania)
 “Recalling the orders of provisional measures of the International Court of Justice in the case concerning the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip… given its determination that there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights found by the Court to be plausible, namely the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide… recalling also the advisory opinion rendered on 19 July 2024 by the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences arising from Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and from the illegality of Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory…”

“Demands an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire, to be
respected by all parties, and further reiterates its demand for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages.”

 Redundant to the failed and one-sided UN Security Council resolution S/2024/835 which demanded a permanent and unconditional ceasefire in Gaza that is not conditional on the release of the Israeli hostages being held by Hamas. The resolution also reaffirms the biased July 2024 anti-Israel ICJ advisory opinion demanding that Israel unilaterally withdraw from the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the previous ICJ provisional measures ordered against Israel in the case brought by South Africa falsely accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza. Additionally, the resolution defends UNRWA, downplaying evidence of the agency’s ties to terrorism as mere attempts to “undermine the implementation of [UNRWA’s] mandate.”
“Assistance to the Palestinian people” [A/79/L.41]

Plenary vote (Dec. 9, 2024)

Adopted by consensus

 

 

 “Aware that development is difficult under occupation and is best promoted in circumstances of peace and stability. Noting the great economic and social challenges facing the Palestinian people and their leadership…” This resolution is more balanced when compared to the other anti-Israel texts. However, its references to the difficulty of occupation for Palestinians indirectly implicates Israel. No other occupied or disputed territory throughout the world receives an annual resolution of this type, making it uniquely critical of Israel. This resolution is typically passed by consensus, without a vote.
“Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine” [A/79/L.23]

Plenary vote (Dec. 3rd, 2024)

  • 157 Yes (Including UK, Canada, & most of EU)
  • 8 No (Including United States, Israel, Argentina, Hungary)
  • 7 Abstain
 “Reaffirming the illegality of Israeli settlement activities and all other unilateral measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the City of Jerusalem and of the Occupied Palestinian Territory as a whole, including the wall and its associated regime, and demanding their immediate cessation, and condemning any use of force against Palestinian civilians in violation of international law, notably children”

“Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply strictly with its obligations under international law, including as reflected in the advisory opinion of the International Court of 19 July 2024, including to bring an end to its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory…”

 Blames Israel only for lack of peace. Text is redundant to several other resolutions and serves no effect other than demonization. References to terror fail to name its perpetrators, whereas Israel is named and blamed throughout.
“The Syrian Golan” [A/79/L.19]

Plenary vote (Dec. 3rd, 2024)

  • 97 Yes
  • 8 No (Including United States, UK, Canada, Australia, Israel)
  • 64 Abstain
 “Deeply concerned that Israel has not withdrawn from the Syrian Golan, which has been under occupation since 1967…” Redundant to A/C.4/79/L.15 on “the Occupied Syrian Golan.” Oblivious to genocidal massacres taking place now in Syria and its security implications for Israel and the civilians of the Golan Heights. Ignores Syria’s history of shelling Israeli communities, its leader’s calls for a “war of annihilation” against Israel, and Syria’s 1967 aggression that led to its loss of the territory. Calls on Israel to negotiate with Syria and Lebanon while not making the same demand of those countries.
“Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat” [A/79/L.24]

Plenary vote (Dec. 3rd, 2024)

  • 101 Yes
  • 27 No (Including United States, Germany, UK, Canada, Italy, Israel, Austria, Switzerland)
  • 42 Abstain
 “Further requests the Division to dedicate its activities in 2023 to the commemoration of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Nakba, including by organizing annual events and through the dissemination of relevant archives and testimonies…”

“Considers that, by providing substantive support to the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People in the implementation of its mandate, the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat continues to make a constructive and positive contribution…”

“Requests the Division… to organize international meetings and activities in support of the Committee’s mandate … to liaise and cooperate with civil society and parliamentarians, including through the Working Group of the Committee, to develop and expand the ‘Question of Palestine’ website…”

 The DPR serves the biased special committee and is dedicated to spreading anti-Israel propaganda the world over. Its 16-member staff is grossly disproportionate to the UN’s other four divisions which cover enormous geographical regions. The DPR’s work is counter-productive to the peace process and seeks to coordinate international boycotts against Israel instead of seeking bridges for peace. Excludes from its events any NGO that declines to swear fealty to its hardline politics.
“Request for an advisory opinion of the International Court of
Justice on the obligations of Israel in relation to the presence and activities of the United Nations, other international organizations and third States” [A/79/L.28]Plenary vote (Dec. 19, 2024)

  • 137 Yes
  • 12 No (Including United States, Israel, Argentina, Hungary, Czechia, Paraguay)
  • 22 Abstain
 “Welcoming the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 19 July 2024 on the legal consequences arising from Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and from the illegality of Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”

“Expresses its appreciation for the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East…”

“Decides… to request the International Court of Justice…to render an advisory opinion on…the obligations of Israel, as an occupying Power and a member of the United Nations, in relation to the presence and activities of the United Nations… including the unhindered provision of urgently needed supplies essential to the survival of the Palestinian civilian population as well as of basic services and humanitarian and development assistance throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory…”

 Expresses support for the terror-infested UNRWA and reaffirms a biased and one-sided advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice which ignores Israel’s right to security and singles out the Jewish State as a roadblock for peace, declaring that “Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful.” The resolution then singles out Israel for the humanitarian situation of Gaza and calls for another ICJ advisory opinion targeting the country.

2024 UNGA RESOLUTIONS ON REST OF THE WORLD

UN Watch opposes the adoption of one-sided resolutions at the United Nations and we have launched a campaign urging countries to oppose them. Click here to take action and demand that your country change its biased votes on Israel.

“Resolution condemning the embargo imposed on Cuba by the United States” [A/79/L.6]

Main Sponsor: Cuba

 Plenary vote (Oct. 30, 2024)

  • 187 Yes
  • 2 No (United States & Israel)
  • 1 Abstain (Moldova)
“Situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” [A/C.3/79/L.34]

Main Sponsor: Hungary

 3rd Committee Vote (Nov. 21, 2024)

Adopted by consensus

Plenary Vote (Dec. 17, 2024)

Adopted by consensus
“Situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran” [A/C.3/79/L.41]

Main Sponsor: Canada

 3rd Committee Vote (Nov. 21, 2024):

  • 77 Yes (Including US, UK, Canada, Australia, Israel)
  • 28 No (Including Russia, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, China)
  • 66 Abstain (Including Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Brazil, Qatar, Tunisia)

Plenary Vote (Dec. 17, 2024)

  • 80 Yes (Including US, UK, Canada, Australia, Israel)
  • 27 No (Including Russia, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, China)
  • 68 Abstain (Including Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Brazil, Qatar, Tunisia)
“Situation of human rights in the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine, including the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol” [A/C.3/79/L.44]

Main Sponsor: Ukraine

 3rd Committee Vote (Nov. 21, 2024):

  • 78 Yes (Including US, UK, Canada, Australia, Israel)
  • 16 No (Including China, Iran, Russia, Syria)
  • 78 Abstain (Including Brazil, India, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Mexico, and South Africa)

Plenary Vote (Dec. 17, 2024)

  • 81 Yes (Including US, UK, Canada, Australia, Israel)
  • 14 No (Including China, Iran, Russia, Cuba)
  • 80 Abstain (Including Brazil, India, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Mexico, and South Africa)
“Situation of human rights in the Syrian Arab Republic” [A/C.3/79/L.45]

Main Sponsors: United States and Qatar

 3rd Committee Vote (Nov. 21, 2024):

  • 85 Yes (Including US, UK, Canada, Australia, Israel)
  • 17 No (Including China, Iran, Russia)
  • 71 Abstain (Including Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Brazil)

Plenary Vote (Dec. 17, 2024)

  • 90 Yes (Including US, UK, Canada, Australia, Israel)
  • 12 No (Including China, Iran, Russia)
  • 75 Abstain (Including South Africa, Brazil)
“Situation of human rights of Rohingya Muslims and other minorities in Myanmar”[A/C.3/79/L.46/Rev.1]

Main Sponsors: The Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the European Union

 3rd Committee Vote (Nov. 21, 2024)

Adopted by consensus

Plenary Vote (Dec. 17, 2024)

Adopted by consensus
“Status of internally displaced persons and refugees from Abkhazia, Georgia, and the Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia, Georgia” [A/RES/78/283]

Main Sponsor: Georgia

 Plenary Vote (June 4, 2024)

  • 103 Yes (Including U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, Israel)
  • 9 No (Including Russia, Cuba, North Korea)
  • 53 Abstain (Including China, Iran)

Compare UN resolutions on Israel vs. the rest of the world from the previous year here.

©2025 All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biblical Boundaries of the Land of Israel – The Israel Bible

Borders of the Promised Land – YouTube

Trump Promises American Global Leadership: 7 Themes from His UN Speech

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

In an hour-long speech before the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday, President Donald Trump rebuked world leaders for embracing nonsensical, self-destructive policies, and he urged them to follow America’s lead in restoring prosperity. Since the wide-ranging speech issued challenges to which other nations must respond, it’s worth reviewing the main highlights.

Here are seven themes Trump emphasized in his mammoth speech.

1. Trump championed human rights, including religious freedom for Christians.

“Let us defend free speech and free expression,” Trump urged world leaders. “Let us protect religious liberty, including for the most persecuted religion on the planet today — it’s called Christianity.” Trump is correct that Christians face ongoing persecution around the world, from jihadist massacres in Africa to official repression in China, and from Hindu mobs in India to policing of social media in the U.K.

As one example of a policy that promoted human rights abroad, Trump referred to the stiff tariffs he placed on Brazilian imports “in response to its unprecedented efforts to interfere in the rights and freedoms of our American citizens and others with censorship, repression, weaponization, judicial corruption, and targeting of political critics in the United States.”

2. Trump chided Western nations who recognized Palestine.

Trump also responded to eight Western governments that chose, for the first time, to officially recognize a state of Palestine this week. “As everyone knows, I have also been deeply engaged in seeking a ceasefire in Gaza,” the president stated. “Unfortunately, Hamas has repeatedly rejected reasonable offers to make peace, and we can’t forget October 7th, can we? Now, as if to encourage continued conflict, some of this body is seeking to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state. The rewards would be too great for Hamas terrorists. … Those who want peace should be united with one message: release the hostages now.”

“The only way you can see it any other way is deliberately not looking at it,” responded Dr. A.J. Nolte, director of the Institute for Israeli Studies at Regent University, on “Washington Watch.” “In September 2025, you’re recognizing something that doesn’t exist, that doesn’t have any governance capacity, where no Palestinian leadership has any legitimacy from the population they’ve actually governed, and no Palestinian entity has any ability to provide peace, order, and security over areas they have controlled thus far.”

“Also, you’d be empowering Hamas because the dispute in Palestinian politics is, do we pursue a negotiated peace? Or do we use violence to try to achieve our ends?” Nolte continued. “The Europeans, and the Canadians, and the Australians are essentially rewarding the pursuit of violence.”

3. Trump criticized European open borders and reliance on Russian oil.

Trump was not done criticizing the nations of Europe. Whereas Trump has “been working relentlessly stopping the killing in Ukraine,” he said, “inexcusably, even NATO countries have not cut off much Russian energy. … Think of it, they’re funding the war against themselves.”

Here again, Trump followed his criticism with a ready policy corrective. “In the event that Russia is not ready to make a deal to end the war, then the United States is fully prepared to impose a very strong round of powerful tariffs,” he said. “But for those tariffs to be effective, European nations, all of you are gathered here right now, would have to join us in adopting the exact same measures.” The European countries say they recognize the threat Russia poses, but are they prepared to effectively counter it?

Trump also rebuked European leaders for “destroying your countries” with open borders policies. “Europe is in serious trouble. They’ve been invaded by a force of illegal aliens like nobody’s ever seen before. Illegal aliens are pouring into Europe, and nobody’s doing anything to change it, to get them out. It’s not sustainable. … When your prisons are filled with so-called asylum seekers who repaid kindness … with crime, it’s time to end the failed experiment of open borders.”

But Trump’s attacks on Europe were more than venting. Instead, Trump shrewdly provided European leaders with both the vision and language for how to do better — following America’s lead, of course. “We have reasserted that America belongs to the American people, and I encourage all countries to take their own stand in defense of their citizens as well,” he urged.

4. Trump bashed the U.N.’s ineffective record, especially on climate change.

On immigration, Trump found blame enough to go around to the United Nations, too. “The United Nations is funding an assault on Western countries and their borders,” he complained. “The U.N. is supporting people that are illegally coming into the United States, and then we have to get them out. The U.N. also provided food, shelter, transportation, and debit cards to illegal aliens — can you believe that? — on the way to infiltrate our southern border.”

But that was only the tip of the iceberg. Trump alleged that the U.N. was failing at everything from its core purpose — preventing war — to proper building maintenance. “I ended seven wars, dealt with the leaders of each and every one of these countries, and never even received a phone call from the United Nations offering to help in finalizing the deal,” said Trump.

Instead, Trump used his “run-ins with broken equipment at the United Nations” to “underscore deeper complaints about the efficiency of the United Nations,” summarized FRC President Tony Perkins. “All I got from the United Nations was an escalator that on the way up stopped right in the middle,” Trump added. “And then a teleprompter that didn’t work. These are the two things I got from the United Nations, a bad escalator and a bad teleprompter.”

“The president is basically right,” Nolte argued. “The one thing that it could potentially claim credit for … is that the Cold War never turned hot,” although he added, “I think there [are] other factors as well.”

The U.N.’s mission to promote human rights was a failure from the start, Nolte added, because some of the world’s worst human rights abusers — Soviet Russia and then Communist China — held permanent veto power in the U.N. Security Council, where all real decisions are made. Likewise, the U.N. failed at peacekeeping and international development because “there were a lot of high, lofty ideals and no mechanisms for actually achieving that.”

But President Trump reserved his harshest criticism for the U.N.’s absurd record of climate alarmism. “In 1982, the executive director of the United Nations Environmental Program predicted that by the year 2000, climate change would cause a global catastrophe… [as] irreversible as any nuclear holocaust. … Another U.N. official stated in 1989 that within a decade, entire nations could be wiped off the map by global warming,” listed the president. “It used to be global cooling. If you look back years ago in the 1920s and the 1930s, they said global cooling will kill the world. … So now they just call it climate change because that way they can’t miss.”

Dr. Cal Beisner, president and founder of the Cornwall Alliance, defended what some might call Trump’s “climate skepticism” on “Washington Watch.” “While human contribution to climate change is real, it is not catastrophic,” he argued. “The benefits that we get from the energy we take from fossil fuels far outweigh any of the harms that come from the warming. And the added benefits to all plant growth, especially to crop yields from the added carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, also far outweigh the risks from climate change.”

5. Trump endorsed a return to conventional energy sources.

Trump explained that the U.N.’s alarmist climate predictions were used to badger rich nations to pursue expensive forms of renewable energy, while others were held to a much lower standard. Renewable energy sources are “a joke. They don’t work. They’re too expensive. They’re not strong enough to fire up the plants that you need to make your country great,” Trump charged. On energy, he said that “the United States is now thriving like never before. We’re getting rid of the falsely-named renewables.”

This provided yet another point on which Trump criticized European leaders. “Europe, on the other hand, has a long way to go, with many countries being on the brink of destruction because of the ‘green energy’ agenda,” he warned. “I love the people of Europe, and I hate to see it being devastated by energy and immigration. This double-tailed monster destroys everything in its wake, and they cannot let that happen any longer. You’re doing it because you want to be nice, you want to be politically correct, and you’re destroying your heritage.”

“I think he was dead right on that,” Beisner analyzed. “Europe has seen skyrocketing energy prices as it’s tried to replace extremely energy-dense, power-dense hydrocarbon fuels — that’s fossil [fuels] (coal, oil, natural gas) — with wind and solar, which are very low-density energy sources. And of course, when you’re trying to go from low-density [sources] to the extremely high densities that we actually need to power our electrical devices to move our vehicles down the road and so on — the more you have to go from low-density to high-density, the more it’s going to cost.”

If repetition provides emphasis, then Trump emphasized in closing that open borders and green energy — topics on which he criticized both the U.N. and Europe — were the primary emphasis of his speech. “In closing, I just want to repeat that immigration and the high cost of so-called green renewable energy [are] destroying a large part of the free world and a large part of our planet,” Trump repeated. “Countries that cherish freedom are fading fast because of their policies on these two subjects. You need strong borders and traditional energy sources if you are going to be great again.”

6. Trump committed to enforce an existing treaty against bioweapons research.

However, one other policy issue did attract Trump’s attention: “ending the development of biological weapons once and for all.” Trump narrated how, “Just a few years ago, reckless experiments overseas gave us a devastating global pandemic, yet despite that worldwide catastrophe, many countries are continuing extremely risky research into bio-weapons and man-made pathogens.”

Who could forget the COVID-19 pandemic? Notably, Trump’s description presented the lab-leak theory as fact, discrediting the theory of animal transmission promulgated by China.

For China was the true target of this agenda item. Having bashed the U.N.’s incompetence and denigrated the poor decision-making of European leaders, Trump implied that the world should look elsewhere for effective leadership. The nations that stand out as obvious options are China and the U.S., and the creation of the COVID-19 virus provided an excellent reason for nations to not trust China.

7. Trump touted his own record and promised American global leadership.

This all contributed to the real purpose of Trump’s speech, positioning the United States, and himself specifically, as the undisputed world leader. “This is, indeed, the golden age of America,” Trump declared. He boasted of “rapidly reversing the economic calamity we inherited from the previous administration,” having “successfully repelled a colossal invasion” at the southern border, and having “ended seven unendable wars” in just seven months.

Perhaps Trump was overselling his case, but some significant accomplishments of his administration are undeniable. For instance, “the previous administration also lost nearly 300,000 children,” said Trump, “and we found a lot of these children, and we’re sending [them] back … to their parents.”

Most relevant to the audience at hand, “on the world stage, America is respected again,” Trump declared. After four years of President Biden stumbling from weakness to folly, President Trump has indeed projected strength on the world stage, and world leaders have noticed. In his first weekend as president, Trump forced Colombia’s socialist president into abject submission. By June, nearly every NATO country had agreed to more-than-double their defense-spending commitment, “making our alliance far stronger and more powerful than it was ever before,” said Trump.

“I’ve come here today to offer the hand of American leadership and friendship to any nation in this assembly that is willing to join us in forging a safer, more prosperous world,” Trump declared. “And it’s a world that we’ll be much happier with.”

All in all, Trump delivered a “pretty strong message,” said Perkins. “I wonder how that will resonate with the member countries.” Beisner believed that “the European countries are going to have to be learning lessons … from President Trump … and I think that he was right to say that.”

Now that Trump has delivered his challenge, however, it is ultimately up to other governments to decide how they will respond. “I think countries that have retained a sense of self-confidence and national identity and desire for independence will receive it well. I think that countries that are struggling with those issues will not receive it,” predicted Nolte. “And so it will end up being a Rorschach test. It will say less about Trump and more about actually where everyone else is.”

Whatever the result, President Trump has seized the initiative, and the rest of the world must decide how to respond.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump to Sign Executive Order Dismantling ‘Domestic Terrorism Networks’

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

Empower TWS to continue reporting the truth and save tomorrow’s children today! This week only, your gift to defend the unborn will be TRIPLED thanks to FRC’s challenge match.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

‘Taken Advantage Of’: Trump Puts Globalists On Blast During UN Speech

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

President Donald Trump blasted globalists Tuesday for forcing industrialized nations to “radically disrupt their entire societies” during his speech to the United Nations (UN).

Trump vowed that the U.S. will no longer be “taken advantage of” by other nations throughout the world and to ensure that globalist ideologies do not destroy “successful nations.” The president specifically criticized nations for its handling of their borders and energy.

“The entire globalist concept of asking successful, industrialized nations to inflict pain on themselves and radically disrupt their entire societies must be rejected completely and totally, and it must be immediate,” Trump said. “That’s why in America, I withdrew from the fake Paris Climate Accord, where by the way America was paying way more than any other country. Others weren’t paying, China didn’t have to pay until 2023. Russia was given an old standard that was easy to meet. A 1990 standard. But for the United States, we’re supposed to pay like $1 trillion. And I said, ‘this is another scam.’ The fact is the United States has been taken advantage of by the world for many, many years, but not any longer as you’ve probably noticed.”

WATCH:

During the speech, Trump criticized Europe and other nations for its high energy prices and focus on climate change, stating that the U.S. has an abundant amount of “clean, beautiful coal.” The president signed an executive order in January pulling out of the Paris Agreement, which targets global warming, to improve the U.S.’ economic competitiveness and prioritize American workers.

The president warned the UN leaders that their nations are “going to hell” because of their open border policies.

“It’s time to end the failed experiment of open borders,” the president said. “You have to end it now. See, I can tell you. I’m really good at this stuff. Your countries are going to hell,” Trump continued.

AUTHOR

Nicole Silverio

Media Reporter

RELATED ARTICLES:

DAVID BLACKMON: Trump Is Most Consequential Energy President In US History

Media Said Trump’s Supporters Would Lash Out Over Aggressive Moves. Turns Out It’s Their Favorite Thing About Him

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

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

‘Incubators Of Hate’: UN Agency ‘Knowingly’ Put Hamas Terrorists In Classrooms, Report Alleges

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

The main United Nations (UN) effort to handle aid delivery to the Gaza Strip knowingly put Hamas terrorists into key school leadership positions in the impoverished region, a watchdog organization revealed in a report published Wednesday.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which has been exposed for harboring Hamas terrorists before, knowingly employed several Hamas members in positions of leadership in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon, UN Watch found in its report. UNRWA purports to be a neutral entity, but the latest report alleges the organization repeatedly failed to properly terminate multiple Hamas-affiliated leaders in its ranks, and that such actions contradict its stated mission.

“By knowingly employing Hamas terrorist leaders as school principals and teachers, and by allowing terror chiefs to head the unions that oversee thousands of their teachers, UNRWA didn’t just tolerate extremism — the Western-funded UN agency institutionalized it, turning classrooms into incubators of hate,” the report reads. “Over its 75 years of existence, UNRWA has churned out thousands of jihadi terrorists.”

UNRWA did not fire Suhail Al-Hindi from his position as a school principal and head of the Gaza Staff Union, even after he publicly appeared with Hamas terrorists for years, the report alleges. UNRWA also kept Fateh Sharif, leader of the Lebanon Teachers’ Union and a senior Hamas official, on staff in that country.

UNRWA claims to have fired Al-Hindi in 2017, but Al-Hindi himself has said he continued to receive benefits from the organization, according to the report.

“According to one Palestinian source, Al-Hindi was given a choice between ‘resignation and receiving his employee rights, or dismissal’,” the report reads. “It appears that Al-Hindi chose to resign, but that UNRWA represents it as Al-Hindi having been fired since it gave him an ultimatum. In any event, even if one accepts at face value UNRWA’s current stance that Al-Hindi was let go, this would only underscore UNRWA’s complicity with Hamas — by refusing to unequivocally state that Al-Hindi was fired at the time of the event, UNRWA prioritized Hamas’s honor and reputation over the truth.”

Al-Hindi also spoke multiple times regarding an “upcoming battle” before the October 7th massacre, when Hamas killed 1,200 people and took 240 hostages.

“This is a clear message to the enemy: We are preparing, and Allah willing, we are on the cusp of a battle that will be the decisive battle between us and the enemy,” Al-Hindi said on July 2, 2023.

Sharif was in charge of 2,000 teachers and 39,000 students as chief of the UNRWA Lebanon Teachers’ Union, according to the report. After his death in an Israeli airstrike in 2024, Hamas eulogized him as a “Leader of the Hamas movement in Lebanon, and member of its leadership abroad.”

The UN did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

AUTHOR

Wallace White

Defense Reporter

RELATED ARTICLES:

Israel Launches Strikes Against Hamas Leadership In Qatar

Students Confront School Board Meeting To Urge Firing Of Teacher Who Celebrated Kirk Assassination

Christian Orgs to Rubio: Defend Religious Minorities in Syria

RELATED VIDEO: Watch as armed Hamas terrorists use kids as human shields

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

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Netanyahu: ‘There will be no Palestinian state,’ signs plan for settlement expansion

/in , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Just as the UN General Assembly endorsed its own two-state solution, charting a path toward Palestinian statehood, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared “there will be no Palestinian state.”

Netanyahu believes the Palestinians when they state in their words and show in their actions that they are working toward the obliteration of the Jewish state. That goal is enshrined in the Palestinian National Charter, funded by the Palestinian Authority via its pay for slay program, while Hamas (which is an acronym for The Islamic Resistance) is fully on board.

There cannot be a Palestinian state; the “resistance” is based on a one-state solution, that is, the total destruction of Israel. 

The UN vote precedes a meeting on September 22 “on the sidelines of the high-level U.N. General Assembly – where Britain, France, Canada, Australia and Belgium are expected to formally recognize a Palestinian state.”

Western leftist countries who are complicit in the jihad against the West (via their Islamic sympathies and alliances) and Israel are becoming increasingly exposed for what they are: anti-Israel, anti-West traitors.

“‘There will be no Palestinian state’: Netanyahu signs plan for E1 settlement expansion,” Times of Israel, September 11, 2025:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared on Thursday evening that “there will be no Palestinian state,” as he signed an agreement to push ahead with the controversial E1 settlement expansion plan that will cut across West Bank land Palestinians seek for a state.

“We are going to fulfill our promise that there will be no Palestinian state; this place belongs to us,” Netanyahu said during a visit to the Ma’ale Adumim settlement in the West Bank, on the outskirts of Jerusalem, where thousands of new housing units would be added.

“We will safeguard our heritage, our land and our security… We are going to double the city’s population,” he added….

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Rubio Arrives In Israel As Conflict Intensifies

Robert Spencer Receives the American Freedom Alliance’s Hero of Conscience Award

New York City: Leftists use mock severed head of Netanyahu as soccer ball outside UN headquarters

UN Resolution Calls for Recognition of a Palestinian State

Former Palestinian Authority PM: Oct. 7 was ‘self-defense,’ ‘an important chapter’ of the ‘Palestinian struggle’

Syrians Capture Hezbollah Operatives and Weapons

Lebanese Army Seizes PLO Weapons in the Camps

Jasmine Crockett Says the Murder of Charlie Kirk Was the Fault of — Guess Who

Afghanistan removes 51 subjects from school curricula, including ‘Women’s Rights,’ ‘Human Rights,’ and ‘Democracy’

RELATED VIDEO: Britain and Israel — My discussion with Israeli MK Ohad Tal

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

Smart, Safe, and Supervised: Rethinking AI and Online Safety for Children

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

The increased overreliance on chatbots for companionship and social media feeds for information is tearing apart our interpersonal relationships, with children being particularly vulnerable. Researchers found that high or increasing trajectories of addictive use of social media, mobile phones, or video games were not only common in early adolescents but were frequently associated with suicidal behaviors or worsening mental health.

Disturbing Trends

A 2025 report from Internet Matters reveals that 12% of children say they use AI chatbots because they have no one else to talk to (23% among vulnerable children). Moreover, 35% feel like they’re talking to a friend when engaging with chatbots (50% for vulnerable groups). Fifty-eight percent believe using a chatbot is better than searching for information themselves, and 40% have no concerns about following chatbot advice at all.

This trend is deeply troubling, thus, delaying children’s exposure to addictive digital experiences might be prudent so that they are better equipped to manage their emotional responses around chatbots and the internet at large.

Without proper safeguards, adult supervision, and emotional support, AI-powered social media sites or products can magnify children’s existing vulnerabilities and social isolation. Many platforms currently lack meaningful guardrails for young users, and parents are often unprepared to intervene. However, developing AI skills and AI literacy have already become vital requirements not only in the workforce, but also in everyday life.

With the rise of deepfakes, scammers, and AI-powered addictive algorithms, children need guidance more than ever. Social media has become the go-to place for connection and flow of information, which is why both social media literacy and AI literacy — for children, parents, and educators alike — must be a global priority. Children need to be empowered to understand how algorithms shape their online experiences, when to question advice, and how to protect themselves from manipulation and misinformation — whether it comes from a human or a machine.

The question becomes: how do we ensure that they are not harmed while taking advantage of the opportunities that technology provides?

Three Different Approaches

Opinions and approaches differ on this point. Countries such as the United States are promoting “early learning and exposure to AI concepts,” ultimately trying to increase AI literacy and proficiency in younger populations. This process must be done responsibly and with safeguards in place, which is why it is commendable that the proposed 10-year moratorium on the enforcement of state-level AI regulations in the U.S. was ultimately removed from the final One Big Beautiful Bill Act by the Senate. Despite this removal, the U.S. still largely wishes to focus on remaining a global leader in AI technology, taking a very pro-innovation and quite anti-regulation approach.

On the other end of the scale is the European Union, with a rich legal framework around AI, social media, and children. In fact, the European Commission recently released guidelines under the Digital Services Act (DSA) to better protect minors online. These include: setting children’s accounts to private by default, modifying recommender systems to avoid harmful content rabbit holes, empowering children to block users and control group adds, disabling exploitative features like “read receipts,” autoplay, and push notifications, prohibiting downloads/screenshots of content from minors, strengthening moderation, reporting tools, and parental controls, and using age assurance methods that are effective, but also non-invasive and fair.

While these initiatives are undoubtedly safety-focused, they are often hard to implement. Furthermore, AI systems enhance algorithmic feeds to an increasingly high degree, making it difficult for a child to control their own online experience.

Drawing on the Convention on the Rights of the Child, UNICEF’s policy guidance on AI for children offers a separate approach. Nine requirements are named for child-centered AI, including: supporting children’s development and well-being, ensuring inclusion of and for children, prioritizing fairness and non-discrimination for children, protecting children’s data and privacy, ensuring safety for children, providing transparency, explainability, and accountability for children, empowering governments and businesses with knowledge of AI and children’s rights, preparing children for present and future developments in AI, and creating an enabling environment.

UNICEF also provides implementation tools like policy roadmaps, an AI guide for teens, and design templates for developers. Real-world examples underscore the stakes — such as chatbots that mishandle disclosures of harm or automated systems that restrict access to social services. A case study involving social robots for autistic children shows how these principles can guide inclusive, ethical design.

The report’s key recommendations call on governments and tech providers to integrate a child-rights lens into every stage of AI development, involve children meaningfully as co-designers, not just users, conduct Child Rights Impact Assessments (CRIAs), improve international coordination and accountability, and expand research in underserved communities.

Conclusion: Family and Guidance First

While these approaches utilize different tools to navigate the increasing presence of social media and chatbots in children’s lives, their ultimate goal is the same: young children should not be left alone with AI systems. They need trusted adults, informed policies, and child-centered technologies that put their mental health, safety, and rights first.

I highly agree with America’s focus on AI literacy and competitiveness, but guidelines should exist to better inform platforms, AI developers, and stakeholders of what pro-children innovation can look like.

Today’s youth need both personal and systemic support to navigate the harms of chatbots, smartphones, and social media in ways that protect their mental health. These efforts should be grounded in family-centered policies that address the social, environmental, and economic foundations of well-being and resilience. As AI reshapes childhood, the question is no longer whether children should engage with these technologies — but how we ensure they do so safely, ethically, and with support.

AUTHOR

Monika Mercz

Monika Mercz, J.D.,is a visiting researcher at The George Washington University in Washington, D.C. A graduate of the University of Miskolc with a degree in law, she specialized as an English legal translator and holds a degree in AI and Law from the University of Lisbon. She is currently working for the Public Law Center of Mathias Corvinus Collegium and has previously worked for The National Authority for Data Protection and Freedom of Information, The Office of the National Assembly, and the Miskolc Regional Court.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

In a shocking about face, the United Nations comes out against transgenderism; the question is why, and why now?

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

New UN study says transgender identities ‘actively erasing women and girls while placing vulnerable children at risk.’ 

We have some shocking news today out of the United Nations.

A U.N. draft report has warned that the push to elevate transgender identities is actively erasing women and girls, while placing vulnerable children at risk.

As noted by Slay News, the report affirms what many critics of gender ideology have long feared.

Led by Reem Alsalem, a Jordanian human rights scholar who serves as the U.N.’s Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls, the report takes a hard line against transgender policies, warning that gender dysphoria is “socially contagious.”

The report asserts that the rise of transgenderism is negatively impacting women’s rights worldwide and seeks to “erase” real females.

The U.N. report, titled Sex-based violence against women and girls: new frontiers and emerging issues, denounces the efforts to unlink biological sex from the definition of “men” and “women.”

It further states that such moves are undermining women’s hard-won legal protections.

Alsalem describes this as an effort to “erase” women as a distinct legal category, calling it a form of “coercive inclusion” that forces women to sacrifice their own rights for the sake of others.

She writes:

“We have seen a concerted international push to delink the definition of men and women from their biological sex and erase the legal category of ‘women.’ Women are therefore being denied their rightful recognition as a distinct category in law and society.”

The report also criticizes the Orwellian redefining of words and language to erase the biological realities of women.

Terms like “birthing persons,” “menstruators,” and “vagina havers” are used in place of the word “women,” which Alsalem decries as dehumanizing and biologically reductive.

Alsalem rejects the idea that gender identity supersedes biological sex.

The report goes further by condemning the rise of gender-affirming treatments for children, which has become a deeply controversial issue in Western societies, though roundly condemned in countries like Russia and across the Global South.

Alsalem highlights the concerning co-occurrence of gender dysphoria and autism among children.

She points to the long-lasting harm caused by socially and medically transitioning children, including “persistence or intensification of psychological distress, body dissatisfaction, infertility, early onset of menopause, and sexual dysfunction.”

HERE’S MY TAKE: This is a hard rebuke, leaving no room for misunderstanding. The U.N. is now fully against the transgender mania that has been front and center for at least the last seven or eight years.

I have long believed that the transgender issue was being used by the globalists as a temporary distraction. Once it had served its purpose, it would be cast aside like a hot potato.

So what was its purpose?

Transgenderism is such a lightning-rod issue with conservatives, and rightly so, that it easily diverted attention away from other issues that the globalists see as more important for permanent implementation. Things like digital IDs and digital/programmable currencies. Under the “conservative” regime of Donald Trump, both of these essential tools of the new digital world order are being built out and readied for implementation. Trump just announced his new digital Stablecoin and he’s enforcing the transition to a biometric “Real ID.” These are the types of “advances” that are critical for building out the infrastructure of the New World Order. Transgenderism was always a side issue of temporary value to the globalists.

In other words, if your plan is to permanently strip people of their freedom, you don’t need rampant transgenderism. If your ultimate goal is to usher in a one-world government and global digital surveillance state, you can do it without transgenderism but you can’t do it without digital currencies and digital IDs.

So to see perhaps the world’s foremost globalist body, the United Nations, suddenly shift gears and come out against transgenderism, while refreshing on the one hand, it is also scary. Why is it scary? Because it signals to me that they are now confident that they no longer need this throw-away distractive issue to serve as cover while they sneak into society their more important totalitarian mechanisms. They’re confident they have enough support now to put the big game-changing policies in place that will take the world in a direction they have long sought to take it — total information awareness in a technocratic AI surveillance state where all human movement, all human consumption and all financial transactions will be tracked in real time, the makings for a true social-credit scoring system.

People, we are closer than ever to the globalist New World Order that we all knew was lurking behind the facade of our so-called “free society.” This is a world order where they, the AI-enabled technocrats who control the algorithms, decide what we eat, where we travel, who we meet, and what we are ALLOWED to spend our money on. Rights are being gradually replaced with privileges. Only the privileged with high social credit scores will be allowed to do certain things. Those who are disobedient will just have their money turned off, or restricted to a certain area for purchase of certain essentials.

Now you know why Fox News and the other more establishment “conservative” media spent so much time harping about transgenders the last seven years — transgenders in sports, transgenders in schools, transgenders in libraries, transgenders dancing in front of small children. It was an issue that could easily get the patriotic Christian right all riled up, disoriented and distracted, sapping much of the energy it would have required to stop the march toward a digital slave state. Now we find out that transgenderism was never that important to the globalists. It was just a throw-away issue, to the point where some of them are now actually condemning it.

I’m not saying this issue is going to disappear completely. We’re not there yet. But it’s the beginning of the end for transgenders being treated as one of the most-favored groups in society.

Don’t mistake this shifting position as the U.N. somehow coming out of the darkness and into the light. They’re not. They never will be on our side. The real battle is just beginning.

©2025 . All rights reserved.

Please visit Leo’s Newsletter substack.