Why are they still here?

From Front Page Magazine:

. . . Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the OIC’s (Organization of the Islamic Conference) secretary general, declared: “Muslims are being targeted by a campaign of defamation, denigration, stereotyping, intolerance and discrimination.” The Associated Press reported that OIC “delegates were given a voluminous report by the OIC that recorded anti-Islamic speech and actions from around the world. The report concludes that Islam is under attack and that a defense must be mounted.” Ihsanoglu stated that “Islamophobia cannot be dealt with only through cultural activities but (through) a robust political engagement.”

What kind of robust political engagement? Nothing less than restrictions on freedom of speech, of course. Abdoulaye Wade, the President of Senegal and chairman of the OIC, said: “I don’t think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy. There can be no freedom without limits.”

These words, and the OIC’s “legal instrument” in general, demonstrate why the foundations of a free society cannot take root where Islamic Sharia law prevails.

Once you declare one group off-limits for critical examination or declare that these people must at all costs not be offended, or that if they are they’re perfectly within their rights to stone, or lash, or imprison, or kill the offender, then you have destroyed free speech. In a free society, people with differing opinions live together in harmony, agreeing not to kill one another if their neighbor’s opinions offend them. Whenever offensive speech is prohibited, the tyrant’s power is solidified. No less in this case, although the tyrant in question is of a different kind.

That’s why all free people should oppose the OIC’s legal initiative. Not only does it threaten the foundations of Western society, but as it would render us unable to analyze it, it is an attempt to leave us defenseless against the jihad threat.

Yet at the United Nations, officials seemed eager to use Fitna as an excuse to enact laws restricting free speech. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon dubbed the film “offensively anti-Islamic” and declared: “There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence. The right of free expression is not at stake here.” Or maybe it is: the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, urged those angered by the film to work to limit free speech rights. “There is a protective legal framework,” she noted, “and the resolution of the controversy that this film will generate should take place within it.” She said that legislators “should offer strong protective measures to all forms of freedom of expression, while at the same time enacting appropriate restrictions, as necessary, to protect the rights of others.” And last week, the UN Human Rights Council passed unanimously a resolution proposed by Egypt and Pakistan that calls for the policing of individuals and media reports for negative statements about Islam.

Will it soon be illegal to speak about the use that Islamic jihadists make of Islamic texts and teachings to justify violence and supremacism? If it is, the only ones who will benefit will be the jihadists themselves – advancing the jihadist agenda far more effectively than riots ever could alone. The demonstrations on the one hand and the calls to limit free speech on the other neatly coalesce into a carrot-and-stick strategy. The message to the West is that speech about Islam that the Islamic world dislikes could lead to violent reprisals – but if the West heeds the voice of reason and clamps down on free speech and free inquiry, this violence will melt away. It is a message that all too many Leftist, appeasement-minded European and American leaders will find quite enticing. And that could be the most serious threat of all to our survival as a free people.

That Islam is the enemy of freedom in general and the United States in particular is no secret. So this kind of initiative from an Islamic organization is only surprising in its sophistication (normally they just strap on explosives blow themselves up in a day care center.

What I want to do here is ask why the United Nations is still allowed on US soil, why the US is still a member of that organization and why we are still providing the majority of its funding?

The UN is an enemy organization. It is hostile to the United States and to the freedom which Americans enjoy as their birthright. How could it be otherwise given that the great majority of nations which make up the membership in the world body are unfree and hostile to the US?

Why have we not long ago withdrawn from that useless anti-American talking shop, expelled its worthless diplomats from our shores and turned the buildings into low rent housing for the elderly?

The little nutjob promises not to stop

From The Washington Post:

UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 25 -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed Tuesday not to give in to pressure by "arrogant powers" trying to force him to abandon his nation's uranium-enrichment program and unilaterally declared that as far as he is concerned, "the nuclear issue of Iran is now closed."

In a fiery speech to the U.N. General Assembly, Ahmadinejad denounced what he called the "master-servant relationship of the Medieval Age" imposed by the United States and other leading nations through the Security Council. He expressed confidence that God would not allow the Bush administration to launch a military attack against his country and said Iran has "spared no effort to build confidence" that it wants only civilian energy, not nuclear weapons.

His address punctuated a shadow debate with President Bush, who spoke to the assembly earlier in the day and called on world leaders to join him in a global "mission of liberation" against repressive governments such as that in Iran. Although the two men never crossed paths, their competing visions presented here framed the opening of the assembly's annual session and underscored the diplomatic confrontation between the two nations.

President Bush isn't going to get much help from the UN. In a very real sense it is little more than a dictator's club whose favorite sport is baiting the US. The fact is that most of the member nations' leadership admire Imadinnerjacketi and wish they had a nuclear program too.

In disarming Iran, as in almost anything else worthwhile, the US is going to have to act alone or with the aid of a handful of allies.

Our good friends on Turtle Bay

From Frontpage Magazine:

This Passover marks the fifth year anniversary of two separate bloody massacres by Hamas suicide bombers. Altogether, more than fifty innocent Israeli civilians, mostly seniors and children, were murdered in those two incidents alone.

[. . .]

How did the United Nations choose to commemorate these twin Passover slaughters of innocent Jews during the days and weeks leading up to this year’s Passover observance? As usual, it ignored any mention of Israeli loss of life. Instead, the UN turned on Israel, serving as the most convenient vehicle for Islamic propaganda aimed at destroying the legitimacy of Israel in the world’s eyes. The Islamists are relying on the gullibility of the world’s politically correct elite to validate their tale of victimhood at the hands of Israeli "oppressors."

John Duggard, UN Special Raporteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and perennial purveyor of anti-Semitic blood libel, exemplifies this phenomenon. In his March 22, 2007 statement to the Human Rights Council, Duggard repeated his rote attack on Israel’s measures to protect its people from terrorist attacks launched from Gaza (no longer occupied) and from the West Bank. He accused Israel of practicing “colonialism and apartheid” in the Palestinian territory.

Missing from Duggard’s report are all of the terrorist provocations that have led to the present situation. Time and again the Palestinians could have had their own independent state, but the rejectionists in their camp have spurned all reasonable offers – including a peace offer brokered by President Clinton that would have given the Palestinians 95% of the occupied territories for their own state. Duggard omits any historical context that would explain how Israel only occupied the Palestinian territories in the first place for defensive reasons after fending off Arab attacks across these territories during the 1967 Six Days War – nearly twenty years following Israel’s creation by the United Nations as a Jewish state within the borders of Israel proper. If Israel’s Arab neighbors had accepted the UN’s original terms, the Palestinians could have been living in their own land free of any Israeli interference for the last sixty years. And there would have been no Palestinian refugees to speak of because their plight was only created when the Arab nations spurned the UN’s original terms and tried to destroy Israel at its birth.

Indeed, Duggard matter-of-factly admitted that his report “makes no attempt to describe the violations of Israelis’ human rights by Palestinians, by means of suicide bombers or Qassam rockets” because his mandate was limited to “the occupation of a developing country by a developed, Western-affiliated regime.” And that is precisely the way he likes it, adding that “I do not believe that the Human Rights Council should change this mandate.” In other words, according to the UN’s Special Raporteur on Human Rights, Israeli children who are blown up to bits by Hamas terrorists have no human rights important enough to worry about. Their protection does not count in calculating the reasonableness of the measures Israel has been forced to use in their defense.

For its part, the Human Rights Council continued to focus almost exclusively on Israel as a serial violator of the Palestinians’ human rights. When UN Watch representative, Hillel Neuer, made some brief but pointed remarks before the 4th session of the Human Rights Council on March 23, 2007 criticizing the Council for its hypocrisy in targeting Israel while brushing over the far more egregious atrocities in Muslim dictatorships like Sudan, the President of the Council, Mexico's Luis Alfonso de Alba, refused to discuss the substance of Neuer’s remarks. Instead, he lashed out at Neuer for daring to pierce through the thick veil of lies that permeates the Council’s resolutions, declaring that “any statement you make in similar tones to those used today will be taken out of the records.” Censorship of the truth is now the official modus operandi of the UN’s Human Rights Council.

Well it is the UN we are talking about.

The truth is that any group, whether a nation or a church or a civic organization or an international assembly, takes its character from the constituent members. And not from an equal blending of the members, but from the character of those who are the most active and vocal.

If the bulk of those who bother to show up and participate are good and decent then the organization will be good and decent. If the majority of the "movers and shakers" are corrupt and evil then that is what the organization will be.

The great majority of the nations which make up the United Nations are unfree dictatorships, theocracies and kleptocracies of one stripe or another. Even the Security Counsel is corrupted by the presence in its five permanent members of Russia and Red China and France (the bought and paid for representative of the Islamic world) and its non-permanent members currently include Belgium and Italy (another pair of Eurabian nations) Qatar, an Islamic kingdom, South Africa, Ghana, Congo (do we need to go into details about Africa in general?). Let's not forget Panama which has become a client of Red China and Islamic Indonesia and Peru (which cocaine cartel is in charge there this year?). The only Security Council member I trust other than the US and (for now - sort of) the UK is Slovakia, they know what it was to live under the Soviet lash and are in no hurry to submit to tyranny again.

The UN is useless because the handful of good nations are swamped by the bad nations. It is as though the US legislature was dominated by the Democrat Party with no hope of Republicans ever regaining power (like what will happen if we grant amnesty and citizenship to illegal Mexicans).

Under those circumstances there is simply no reason for the US to continue its involvement with the UN. That we do continue to remain in it and continue to fund it as we do is, I'm convinced, a part of the reason why creatures like bin Laden view us as weak and vulnerable.