Free Markets, Free People

UN

The useless and predatory UN

Useless you say?  How is it “useless”?

Well there are a myriad of things one could point too, but perhaps the latest from the UN’s “elections”:

UN Watch instead is calling on Ban Ki-moon, U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power, and the EU’s UN ambassadors to condemn the world body’s “absurd and morally obscene” election just of Syria and Venezuela to senior posts on a decolonization committee that is charged with upholding fundamental human rights in opposing the “subjugation, domination and exploitation” of peoples — a propaganda victory that—like before—is already being trumpeted by the Assad regime.

Yet the UN wants to be taken seriously as some sort of world governing body that looks out for the interests of the oppressed and the subjugated by putting members of two of the most oppressive regimes on this committee.

Uh huh.

By the way, the 17 territories still held as “colonies” are as follows:

The 17 territories still listed as colonies by the committee are American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Falklands, French Polynesia, Gibraltar, Guam, Montserrat, New Caledonia, Pitcairn, Tokelau, Turks and Caicos, St. Helena, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Western Sahara.

Most of those on the list want nothing to do with disassociation with their “colonist”. In reality, this is just another in a long line of committees the UN uses for lavish boondoggles:

The committee is notorious for its habit of holding regional seminars in tropical islands—”alternately in the Caribbean and the Pacific”—at considerable expense. Madeleine K. Albright, as U.S. representative at the United Nations in the late 1990s, called these expenditures ”frivolous and unneeded.”

At the time, activities of the committee were investigated by the United Nations inspector general, Karl T. Paschke, who concluded that money was being squandered.

And, as usual, you (among many others) pay for it.

In other UN news, much more serious than the above:

“A horrible thing,” says an elfin 14-year-old girl, who describes how a Burundian soldier dragged her into his barracks and raped her, leaving her pregnant with the baby boy she now cradles uncomfortably.

The allegations come amid one of the biggest scandals to plague the United Nations in years. Since the U.N. peacekeeping mission here began in 2014, its employees have been formally accused of sexually abusing or exploiting 42 local civilians, most of them underage girls.

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has called sexual abuse by peacekeepers “a cancer in our system.” In August, the top U.N. official here was fired for failing to take enough action on abuse cases. Nearly 1,000 troops whose units have been tied to abuses have been expelled, or will be soon. Among them is the entire contingent from the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Yes, it is a “cancer” in the UN’s “system, but the UN does nothing about it.  It certainly isn’t a new problem:

In Bosnia in the 1990s, peacekeepers were accused of soliciting sex from women who had been trafficked and virtually enslaved in local brothels. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the early 2000s, more than 150 allegations of abuse and exploitation were registered against peacekeepers, and U.N. investigators found that many of the alleged victims were orphans. U.N. missions in Kosovo, Haiti, Liberia and other places also have been tarnished by such allegations.

The UN was supposedly a noble idea whose time had come when it was first begun.  Now it has devolved into a third world debating and boondoggle club with a little rape on the side for “peacekeepers”.

If I was in one of the countries the UN has attempted to “help” and I saw a blue helmet, I’d get as far away from the person wearing it as I could.

They’re useless in a real sense, but certainly predatory if you have any females in the area … no matter how young.

~McQ

Is the UN focus on “global warming” immoral?

Bjorn Lomborg thinks it is.  In today’s Wall Street Journal, he takes exception with the UN’s continued pushing for a “solution” for “climate change”, formerly known as “global warming”.  Lomborg thinks that it ignores the real problems out there and this focus on global warming takes money away from them for what is, at best, a marginal problem.

In a world in which malnourishment continues to claim at least 1.4 million children’s lives each year, 1.2 billion people live in extreme poverty, and 2.6 billion lack clean drinking water and sanitation, this growing emphasis on climate aid is immoral.

For instance, says Lomborg, according to a recent study, if the UN spent .57% ($570 million) of the $100 billion climate-finance goal on mosquito nets to help control malaria, it could reduce malaria deaths by 50% by 2025 and save approximately 300,000 lives.

Instead, the UN is more interested in the world’s largest wealth redistribution scheme.  Somehow the scam has rich nations happy to pledge their citizen’s money and poor nations lining up to receive it.  How much will actually go toward addressing the real problems Lomborg highlights is anyone’s guess, but if history is to be a guide, not much.  There’s a reason the poorer countries are poor and that has much to do with who is in charge.

Anyway, Lomborg points to the obvious, or at least what should be obvious, in terms of this rush to be “green” and what the world (and the UN) could be doing instead:

Providing the world’s most deprived countries with solar panels instead of better health care or education is inexcusable self-indulgence. Green energy sources may be good to keep on a single light or to charge a cellphone. But they are largely useless for tackling the main power challenges for the world’s poor.

According to the World Health Organization, three billion people suffer from the effects of indoor air pollution because they burn wood, coal or dung to cook. These people need access to affordable, reliable electricity today. Yet too often clean alternatives, because they aren’t considered “renewable,” aren’t receiving the funding they deserve.

2014 study by the Center for Global Development found that “more than 60 million additional people in poor nations could gain access to electricity if the Overseas Private Investment Corporation”—the U.S. government’s development finance institution—“were allowed to invest in natural gas projects, not just renewables.”

Wow.  Electricity.  Its been with us for over a century.  We all know its benefits.  We all know how well its access could help lift those without it out of poverty.

Yet the UN is more interested in chasing the chimera of “global warming” and its unproven science.  The reason, of course is power.  Money and control equal power.  And this scheme with $100 billion changing hands under the auspices of the UN offers undreamed of opportunities for those in the UN to engage in an unprecedented level of graft.  There just isn’t the level of opportunity in helping the world’s poor gain electricity.

As you’ve heard many, many times … follow the money.

~McQ

What if the UN gave a climate summit and no one came?

In July we have this announcement:
President Barack Obama will attend a United Nations summit on climate change in September.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has invited heads of state and other leaders to the Sept. 23 summit in New York. The U.N. says the goal is to spur governments, industry and civil groups to make new commitments to addressing climate change.
The summit comes one year before world leaders will gather in Paris for global climate talks aimed at securing a deal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Obama has set a goal to cut U.S. emissions 17 percent by 2020, compared to 2005 levels.
Then it was announced a week or so ago:

The Obama administration will seek a non-binding international accord – rather than a treaty – at a United Nations climate summit in Paris next year on reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming, The New York Times reported Wednesday.

It was a widely anticipated move, as President Barack Obama has repeatedly said he would act alone, bypassing Congress, if lawmakers declined to support his proposal.

So one would assume that the UN meeting would lay the groundwork for the Paris talks, no?  Since it all under the auspices of the UN?  And this apparently is very important to our president, no?  He’s going to attend, he’s got a plan (one of the few plans his administration has ever managed to push out there) to make a commitment for the US while bypassing Congress.  What could go wrong with this issue that is so important to Obama?  And he’s certainly consulted with other world leaders to ensure their cooperation and backing, right?

Uh, no:

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, leader of the world’s third-largest greenhouse gas-emitting nation, won’t join his U.S. and Chinese counterparts at a United Nations climate summit next month in New York. Modi’s absence is a bit of a blow to the summit.

Chinese counterparts?  The Chinese are blowing it off too:

Chinese president Xi Jinping has decided to skip a meeting of world leaders on climate change in New York, according to climate insiders, casting doubt on the summit’s potential to make progress ahead of next year’s major UN climate summit in Paris. 

You think?  But, as the commercial says, “that’s not all”:

German daily TAZ reports that German Chancellor Angela Merkel isn’t going to bother attending the Ban Ki-Moon initiated climate conference in New York this coming September. The TAZ adds this has been “confirmed by a government spokesman“. Merkel’s decision to snub the event is likely another sign that efforts to forge a climate agreement are already dead in water. The TAZ writes: “Ultimately only Europe and very few other countries remain on board. Canada for example has opted out. Japan and Russia are also no longer taking part.”

Always the last to know.  Kind of like his foreign policy, isn’t it?  No India.  No China.  No Russia.  No Canada, Germany or Japan.

So, if all of these major players in the world don’t see a reason to show up for Obama and Moon’s little show, how are those two going to sell this to world as an emergency situation that needs drastic action?

I know — call in John Kerry!

And the clown car continues to careen down the path to nowhere.

~McQ

A little good news: US will not ratify latest UN attempt at grabbing power over the Internet

Thankfully, the US has taken the proper position on this one:

The United States said Thursday that it will not sign a United Nations telecommunications treaty that U.S. technology companies warn would disrupt governance of the Internet and open the door to online censorship.

The U.K. and Canada also said they would not ratify the treaty after negotiations ended at a conference hosted by the U.N. International Telecommunications Union (ITU) in Dubai.

Kramer, who led the U.S. delegation during the conference, told reporters on a conference call that the U.S. could not sign the treaty because there were “too many issues here that were problematic for us.”

The treaty is intended to govern how telephone calls and other communications traffic are exchanged internationally. While it is not a legally binding document, Kramer said the U.S. opposed extending the scope of the treaty to include Internet governance and online content matters.

“The U.S. will continue to uphold and advance the multi-stakeholder model of the Internet,” Kramer told reporters.

The U.S. believed the treaty should not apply to Internet providers or private and government networks. Instead, U.S. delegates argued that only traditional telecommunications operators, such as AT&T and Verizon, should be subject to the updated rules.

Another attempted power grab by the UN and more importantly, something to provide a thin veneer of legality to all the 3rd world dictators attempts to control the net.  Not that they won’t do that anyway, they just wanted it to be “legal”.  So they will ratify this treaty.

“What is clear from the ITU meeting in Dubai is that many governments want to increase regulation and censorship of the Internet,” a Google spokesman said in a statement. “We stand with the countries who refuse to sign this treaty and also with the millions of voices who have joined us to support a free and open Web.”

Good.

~McQ

Doha – the zombie UN climate change charade staggers on

Peter Foster at the Financial Post sums up the Doha “climate change” conference best:

The UN climate conferences have descended into ritual farce, as naked money-grabbing on behalf of poor countries contrasts with finagling impossible solutions to what is likely a much-exaggerated problem. One leading question is how dubious science, shoddy economics and tried-and-failed socialist policies have come to dominate the democratic process in so many countries for so long. The answer appears to be the skill with which a radical minority — centred in and promoted by the UN, and funded by national governments and, even more bizarrely, corporations — has skilfully manipulated the political process at every level.

A fairly succinct and accurate summary of the ongoing effort.

Walter Russel Mead also has a take on it with which I agree:

Climate negotiators at the most recent conference on global warming were unable to reduce expectations fast enough to match the collapse of their agenda. The only real winners here were the bureaucrats in the diplomacy industry for whom endless rounds of carbon spewing conferences with no agreement year after year mean jobs, jobs, jobs. The inexorable decline of the climate movement from its Pickett’s Charge at the Copenhagen summit continues. The global green lobby is more flummoxed than ever. These people and these methods couldn’t make a ham sandwich, much less save Planet Earth.

And, while I agree that is so, the UN, these conferences, 3rd world nations and the so-called “green agenda” continue  attempts to exert control over advanced countries and extort a chunk of their GDP as “compensation” for what no one is sure.  There desires in this regard have never been more obvious than in their questionable opposition to the boom in natural gas (something, one could argue, that would be helpful to developing 3rd world countries while satisfying the “green agenda”).

It’s green, it’s cheap and it’s plentiful! So why are opponents of shale gas making such a fuss? If it were not so serious there would be something ludicrous about the reaction of the green lobby to the discovery of big shale gas reserves in this country. Here we are in the fifth year of a downturn. We have pensioners battling fuel poverty. We have energy firms jacking up their prices. We have real worries about security of energy supply – a new building like the Shard needs four times as much juice as the entire town of Colchester. In their mad denunciations of fracking, the Greens and the eco-warriors betray the mindset of people who cannot bear a piece of unadulterated good news.

Obviously, it would be even harder to sell their extortion attempts if advanced countries are able to develop a source of energy that is indeed “green, cheap and plentiful”.  And, apparently, even they realize they’re not going to get too far attempting to demonize natural gas per se.  So they’ve instead focused on the process used to extract it (hydraulic fracturing – “fracking”) and are in the usual mode of demonizing it instead.  That, despite the fact that the process has been used in the US, at least, since 1948 on over 1,000,000 wells without negative results to ground water (the supposed threat that fracking poses).  But as we’ve all learned, facts are not the currency  this group uses.

The point?  This circus will continue for the foreseeable future because the majority of the UN sees an extortion opportunity that is just too good to pass up. Their initial success in scaring the world with “shoddy science” continues to motivate their efforts.  They haven’t quite accepted that it is failing.

Of course, real science has never really been a part of this process.  All they needed was a veneer to successfully launch the project. Al Gore and “consensus” provided that.  The assembled then declared the “science” to be “settled” (Science never attains consensus and is never “settled”).  After that, the participants in this extortion attempt have simply stated that further review is essentially unneeded.  The argument is over, just STFU and accept it. Meanwhile that “science” continues to come apart at the seams as real data is collected and demonstrates the underlying climate “science’s” shortcomings and outright falsehoods.

Natural gas provides a new alarming problem for these folks.  When it was thought to be a fairly scarce resource, enviros embraced it (the Sierra Club touted it for years before turning against it when it became plentiful and cheap).  Now that it threatens to undermine their entire culture of extortion and control, they’re rabidly against it – or at least what it requires to extract it.

One can only hope that the failure in Doha signals the end game of this farce, but that’s doubtful.  No dissenting word is allowed.  As Lord Monckton learned when he tried to bring up the fact that there has been no warming for the past 16 years and was summarily ejected for doing so.  This is no longer about science.  This is no longer about an imminent threat.  It’s about extortion, plain and simple.  And anyone with the least bit of honesty will recognize that and should join in the call to end this farce for good.

~McQ

Doha: 3rd World extortion attempt in progress

Ignoring the fact that there’s been no rise in global temperatures for 16 years, 3rd world countries at the UN’s Doha climate conference are proceeding with their plan to make richer countries pay for their perceived (perhaps “mythical” is a better word?) damages wrought by “climate change”.

Basing their claim on the discredited “science” generated by nothing more than inaccurate climate models, they’ve decided what was promised previously just isn’t enough:

There has been a historic shift in the UN climate talks in Qatar, with the prospect of rich nations having to compensate poor nations for losses due to climate change.

The US has fiercely opposed the measure – it says the cost could be unlimited.

But after angry tussles throughout the night the principle of Loss and Damage is now in the final negotiating text.

Why is it that these countries think that what was previously promised ($100 billion by 2020 in Copenhagen) isn’t sufficient?  Because President Obama just asked Congress for $60 billion for hurricane Sandy relief.  Obviously, using that as a baseline, these countries want more.

And you have to love this attitude:

Saleem ul-Huq, from the think-tank IIED, told the BBC: “This is a watershed in the talks. There is no turning back from this. It will be better for the US to realise that the principle of compensation is inevitable – and negotiate a limit on Loss and Damage rather than leave the liability unlimited.

“The principle of compensation is inevitable?”  Really?  For what, given there’s been no evidence of damage?

It is a point of principle that is at stake here for developing countries. In the end it’s questionable how much extra money a Loss and Damage Mechanism might bring.

Already poor nations are bitter that rich nations, particularly the US are dragging their feet over a promise made at the failed Copenhagen climate summit to mobilise $100bn by 2020 to help poor nations get clean energy and adapt to climate change.

A “point of principle” my rear end.  It’s UN sponsored extortion.  It is based on faulty science and given hope by weak willed politicans, all supervised by the bandits in the UN.

We don’t own them anything.

Not. One. Red. Cent.

~McQ

Why the UN is a disgrace and an enemy of freedom

Primarily it is about attitude.  And that additude translates into action.  Forget the words they mumble, consider what they do.

Sometimes, though, the words tumble out and give you a real peek behind the mask.  UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon did some mumbling the other day which is a prime indicator of why the UN is both a disgrace and a threat to freedom.  He spoke about “freedom of speech”.  And, apparently learning from Obama, he tries to have it both ways, but in the end it is clear he really doesn’t consider speech a “freedom” or a “right” so much as a privilege that he and others like him get to define and limit:

“Freedoms of expression should be and must be guaranteed and protected, when they are used for common justice, common purpose,” Ban told a news conference.

“When some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected in such a way.”

“My position is that freedom of expression, while it is a fundamental right and privilege, should not be abused by such people, by such a disgraceful and shameful act,” he said.

Note all the caveats and conditions.  Who gets to define “abuse”?  Where did this right not to be humiliated come from?  And since when does that pseudo “right” trump freedom of speech?

I’ll tell you when – when despots so decide it does, that’s when.

And the UN is a collection of despots seeking power, which, thankfully, been mostly denied over it’s history. But in this topsy-turvy world, I wouldn’t be surprised to see them gather more and more over time.

The only person in this scenario who should be disgraced and ashamed is the UN’s Secretary General after those disgusting thoughts were uttered.

The more I watch the utter nonsense that’s going on in this country and the world these days, the more I begin to think that Orwell just missed it by a few decades.

2034?

~McQ

Twitter: McQandO

Facebook: QandO

UAVs, extrajudicial and targeted killings

If you haven’t wondered about the morality of this or its legality, I’d be surprised.

It’s easy to overlook, after all it’s the “good guys” doing it, right?

While I usually ignore most of what the UN says, I think there’s some substance here:

The US policy of using aerial drones to carry out targeted killings presents a major challenge to the system of international law that has endured since the second world war, a United Nations investigator has said.

Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, summary or arbitrary executions, told a conference in Geneva that President Obama’s attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere, carried out by the CIA, would encourage other states to flout long-established human rights standards.

In his strongest critique so far of drone strikes, Heyns suggested some may even constitute "war crimes". His comments come amid rising international unease over the surge in killings by remotely piloted unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

A lot of times I apply the “what if some other country was doing this to the US” standard to things we do.  Take Fast and Furious.  What if Mexico had run that operation on us?  We’d be “furious”.  We’d condemn them roundly.  We’d be seeking redress.  We’d be initiating some sort of action.

Now given, in certain of the cases with UAV’s, governments of countries effected are cooperating and, in some cases, even giving permission.  But that isn’t always the case as we well know.  In fact, many times this country just executes an extra-judicial and/or targeted killing without the knowledge or consent of the government of the state in which it takes place.

As you might expect, there’s a lot of death of innocents that is euphemistically waved away as “collateral damage”.

Certainly the use of UAVs as a military asset that can both gather intel and be used to attack legitimate enemies makes sense.  But we’re into a very gray moral area with “extra-judicial” and targeted killings in other countries. 

The irony, of course, is the administration that arrogantly condemned its predecessor for secret jails and military tribunals and insisted that the judicial system be used in the war on terror instead now acts as judge, jury and executioner in these UAV killings. 

I just wondered what we’d think if Pakistan began flying UAVs into the US and knocking off politicians who supported UAV strikes in Pakistan, calling them “war criminals” and all?

Think we’d find that outrageous, a violation of our sovereignty and international law and be whining to the UN about what was being done by that country (not to mention beating the war drums here at home)?

Yeah, me too.

Would we have a legal or moral leg to stand on?

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

The UN in one picture

As anyone who has read this blog knows, I’m not a fan of the UN.  I normally call it the “Third World Debating club”.  It is world redistribution headquarters and a mockery of both democracy and any united action.  For the latter I’m mostly grateful because the obvious underlying desire of the professional UN types is the establishment of a world government, or at least, a world taxing authority, and the redistribution of income.

But it was supposed to be an organization of states that could combine to stop genocide, totalitarianism, etc.  Instead it has become this:

 

UN

 

The picture says even more than the conversation bubbles show.  Note the copyright date.  Yes, that’s how long the killing in the Sudan been going on and the picture says it all.

Instead the UN has been busy putting despots on the Human Rights Committee and making Robert Mugabe a UN “leader for tourism”.  Mugabe. The octogenarian dictator who has literally destroyed Zimbabwe’s economy and reduced the country to a police state?  What was Fidel too sick to take it?

People continue to argue that while it is corrupt, inept and abusive, it is a “useful forum” for the world’s leaders.

No it’s not.  It’s a third world debating club where the most serious attempts made by any of its members are to syphon money from the “rich” countries to their countries.

Anyway, the picture distills the problem to a fine point. 

Totally useless, waste of money and certainly not at all fulfilling its charter.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

The real and dangerous 1%

Malthusian extremism is alive and well:

Extremist green campaigning group WWF – endorsed by no less a body than the European Space Agency – has stated that economic growth should be abandoned, that citizens of the world’s wealthy nations should prepare for poverty and that all the human race’s energy should be produced as renewable electricity within 38 years from now. Most astonishingly of all, the green hardliners demand that the enormous numbers of wind farms, tidal barriers and solar power plants required under their plans should somehow be built while at the same time severely rationing supplies of concrete, steel, copper and glass.

That was written by The Register’s Lewis Page, who continues:

It’s not just resources that are limited, in the WWF’s view: human potential itself is up against a hard limit beyond which the race cannot ever advance. Even progress thus far, as seen in the wealthy nations, has been achieved only by an unfair and wasteful over-use of precious resources: we rich Westerners are already beyond the practical limits that humans should ever aspire to achieve in terms of health, wealth – and even of education. That’s not economics – that’s religion. And not very nice religion either.

He’s dead on, of course.  Humans, per groups like the WWF, are undesirable parasites.  In effect, the WWF would prefer the scourge of humanity to be wiped clean from the plant.  And yes, Page is correct – we are talking about a form of religion and “not a very nice” one either.

But, you say, that’s an extremist group, who would ever take seriously the nonsense they’re pushing?  Ben Pile fills us in:

At Rio+20 next month, the world’s elites will meet in Brazil with the aim of holding back human progress. Forty years ago, two ideas about humanity’s relationship with the natural world caught the imagination of the richest and most influential people. The first was that the demands of a growing population were taking more from the planet than could be replaced by natural processes. The second, related idea was that there exist natural ‘limits to growth’. These two reinventions of Malthusianism became the basis of a new form of global politics, which has sought to contain human industrial and economic development ever since.

On whole, it isn’t a “new form of global politics”, it is instead the oldest form of politics with a goal just as old – rule of the elites. 

Moving on, the Rio+20 is sponsored by what organization?

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today asked young people from all over the world to “make some noise” to help accelerate progress on the negotiations of the United Nations Sustainable Development Conference (Rio+20) which will take place in Brazil next month. “The truth is I am disappointed with the negotiations. They are not moving fast enough. That is why I need you,” Mr. Ban told students attending the 13th Annual Global Classrooms International High School Model UN Conference, taking place at in the General Assembly Hall at UN Headquarters in New York, on Thursday evening. “When I say make some noise, I mean raise your voices. Demand real action. Shame those governments into doing more.”

If you’ve ever wondered at the propaganda effort accompanied by the junk science used to propagate the “Global Warming” scam and tried to puzzle out the intent of all of that, well there it is.  Imagine a program to hold back human progress and limit growth.  Imagine the effect of such horrific ideas on real people.  Think of a “great leap backward” and all that that loaded phrase may conjure in your mind.

The “world’s elite” comprise the real 1% and they’re extraordinarily dangerous.  They would change life as we know it based on their religion – because their attempt at using “objective science” to support the institution of the grand design has been shredded.  And don’t be fooled by the veneer of officialdom.  The UN’s agenda is every bit as radical as the WWFs.

That’s what you have to realize.   There is nothing benign in their intent.  The only thing different about the UN and the WWF is how they’ll try to present their plan.  The WWF will be blunt.  The UN will flower it up.  But in the end, they both want the same thing.  And that would mean millions and millions of the 99%’s lives.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO