It seems that the UN just can't catch a break....I guess this is what happens when you give everything to people for free. Today in the Gaza Strip, Palestinian militants opened fire at a UN operated school that was having what we in America call field day. The UN school was having a sports day for the children in which little boys and girls would get to play together. Local residents said the gunmen, whom they described as Muslim extremists, arrived at the school and warned through loudspeakers against letting boys and girls participate in the sports day. The day prior, they showed up at the school and warned them not to hold the event. I guess beggars can be choosers.
Why are we giving money to an organization that squanders it's funds by working in areas where their help is unappreciated and continue to try and help the very people that are attacking them? But of course, there is no mention of this incident on the UN site. They wouldn't want to throw dirt on their pet project. The UN is a complete waste of time and resources as it's bias is only matched by it's worthlessness.
Perhaps if countries were held accountable for actions that take place within their borders, the UN might be a little effective. "Gee, since a school we (UN) run was attacked, were going to pull our funding until the attackers are brought to justice or you can guarantee civility." I don't think it's too much to ask. If there's one thing we know, it's that there are plenty of guns in Gaza, as seen in any funeral precession, rally, school play, etc. How about they use them for security like they said they would.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Monday, April 16, 2007
Great Article from Washington Times
U.N. a haven for despots
TODAY'S COLUMNIST
By Fred Gedrich
April 16, 2007
A February 2007 Gallup poll indicated that 66 percent of surveyed Americans believe the United Nations is doing a poor job. It's the worst global body rating in Gallup polling history. And it may worsen once the American public reads the recently published State Department report on U.S. voting practices for 2006.
The State Department issued the 24th annual installment of this congressionally-mandated report in March 2007. It shows that, among other things, 191 U.N. General Assembly members collectively voted against U.S.-supported positions 76 percent of the time, out of 94 non-consensus votes cast, on important issues such as threats to international peace and security, terrorism, disarmament, economic and social development, humanitarian relief and human rights.
To fully comprehend this one must first look at the type of governments voting. The General Assembly is currently split into two main factions: free nations and those that are not. According to Freedom House -- a democracy-focused group co-founded by Eleanor Roosevelt -- only 89 of 192 U.N. members have truly free governments.
In other words, the U.N. majority is composed of 103 nations whose governments and leaders do not provide their 3.5 billion subjects the full panoply of political rights and civil liberties like those enjoyed by citizens of free states. Worse, a substantial number of people residing in these countries suffer the dual indignity of severe oppression and extreme poverty.
Unfortunately for their citizens, most rulers of U.N. majority nations instinctively look to despots and human-rights abusers like Cuba's Castro, Iran's Ahmadinejad, Libya's Gadhafi, Venezuela's Chavez and Zimbabwe's Mugabe for leadership. Any doubters should attend a typical U.N.-sponsored global gathering and witness this cast of characters spewing their anti-American, anti-Israel, and anti-free-world diatribes while receiving loud accolades and encouragement from their many enablers.
They, along with putative U.S. European allies like France and Germany (who often place their national business interests with despotic governments over free world security interests), generally detest the United States standing as free-world leader and President Bush's stated national security strategy of defeating terrorism by promoting and expanding global freedom.
The General Assembly majority shrewdly uses democratic theory -- under the "one nation, one vote" concept enunciated in the U.N. Charter -- to protect their interests and oppose U.S.-supported positions -- while denying their own citizens the constitutional right to freely elect and replace government leaders.
To buttress and advance their national, regional and global agendas they have formed strong, intertwined U.N. alliances. And since the United States poses the greatest threat to their existence by advocating the expansion of freedom, they typically vote in blocs against this country. For example, the 114-nation Non-Aligned Movement voted against the United States 85 percent of the time, the 56-nation Islamic Conference voted against 87 percent of the time and the 53-nation African Union voted against 86 percent of the time.
The State Department report also provides some other important facts. The United States authorized $13 billion in direct bilateral financial aid to 148 nations. Seven countries: Israel, Afghanistan, Columbia, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Sudan received 57 percent of it. Israel voted with the U.S. 84 percent of the time. The six others collectively voted against the U.S. 88 percent of the time.
And what about the three Muslim countries U.S.-led coalitions liberated from invaders and oppressors at a cost of several thousand American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer expenditures? Afghanistan, Iraq and Kuwait expressed their independence, and ingratitude, by collectively voting against the United States 86 percent of the time.
America's European Union allies (25 nations) did somewhat better by voting against the United States only 57 percent of the time.
The majority of U.N. General Assembly members, over strong U.S. objections, have effectively blocked substantive and much-needed institutional reforms; refused to define deliberate attacks on civilians as terrorism; made Iran's terrorist state vice chair of the Disarmament Commission even though it actively pursues nuclear weaponry technology over Security Council objections; and placed human-rights abusers like China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia on the new Human Rights Council.
The United States was the primary impetus for the U.N.'s creation and has served as its chief benefactor and host since 1945. And generous Americans contribute about $3 billion annually to the U.N.'s various missions and causes. However, the global body has not lived up to its basic founding principles of keeping the peace, protecting human rights and promoting and expanding global freedom. Based on current member voting habits and the majority's actions, it probably never will.
Fred Gedrich is a foreign policy and national security analyst and former U.S. State Department official.
TODAY'S COLUMNIST
By Fred Gedrich
April 16, 2007
A February 2007 Gallup poll indicated that 66 percent of surveyed Americans believe the United Nations is doing a poor job. It's the worst global body rating in Gallup polling history. And it may worsen once the American public reads the recently published State Department report on U.S. voting practices for 2006.
The State Department issued the 24th annual installment of this congressionally-mandated report in March 2007. It shows that, among other things, 191 U.N. General Assembly members collectively voted against U.S.-supported positions 76 percent of the time, out of 94 non-consensus votes cast, on important issues such as threats to international peace and security, terrorism, disarmament, economic and social development, humanitarian relief and human rights.
To fully comprehend this one must first look at the type of governments voting. The General Assembly is currently split into two main factions: free nations and those that are not. According to Freedom House -- a democracy-focused group co-founded by Eleanor Roosevelt -- only 89 of 192 U.N. members have truly free governments.
In other words, the U.N. majority is composed of 103 nations whose governments and leaders do not provide their 3.5 billion subjects the full panoply of political rights and civil liberties like those enjoyed by citizens of free states. Worse, a substantial number of people residing in these countries suffer the dual indignity of severe oppression and extreme poverty.
Unfortunately for their citizens, most rulers of U.N. majority nations instinctively look to despots and human-rights abusers like Cuba's Castro, Iran's Ahmadinejad, Libya's Gadhafi, Venezuela's Chavez and Zimbabwe's Mugabe for leadership. Any doubters should attend a typical U.N.-sponsored global gathering and witness this cast of characters spewing their anti-American, anti-Israel, and anti-free-world diatribes while receiving loud accolades and encouragement from their many enablers.
They, along with putative U.S. European allies like France and Germany (who often place their national business interests with despotic governments over free world security interests), generally detest the United States standing as free-world leader and President Bush's stated national security strategy of defeating terrorism by promoting and expanding global freedom.
The General Assembly majority shrewdly uses democratic theory -- under the "one nation, one vote" concept enunciated in the U.N. Charter -- to protect their interests and oppose U.S.-supported positions -- while denying their own citizens the constitutional right to freely elect and replace government leaders.
To buttress and advance their national, regional and global agendas they have formed strong, intertwined U.N. alliances. And since the United States poses the greatest threat to their existence by advocating the expansion of freedom, they typically vote in blocs against this country. For example, the 114-nation Non-Aligned Movement voted against the United States 85 percent of the time, the 56-nation Islamic Conference voted against 87 percent of the time and the 53-nation African Union voted against 86 percent of the time.
The State Department report also provides some other important facts. The United States authorized $13 billion in direct bilateral financial aid to 148 nations. Seven countries: Israel, Afghanistan, Columbia, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Sudan received 57 percent of it. Israel voted with the U.S. 84 percent of the time. The six others collectively voted against the U.S. 88 percent of the time.
And what about the three Muslim countries U.S.-led coalitions liberated from invaders and oppressors at a cost of several thousand American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer expenditures? Afghanistan, Iraq and Kuwait expressed their independence, and ingratitude, by collectively voting against the United States 86 percent of the time.
America's European Union allies (25 nations) did somewhat better by voting against the United States only 57 percent of the time.
The majority of U.N. General Assembly members, over strong U.S. objections, have effectively blocked substantive and much-needed institutional reforms; refused to define deliberate attacks on civilians as terrorism; made Iran's terrorist state vice chair of the Disarmament Commission even though it actively pursues nuclear weaponry technology over Security Council objections; and placed human-rights abusers like China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia on the new Human Rights Council.
The United States was the primary impetus for the U.N.'s creation and has served as its chief benefactor and host since 1945. And generous Americans contribute about $3 billion annually to the U.N.'s various missions and causes. However, the global body has not lived up to its basic founding principles of keeping the peace, protecting human rights and promoting and expanding global freedom. Based on current member voting habits and the majority's actions, it probably never will.
Fred Gedrich is a foreign policy and national security analyst and former U.S. State Department official.
Monday, April 9, 2007
I-ran
Iran has stolen the show recently, probably doing the best job in the world at showing the uselessness of the UN in it's current form. Sanction after sanction and repeated infractions have left Iran no worse for the wear. Last week some abductions, this week violating UN Security Council resolutions (AGAIN), and not cooperating with the UN Atomic Energy Agency, yet they are still a member of the UN. Even drunken fraternities have stricter rules for staying a member. To continue with this analogy, Iran needs a good paddling or to get blackballed, neither of which the UN will do.
Ahmadinejad (im guessing here and he doesn't deserve my time to look it up) has repeatedly claimed that Iran's nuclear pursuits have been for peaceful purposes only and has nothing against Jews. Well, I'm not an expert on international policy and politics, but when the President of a country that is already on the shit list with the UN, calls for the destruction of another member country, while saying that they are pursuing nuclear technology, having a "Holocaust didn't happen" conference, and not complying with the UN or it's agencies, the World shouldn't trust you nor should it have any reason to. A UN that was worth anything would actually have a means of putting an end to this nonsense.
CNN's article on Iran's recent announcement
Check This out. So ridiculous thats its actually kind of funny. You have to use Internet Explorer. Enjoy.
Portrait of Jews on Iranian TV
Ahmadinejad (im guessing here and he doesn't deserve my time to look it up) has repeatedly claimed that Iran's nuclear pursuits have been for peaceful purposes only and has nothing against Jews. Well, I'm not an expert on international policy and politics, but when the President of a country that is already on the shit list with the UN, calls for the destruction of another member country, while saying that they are pursuing nuclear technology, having a "Holocaust didn't happen" conference, and not complying with the UN or it's agencies, the World shouldn't trust you nor should it have any reason to. A UN that was worth anything would actually have a means of putting an end to this nonsense.
CNN's article on Iran's recent announcement
Check This out. So ridiculous thats its actually kind of funny. You have to use Internet Explorer. Enjoy.
Portrait of Jews on Iranian TV
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Just a Quick Example
Hey all....just wanted to post a quick clip (7:30) showing what the UN Human Rights Council deems admissible speech in its chambers followed by a clip of the President of a group called UN Watch ( UNwatch.org ) whose main focus is to literally watch the UN and call them out on not making fair and balanced decissions. He makes some pretty good points and tears them a new one. Enjoy.
UN Watch Speech
P.S. Sorry but I'm first learning this shit...in the future I want to have videos embedded in the page
UN Watch Speech
P.S. Sorry but I'm first learning this shit...in the future I want to have videos embedded in the page
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Darfur
As you probably already know.....
In the Darfur region of Sudan, there is currently another GENOCIDE taking place. Indigenous Black Africans are being slaughtered and displaced by the hundreds of thousands to its current level by a racist Arab supremacist regime along with the Janjaweed Militia. The only thing thus far that the UN has attempted has been to send inspectors into the region; a move which this POS regime has denied. What has the UN done about this rejection of world authority one might ask? Not a God Damn thing! That is besides accuse Israel or more bullshit of course. I guess thats what they get for complying with UN inspectors and resolutions. Sorry to get off topic, but in Darfur it's just another example of Islamofacists committing atrocities and getting nothing but weak rhetoric in return.
Wouldn't it be great if there were an organization that could be called upon to protect these people? Well there currently is not one available to call. If the UN was worth anything at all, there would have been a UN peacekeeping force installed in this area years ago....against the Sudanese regime's wishes. Why is Sudan still allowed in the UN? Shouldn't there be some sort of rules that countries have to follow in order to have respect on a world stage? Maybe its just me but I would like to see the UN grow some balls and give a nice FU to the Sudanese government and deploy troops BECAUSE ITS THE RIGHT THING TO DO! Not to just sit back and allow a member country to kill its citizens.
What the US could accomplish in this situation with a creation of a New United Nations is to actually have the ability to punish countries for non-compliance and to take action against regimes that commit criminal acts. We can actually look out for the fate of the worlds people and to restore the values of Freedom, Justice, and Human Rights back into the UN and instill these same values into countries in which they are lacking. The time has come to be the true freedom fighters of the world and squash injustice everywhere.
P.S. I know I used some strong words like "Islamofacist" and "Racist Arab Supremacist" so I just wanted to say that I only wrote these words to solely and directly describe the Sudanese Government. Not all Muslims are terrorists of course and not all Muslim countries behave in such terrible ways.
UPDATE:
Chad: At least 65 killed in Sudan militia raid
Well it seems that killing Black Villagers in Sudan just gets boring after a while and so the Janjaweed militia have apparently set their sights on Chad. The UNHCR was on the scene inteviewing survivors but since they're part of a worthless organization there will most likely be complete inaction. Part of the report states that the militia was mounted on camel and horseback, with some in vehicles. Chad's military forces only managed to drive back these whackos? You are a country with a military....The only excuse you could possible have for not destroying these people is that you are mounted on horse and camel as well.
In the Darfur region of Sudan, there is currently another GENOCIDE taking place. Indigenous Black Africans are being slaughtered and displaced by the hundreds of thousands to its current level by a racist Arab supremacist regime along with the Janjaweed Militia. The only thing thus far that the UN has attempted has been to send inspectors into the region; a move which this POS regime has denied. What has the UN done about this rejection of world authority one might ask? Not a God Damn thing! That is besides accuse Israel or more bullshit of course. I guess thats what they get for complying with UN inspectors and resolutions. Sorry to get off topic, but in Darfur it's just another example of Islamofacists committing atrocities and getting nothing but weak rhetoric in return.
Wouldn't it be great if there were an organization that could be called upon to protect these people? Well there currently is not one available to call. If the UN was worth anything at all, there would have been a UN peacekeeping force installed in this area years ago....against the Sudanese regime's wishes. Why is Sudan still allowed in the UN? Shouldn't there be some sort of rules that countries have to follow in order to have respect on a world stage? Maybe its just me but I would like to see the UN grow some balls and give a nice FU to the Sudanese government and deploy troops BECAUSE ITS THE RIGHT THING TO DO! Not to just sit back and allow a member country to kill its citizens.
What the US could accomplish in this situation with a creation of a New United Nations is to actually have the ability to punish countries for non-compliance and to take action against regimes that commit criminal acts. We can actually look out for the fate of the worlds people and to restore the values of Freedom, Justice, and Human Rights back into the UN and instill these same values into countries in which they are lacking. The time has come to be the true freedom fighters of the world and squash injustice everywhere.
P.S. I know I used some strong words like "Islamofacist" and "Racist Arab Supremacist" so I just wanted to say that I only wrote these words to solely and directly describe the Sudanese Government. Not all Muslims are terrorists of course and not all Muslim countries behave in such terrible ways.
UPDATE:
Chad: At least 65 killed in Sudan militia raid
Well it seems that killing Black Villagers in Sudan just gets boring after a while and so the Janjaweed militia have apparently set their sights on Chad. The UNHCR was on the scene inteviewing survivors but since they're part of a worthless organization there will most likely be complete inaction. Part of the report states that the militia was mounted on camel and horseback, with some in vehicles. Chad's military forces only managed to drive back these whackos? You are a country with a military....The only excuse you could possible have for not destroying these people is that you are mounted on horse and camel as well.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
The Straw that Broke the Camel's Back
In the same spirit of when I joined the ACLU a few years ago when I was pissed off at the FCC and the fact that networks started bleeping out "God Dammit," I have created this blog after this recent event:
The UN Human Rights Council (which you will see in a short amount of time is the worst of the worst parts of the UN) passed a resolution against public defamation of religion, specifically against Islam and "expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations." Really? Well then maybe Muslims should stop participating in terrorism, violence, and human rights violations. Of course not all of them are doing such terrible things, but when there is incident after incident pointing in only one direction at a specific religion, it's kind of hard to ignore.
My main reason for being pissed off is that a world organization is passing a resolution attempting to inhibit my rights within my country that guarantees me these rights. It's a no-brainer for Muslim countries (who all voted in favor of passing this resolution) where free speech is not allowed, let alone any criticism of Islam.....But for me, as a free-thinking, non-brainwashed American (along with citizens of countries which allow free speech), I enjoy my right to say that if a Muslim happens a terrorist....he/she is still a terrorist and I should be allowed to say so.
Now as for exposing double standards, the resolution makes no mention of Judaism, Christianity, Buddism, Hinduism, etc.....only Islam. The UNHRC (UN Human Rights Council) makes no mention of the distribution of anti-semitic materials within these Muslim Countries (who are portrayed as champions of human rights in this case), the most famous of which is "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." In addition, Jews are systematically demonized and dehumanized on Arab television (www.memritv.org) called the "decendents of Pigs and Monkeys."
Does this resolution mean that if another 9/11 or 7/7 or another one of the seemingly daily terrorist attacks in Indonesia happens, that we are not allowed to say anything about it? Or do we have to pretend like it never happened? Maybe the UN will have this resolution serve as pretext for its inaction on the Darfur Genocide. Because of course, now how are we to criticize anything that an Islamic Regime does?
My point is this: If you are going to push through a resolution for anything...ANYTHING... the countries which have a clear and long history of violating the very same rights they are voting on should not be allowed to vote on the same stage as counties that protect their minorities' rights. A perfect example of this in american history is having a Black defendant and an all White jury. In racist situations like this, if the fate of Blacks are in the hands of racists that hate them, their rights will obviously not be protected. In this specific case, countries that air footage of clearly racist material, should not be allowed to vote on the issue of what is appropriate to be said about anybody else. Call me crazy, but I'm going to go ahead and predict that the first infraction will be against one of the countries that voted in favor of this nonsense.
The UN Human Rights Council (which you will see in a short amount of time is the worst of the worst parts of the UN) passed a resolution against public defamation of religion, specifically against Islam and "expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations." Really? Well then maybe Muslims should stop participating in terrorism, violence, and human rights violations. Of course not all of them are doing such terrible things, but when there is incident after incident pointing in only one direction at a specific religion, it's kind of hard to ignore.
My main reason for being pissed off is that a world organization is passing a resolution attempting to inhibit my rights within my country that guarantees me these rights. It's a no-brainer for Muslim countries (who all voted in favor of passing this resolution) where free speech is not allowed, let alone any criticism of Islam.....But for me, as a free-thinking, non-brainwashed American (along with citizens of countries which allow free speech), I enjoy my right to say that if a Muslim happens a terrorist....he/she is still a terrorist and I should be allowed to say so.
Now as for exposing double standards, the resolution makes no mention of Judaism, Christianity, Buddism, Hinduism, etc.....only Islam. The UNHRC (UN Human Rights Council) makes no mention of the distribution of anti-semitic materials within these Muslim Countries (who are portrayed as champions of human rights in this case), the most famous of which is "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." In addition, Jews are systematically demonized and dehumanized on Arab television (www.memritv.org) called the "decendents of Pigs and Monkeys."
Does this resolution mean that if another 9/11 or 7/7 or another one of the seemingly daily terrorist attacks in Indonesia happens, that we are not allowed to say anything about it? Or do we have to pretend like it never happened? Maybe the UN will have this resolution serve as pretext for its inaction on the Darfur Genocide. Because of course, now how are we to criticize anything that an Islamic Regime does?
My point is this: If you are going to push through a resolution for anything...ANYTHING... the countries which have a clear and long history of violating the very same rights they are voting on should not be allowed to vote on the same stage as counties that protect their minorities' rights. A perfect example of this in american history is having a Black defendant and an all White jury. In racist situations like this, if the fate of Blacks are in the hands of racists that hate them, their rights will obviously not be protected. In this specific case, countries that air footage of clearly racist material, should not be allowed to vote on the issue of what is appropriate to be said about anybody else. Call me crazy, but I'm going to go ahead and predict that the first infraction will be against one of the countries that voted in favor of this nonsense.
Welcome to UN Get Out!
Welcome to the very first posting to my new blog, UN Get Out! The purpose will be to expose how our grand creation, The United Nations, has gone from a world forum to give even the smallest countries that believe in peace the chance to air grievances against other countries and to try and resolve problems in a peaceful manner, into a forum of biased, one-sided double talk.
My main concern is: Why should we, the United States, continue to support an organization which has systematically been taken over by countries which do not believe in the principles in which the UN was created?
What I will attempt to convey is that the United Nations has lost its way and has strayed from its purpose. What needs to be done is to either kick out nations that do not hold up to their end of UN Resolutions that are passed or to dissolve US involvement in the UN and to create an organization that lives up to the grand ideals of our original creation in the spirit of human rights and dignity.
Let me start by telling you about myself so you get a sense of why I have decided to write a blog specifically scrutinizing the United Nations. Growing up in New York, you get a chance to visit the UN headquarters and take a very nice tour of the facility. I can remember learning the history of the organization and thinking it was the greatest idea in history, because if we can talk things out and work things out diplomatically, then how can we fight? This was typical liberal Jew thinking. I still consider myself liberal (and still Jewish), but I like to describe myself as a "Free Thinker," meaning that I like making up my mind on different issues by gathering facts and assessing the situation for myself and not just saying "I'm a liberal so I automatically think this or I'm a conservative so I automatically think that." So just for the record:
Social Issues: Liberal Terrorism: Conservative
Being a Free Thinker, exercising my right of free speech and not being able to shut up is actually why I decided to start this blog. I will go into detail on the tipping point which made my silence on this matter impossible in my next post which will be very soon. Well the more news I hear coming out of the UN, the more bitter the taste gets in my mouth and the only way to get rid of it is to try and expose the complete bullshit that has been spewed out of this do nothing organization in recent years.
I hope to get feedback and I also hope that you will not hold back at all because I certainly will not. Any and all bullshit that can be exposed about the UN will and hopefully I will be able to convince you that ridding ourselves of this nonsense and starting over is in the best interest of the entire world. You are in America, where you have the right to say whatever you want, so feel free to post what you like and I will address all of the questions that I can.
Remember the words of the great Martin Luther King, "Injustice Anywhere is a threat to Justice Everywhere." With these words, we can take to heart what the UN should be, and what it currently is NOT.
My main concern is: Why should we, the United States, continue to support an organization which has systematically been taken over by countries which do not believe in the principles in which the UN was created?
What I will attempt to convey is that the United Nations has lost its way and has strayed from its purpose. What needs to be done is to either kick out nations that do not hold up to their end of UN Resolutions that are passed or to dissolve US involvement in the UN and to create an organization that lives up to the grand ideals of our original creation in the spirit of human rights and dignity.
Let me start by telling you about myself so you get a sense of why I have decided to write a blog specifically scrutinizing the United Nations. Growing up in New York, you get a chance to visit the UN headquarters and take a very nice tour of the facility. I can remember learning the history of the organization and thinking it was the greatest idea in history, because if we can talk things out and work things out diplomatically, then how can we fight? This was typical liberal Jew thinking. I still consider myself liberal (and still Jewish), but I like to describe myself as a "Free Thinker," meaning that I like making up my mind on different issues by gathering facts and assessing the situation for myself and not just saying "I'm a liberal so I automatically think this or I'm a conservative so I automatically think that." So just for the record:
Social Issues: Liberal Terrorism: Conservative
Being a Free Thinker, exercising my right of free speech and not being able to shut up is actually why I decided to start this blog. I will go into detail on the tipping point which made my silence on this matter impossible in my next post which will be very soon. Well the more news I hear coming out of the UN, the more bitter the taste gets in my mouth and the only way to get rid of it is to try and expose the complete bullshit that has been spewed out of this do nothing organization in recent years.
I hope to get feedback and I also hope that you will not hold back at all because I certainly will not. Any and all bullshit that can be exposed about the UN will and hopefully I will be able to convince you that ridding ourselves of this nonsense and starting over is in the best interest of the entire world. You are in America, where you have the right to say whatever you want, so feel free to post what you like and I will address all of the questions that I can.
Remember the words of the great Martin Luther King, "Injustice Anywhere is a threat to Justice Everywhere." With these words, we can take to heart what the UN should be, and what it currently is NOT.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)