I say let’s get out of the U.N. altogether!!! They are corrupt and should get no more support from the US.
Obama Endorses Global Taxes on Eve of U.N. Summit
By Cliff Kincaid | September 16, 2010
Obama has been a major U.N. supporter since he was in the Senate and sponsored a bill, the Global Poverty Act (S 2433), to force U.S. compliance with the MDGs.
In a classic case of misdirection, while the media are preoccupied with the fate of the Bush tax cuts, President Obama is preparing to attend a United Nations summit next week to endorse “innovative finance mechanisms”—global taxes—to drain even more wealth out of the U.S. economy.
A draft “outcome document” produced in advance of the September 20-22 U.N. Summit on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) commits the nations of the world to supporting “innovative financing mechanisms” to supplement foreign aid spending.
The term “innovative financing mechanisms” is a U.N. euphemism for global taxes. But the document actually goes further, praising the “Task Force on International Financial Transactions for Development” for its work on the subject of mobilizing additional “resources” for countries to achieve the MDGs. This is a body tasked with proposing and implementing global tax schemes.
“We consider,” the document says, “that innovative financing mechanisms can make a positive contribution in assisting developing countries to mobilize additional resources for financing for development on a voluntary basis. Such financing should supplement and not be a substitute for traditional sources of financing.”
In other words, the revenue from global taxes should be in addition to foreign aid spending.
The document recognized the “considerable progress” made in this area, an acknowledgement that an international tax by some nations on airline tickets is already in effect and producing several billions of dollars of revenue for world organizations to fight AIDS and other diseases.
In an article in The Christian Science Monitor, under the headline, “Small global taxes would make a big difference for world’s ‘bottom billion,’” the foreign minister of France and other officials of foreign nations endorse various forms of “innovative development financing.” One of their proposals is a tax on international currency transactions that could generate $35 billion a year.
The proposal, popular at the United Nations for decades and long-advocated by Fidel Castro, is called the Tobin Tax and named after Yale University economist James Tobin. Steven Solomon, a former staff reporter at Forbes, said in his book, The Confidence Game, that such a proposal “might net some $13 trillion a year…” because it is based on taking a percentage of money from the trillions of dollars exchanged daily in global financial markets.
He is referring to the fact that once such a tax is in place, it could be easily raised to bring in hundreds of billions of dollars or more a year to the U.N. and other global institutions.
Such financial transactions through banks and other financial institutions are commonplace on behalf of Americans who have stock in mutual funds or companies that invest or operate overseas. Hence, such a global tax could affect the stocks, mutual funds, and pensions of ordinary Americans.
The term “small global taxes” brought a stunned reaction from Senator David Vitter, when he was told of what is being proposed in advance of the U.N. summit. Vitter introduced Senate resolution 461, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that Congress should reject any proposal for the creation of a system of global taxation and regulation,” to put the Senate on record against any such measure. He has vowed to maintain pressure on the world body to avoid implementing any of these schemes and thinks that the Congress has to use whatever financial leverage it has to frustrate U.N. demands for more power and authority in world affairs.
The Vitter resolution was sent to the liberal-controlled Senate Finance Committee, which declined to act on it.
Obama has been a major U.N. supporter since he was in the Senate and sponsored a bill, the Global Poverty Act (S 2433), to force U.S. compliance with the MDGs. Joseph Biden, then chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, tried to get it passed into law but ultimately failed.
As President, Obama is in a position to actively promote global taxation measures and clearly has done so. The “outcome document” his administration has already endorsed will be formally approved at next week’s summit.
The document affirms the so-called “Monterrey Consensus” that committed nations to spending 0.7 percent of Gross National Product (GNP) on official development assistance (ODA), otherwise known as foreign aid. It says that “The fulfillment of all ODA commitments is crucial, including the commitments by many developed countries to achieve the target of 0.7 percent of gross national product (GNP) for ODA to developing countries by 2015…”
Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.’s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the Millennium Development Goals, this amounts to $845 billion from the U.S. alone, according to Jeffrey Sachs of the U.N.’s Millennium Project.
“We have fully embraced the Millennium Development Goals,” Obama told the U.N. in 2009.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
I can’t begin to tell you how disgusted I am with Obama!! What an ungrateful, unpatriotic, disloyal, backstabbing, ignorant traitor he is. There is no way that anyone with a brain can think that Obama loves this country and is doing what is best for us. He is undermining us, helping our enemies, making the world hate us more, and showing his contempt every chance he gets. He is NOT fit to be president and , in my opinion, should be impeached. How dare he send a report to the UN listing the supposed human rights violations taking place in the US!!! I’m sure our enemies just loved that!!!! Meanwhile countries who really are committing human right violations – rape, murder, etc – are getting a pass. He sickens me!
What American President Would Do That?
Other presidents have been wrong. Other presidents have been misguided. Other presidents have been weak and pusillanimous and pathetic.
Only one truly disdains America. His name is Barack Obama.
How else to explain his latest outrage against the country that elevated him to the ranks of world leadership? Last week, the Obama State Department submitted a report to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights on the supposed human rights violations taking place in the United States. According to the Washington Times,
the report describes how the United States discriminates against the disabled, homosexuals, women, Native Americans, blacks, Hispanics and those who don’t speak English. There is the expected pandering to Muslims…the report notes that until recently, the U.S. engaged in torture, unlawfully detained terrorist suspects and illegally spied on Americans communicating with terrorists … but the report assures readers that Mr. Obama has been putting a stop to all that.
Beyond the outrage felt by Governor Jan Brewer, whose move to protect Arizonans’ human rights was offered up as an example of an abuse of human rights by Mr. Obama’s State Department report (gotta protect those drug cartel murderers!), for many citizens, this report is a rank anti-American manifesto and the last straw. Many believe it to be outright evil, that there is no other word to encompass Obama’s disgraceful and indefensible decision. This odious report has placed America — us — on a list of human rights violators that includes Iran, North Korea, and Sudan. And Mr. Obama and his administration have done it purposefully, intentionally, and with malice aforethought.
The truth, on the other hand, is that every demographic group mentioned in the report as victimized by America is better off in America than in any other country on earth. That’s why they stay here. If they don’t like America, they’re free to leave at any time. We’re not the Soviet Union or China, restricting population flow. European glories are only a plane ticket away.
But they don’t leave. That’s because the people of America have a higher standard of living, more opportunity for high-quality health care (at least for a little while longer), a better shot at a decent education, and more personal freedom to pursue occupations of their choice — and life, liberty, and happiness — than in any other place on the planet.
But according to Obama, splinter groups of Americans (including women, who compose a majority of the population) are hapless and defenseless victims of our “downright mean” country, a description coined by Mrs. Obama during Mr. Obama’s campaign for president. The State Department report is a typical liberal look-at-America-through-a-toilet-seat perspective, construing every minor problem as systemic and considering all forms of law enforcement discriminatory. The report is unseemly and deeply offensive to the American people.
Worse, it’s not just Obama and his thumb-sucking minions whining about America to other Americans — at least that wouldn’t be purveying false notions about America outside our borders. No, lying to Americans about the cruelty of their country isn’t enough for Obama — he must preach it to the world. Because in Obama’s worldview, the world is the ultimate arbiter of America, even though that quaint document, our Constitution, specifically grants such responsibility to the American people alone.
It’s nonsensical from a legal point of view, and Obama’s a lawyer. One of the chief notions in legal academia is that a judge’s political perspective shapes his decisions no matter how hard he attempts to be objective. The same holds true for countries — Iran will judge us through the Iranian anti-Semitic, anti-American, anti-freedom, fundamentalist Islamic perspective it uses for everything else. Yet Obama inexplicably sees the judgment of countries like Iran as important and wants to lay bare before the world each of our minute flaws — some real, some imagined — for careful examination and exploitation by our most implacable enemies, with much of that exploitation dangerous to our national security and to ordinary Americans.
Perhaps it’s because Obama has spent most of his life in a Christian country that he doesn’t understand how the world works — over here, we don’t cast the first stone. Instead, we target the most egregious human rights violators and try to curb their violations. Maybe Obama thinks the rest of the world will act in truly Christian fashion, too, and focus on the true human rights violators even if we expose ourselves to the tyrants, dictators, and mullahs. That would make him an idiot.
More likely, Obama just doesn’t give a tinker’s damn whether the world flays us because he thinks America’s minor flaws are major ones. It is possible that Obama dislikes America because this is the country that produced his rootless life and gave leeway to his drunk, child-abandoning Kenyan father. More likely, Obama is displeased with this country because he spent his childhood wandering from identity to identity until he found one that justified his alienation — identity as a Marxist racialist — an elevated identity in the left’s hierarchy of the victimized.
Whatever the reason, Obama has no soft spot for America. The unpresidential condescension he feels for our country and its religion- and gun-clinging citizens oozes from his pores and spills out of them in unguarded moments. And that disrespect — the kind that comes only from those who are clueless about leadership — gives both aid and comfort to our enemies and leaves those who wish to share in the bounty of our freedom and liberty in the dark.
What American president would do that?Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )
The UN is a corrupt anti-American organization that, ironically, is funded mainly by the US. We need to get the heck out of the UN and kick them the heck out of our country!! They’re corrupt scumbags!! And I wouldn’t be one bit surprised if Obama let this happen. Time for a revolution in this country!!!!
U.N. Threatens Prosecution of Rumsfeld, Bush Over Gitmo
Wednesday, June 3, 2009 2:15 PM
GENEVA — Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld could be in trouble soon for the role he played in human rights abuses committed in the Guantanamo prison, a United Nations expert said Wednesday.
“In a year or two, his responsibilities will be established. Wherever he goes, he will face difficulties,” Leandro Despouy, who is special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, told journalists in Geneva.
A bipartisan Senate report released late last year found Rumsfeld and other top administration officials responsible for abuse of Guantanamo detainees.
It said Rumsfeld authorized harsh interrogation techniques on Dec. 2, 2002, at the Guantanamo prison, although he ruled them out a month later.
Despouy said the “strong resistance” of the Bush administration to President Barack Obama’s decision to close the detention center has nothing to do with the officially cited reason of “national security” considerations.
Rather, they fear they may be taken to task once the detention centre is closed, said Despouy.
The U.N. expert urged the international community to back Obama’s decision to close the prison.
“If we act in the perspective of human rights, we should support the efforts of those who want these responsibilities to be established,” he added, referring to the harsh interrogation techniques used on the detainees.
The international community should take in former detainees to help the United States.
Obama has said he would close the notorious “war on terror” prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba by January 2010 and is seeking host states for up to 60 of the 245 inmates.
The Obama administration faces a series of legal and political hurdles in its efforts to close the base, with strong opposition against releasing detainees into the United States.
In January, the U.N.’s special torture rapporteur called on the United States to pursue Rumsfeld and former President George W. Bush for torture and bad treatment of Guantanamo prisoners.
“Judicially speaking, the United States has a clear obligation” to bring proceedings against Bush and Rumsfeld, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak said, in remarks broadcast on Germany’s ZDF television.
He noted Washington had ratified the UN convention on torture which required “all means, particularly penal law” to be used to bring proceedings against those violating it.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
The Muslim invasion and takeover continues……..Is anybody going to stop it or are we going to go gently?
U.N. to make ban on criticizing Islam mandatory?
Expected proposal would criminalize such comments in U.S.
Posted: March 04, 2009
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Muslim-dominated nations at the United Nations are once again pushing a religious “anti-defamation” plan that would bar worldwide all criticism of their founder Muhammad and his teaching.
According to a report by CNN’s Lou Dobbs posted on YouTube, the proposal that has been repeatedly brought in recent years by the Organization of Islamic Conference states is expected to resurface as early as this spring.
This time, however, the resolution wouldn’t allow nations to opt out.
“The United Nations has adopted what it calls a Resolution to Combat Defamation of Religion,” Dobbs said in the report. “The U.N. now wants to make that anti-blasphemy resolution binding on member nations, including, of course, our own. That would make it a crime in the United States … to criticize religion, in particular, Islam.”
Constitutional lawyer Floyd Abrams said in the report, “What they would do would be to make it illegal to put out a movie or write a book or a poem that somebody could say was defamatory of Islam.”
WND has reported several times on the OIC proposal at the U.N., including late last year when a vote indicated that international support for the plan was falling.
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, has assembled a petition opposing the plan that has been signed by more than 400,000 people already. He said the most recent U.N. General Assembly vote – which was 86 in favor, 53 opposed and 42 abstentions – was a dramatic shift from the vote from one year ago, which was 108-51-25.
Because of the circuitous route to adoption in the U.N., a single General Assembly vote does not automatically mean adoption. Nor does it mean the proposal will disappear.
Columnist Chuck Hustmyre highlighted some of the practices of nations where Islam already has special protections from criticism.
“Afghanistan and some other OIC member nations impose the death penalty on those who convert from Islam to another religion,” he wrote.
The anti-defamation resolutions began with describing the “need” to protect Islam and in recent years has developed into a call for the protection for “religions” from defamation.
However, the only religion specifically cited, in fact, is Islam.
The Muslim nations have sought to have member states enact laws banning such “blasphemy.”
The plan expected to be introduced soon, however, will include a recommendation to the U.N. Human Rights Council that the ban be made binding on member nations, the report said.
The need for a mandatory rule was cited by Pakistan’s Ambassador Masood Khan, reported Hustmyre, who also cited the apparent implementation of the plan already.
He reported in India, police arrested the editor of an English-language newspaper after it reprinted a British article titled, “Why Should I Respect These Oppressive Religions?”
Newspaper officials were accused of “hurting the religious feelings” of Muslims.
He also reported in the U.S., publisher Random House in 2008 canceled publication plans for a novel, “The Jewel of Medina,” because executives feared the book might offend Muslims.
The 57 member nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference have lobbied for the plan, which is based on the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, since 1999. The Cairo declaration states “that all rights are subject to Shariah law, and makes Shariah law the only source of reference for human rights.”
The ACLJ, in promoting its petition to raise awareness of the campaign, said, “The fact is this: The proposal, while purportedly to protect against ‘defamation of religions,’ is frequently used as a weapon to silence religious minorities, including Christians in many countries.
“The resolution actually targets anyone who speaks negatively in any way about Islam. Sharing your faith would become an international crime punishable by imprisonment – or death,” the ACLJ said.
Fox News religion contributor Lauren Green previously reported the encroachment of the plan already.
“But you say, ‘That can’t happen,’ or ‘that would be ludicrous.’ The fact is, it’s already happening. Christians and other minority religions in predominantly Islamic areas or countries are being persecuted to barbaric levels. Reports from Nairobi, Kenya, say that one aid worker was beheaded in September for converting from Islam to Christianity; the Iranian government has already passed a bill calling for execution on the basis of apostasy (anyone converting from Islam to another religion), and of course we’ve seen the violence that erupted over the Danish cartoon of the prophet Mohammed,” Green said.
An ACLJ analysis found the OIC “uses the religious defamation concept as both a shield and a sword. In Islamic countries, blasphemy laws are used as a shield to protect the dominant religion, but even more dangerously, they are used to silence minority religious believers and prevent Muslims from converting to other faiths, which is still a capital crime in many Islamic countries.”
The U.S. State Department also has found the proposal unpalatable.
“This resolution is incomplete inasmuch as it fails to address the situation of all religions,” said a statement from Leonard Leo. “We believe that such inclusive language would have furthered the objective of promoting religious freedom. We also believe that any resolution on this topic must include mention of the need to change educational systems that promote hatred of other religions, as well as the problem of state-sponsored media that negatively targets any one religion.”Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
When will we get OUT of the UN and stop funding their garbage!! They wouldn’t survive without the US, yet they continue to try to screw us over. We’ve got to try and stop Obama from pushing for the ratification of this treaty or we will lose ALL parental rights and the gov’t will have complete say over our kids!!
United Nations’ threat: No more parental rights
Expert: Pact would ban spankings, homeschooling if children object
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A United Nations human rights treaty that could prohibit children from being spanked or homeschooled, ban youngsters from facing the death penalty and forbid parents from deciding their families’ religion is on America’s doorstep, a legal expert warns.
Michael Farris of Purcellville, Va., is president of ParentalRights.org, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association and chancellor of Patrick Henry College. He told WND that under the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, or CRC, every decision a parent makes can be reviewed by the government to determine whether it is in the child’s best interest.
“It’s definitely on our doorstep,” he said. “The left wants to make the Obama-Clinton era permanent. Treaties are a way to make it as permanent as stuff gets. It is very difficult to extract yourself from a treaty once you begin it. If they can put all of their left-wing socialist policies into treaty form, we’re stuck with it even if they lose the next election.”
The 1990s-era document was ratified quickly by 193 nations worldwide, but not the United States or Somalia. In Somalia, there was then no recognized government to do the formal recognition, and in the United States there’s been opposition to its power. Countries that ratify the treaty are bound to it by international law.
Although signed by Madeleine Albright, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., on Feb. 16, 1995, the U.S. Senate never ratified the treaty, largely because of conservatives’ efforts to point out it would create that list of rights which primarily would be enforced against parents.
The international treaty creates specific civil, economic, social, cultural and even economic rights for every child and states that “the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.” It is monitored by the CRC, which conceivably has enforcement powers.
According to the Parental Rights website, the substance of the CRC dictates the following:
· Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
· A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
· Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
· The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.
· A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.
· According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.
· Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.
· Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
· Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
· Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.
“Where the child has a right fulfilled by the government, the responsibilities shift from parents to the government,” Farris said. “The implications of all this shifting of responsibilities is that parents no longer have the traditional roles of either being responsible for their children or having the right to direct their children.”
The government would decide what is in the best interest of a children in every case, and the CRC would be considered superior to state laws, Farris said. Parents could be treated like criminals for making every-day decisions about their children’s lives.
“If you think your child shouldn’t go to the prom because their grades were low, the U.N. Convention gives that power to the government to review your decision and decide if it thinks that’s what’s best for your child,” he said. “If you think that your children are too young to have a Facebook account, which interferes with the right of communication, the U.N. gets to determine whether or not your decision is in the best interest of the child.”
He continued, “If you think your child should go to church three times a week, but the child wants to go to church once a week, the government gets to decide what it thinks is in the best interest of the children on the frequency of church attendance.”
He said American social workers would be the ones responsible for implementation of the policies.
Farris said it could be easier for President Obama to push for ratification of the treaty than it was for the Clinton administration because “the political world has changed.”
At a Walden University presidential debate last October, Obama indicated he may take action.
“It’s embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land,” Obama said. “I will review this and other treaties to ensure the United States resumes its global leadership in human rights.”
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been a strong supporter of the CRC, and she now has direct control over the treaty’s submission to the Senate for ratification. The process requires a two-thirds vote.
Farris said Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., claimed in a private meeting just before Christmas that the treaty would be ratified within two years.
In November, a group of three dozen senior foreign policy figures urged Obama to strengthen U.S. relations with the U.N. Among other things, they asked the president to push for Senate approval of treaties that have been signed by the U.S. but not ratified.
Partnership for a Secure America Director Matthew Rojansky helped draft the statement. He said the treaty commands strong support and is likely to be acted on quickly, according to an Inter Press Service report.
While he said ratification is certain to come up, Farris said advocates of the treaty will face fierce opposition.
“I think it is going to be the battle of their lifetime,” he said. “There’s not enough political capital in Washington, D.C., to pass this treaty. We will defeat it.”Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? This is so preposteous I’m almost speechless!! The UN is such a joke. We should get out of the UN and kick them out of our country! They’re crooked and ungrateful!
The Latest U.N. Insult
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, May 19, 2008
With the world awash in disaster, the United Nations is spending money to send a “special rapporteur” to look into racism in one of its member nations. The country? Why, the United States, of course.
The rapporteur in question, Senegal’s Doudou Diene, will investigate “contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance” in a number of American cities.
In fact, the U.S. is the least racist nation on Earth. Diene’s visit is a calculated insult to both the American people and President Bush, and an attempt to influence the upcoming U.S. election.
Sure we have our problems. But it’s hard to say a country where the leading candidate for president of one party is an African-American, while the other party has in the past eight years named highly accomplished blacks, Hispanic-Americans and Asian-Americans – Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Carlos Gutierrez, Alberto Gonzales and Elaine Chao – to the highest federal positions they’ve ever occupied, is actively racist.
The U.S. also has 40 million immigrants from virtually every nation on the globe, easily the largest such population of any nation. Will Diene look into that, too?
To see what a canard this idea is, one has only to look how America behaves globally. Each year, we spend billions of dollars, both public and private, to help less fortunate people around the globe – including people who don’t share our predominant skin color or our majority religion or our main ethnic heritage.
In the past two decades, the U.S. has intervened militarily on behalf of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo, none of which is exactly American – by race or religion.
When the tsunami hit Thailand in 2004, U.S. aid flooded the country – though some of the beneficiaries included those who applauded Osama bin Laden’s 9/11 attack on America. A U.S. Navy ship dutifully anchored off the coast to dispense badly needed emergency goods. U.S. aid workers are still there today.
In Burma, a country that bears virtually no cultural, racial or ethnic propinquity to the U.S., we have aggressively sought to save lives following Cyclone Nargis.
American planes and ships filled with emergency aid and workers have been forced to wait while the murderous Burmese regime lets its people die. Why no U.N. action on that?
The record is clear: Total public and private sector aid from the U.S. to others totaled $130 billion in 2006, the most recent year for which data are available. That’s a 6% increase from the year before, and four times what the next biggest giver delivered.
Add in $500 billion-plus in defense spending – much of which goes to protect other nations from the threat of war, terror or violent cutoffs of trade – and the U.S. is far and away the most generous nation on the planet. Not exactly a sign of rampant racism.
Meanwhile, the U.N. itself is no paragon. It’s directly responsible for holding Palestinians in camps for 60 years while passing inane resolution after resolution condemning the only peaceful, prosperous and completely democratic regime in the Mideast – Israel.
The U.N. should investigate other members’ rampant racism, which takes the form of extreme hatred for the West and its values.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
Well, well, well, isn’t this just par for the course!! The UN has made the IDIOTS (Idgets) list again!! We’ve known for a while that the UN is crooked, anti-Israel and anti-American, and now they put some anti-Semitic IDIOT in charge of investigating Israel?? Is this a joke? If it weren’t so sad and scary, it would be laughable. When will we stop putting up with the UN’s garbage??
UN APPOINTS “TRUTHER” TO INVESTIGATE ISRAEL
The United Nations Human Rights Commission has appointed Richard Falk, a former Princeton professor, to a six-year term as “special investigator on Israeli actions in the territories.” Israel has denounced the appointment, since Falk is a virulent critic of Israel. Falk has written that Israel is comparable to Nazi Germany, and he has condoned mass murder bombings by Palestinians, while accusing Israel of “state terrorism.”
Falk is, in addition, a “truther.” For those who don’t frequent the fever swamp, a “truther” is someone who believes that the United States government carried out the September 11 attacks. Falk recently said in an interview:
“It is possibly true that especially the neoconservatives thought there was a situation in the country and in the world where something had to happen to wake up the American people. Whether they are innocent about the contention that they made that something happen or not, I don’t think we can answer definitively at this point. All we can say is there is a lot of grounds for suspicion, there should be an official investigation of the sort the 9/11 commission did not engage in and that the failure to do these things is cheating the American people and in some sense the people of the world of a greater confidence in what really happened than they presently possess.”
Falk also wrote a preface to a “truther” book called The New Pearl Harbor, in which he said:
There have been questions raised here and there and allegations of official complicity made almost from the day of the attacks, especially in Europe, but no one until Griffin has had the patience, the fortitude, the courage, and the intelligence to put the pieces together in a single coherent account.
This is the sort of person the UN’s Human Rights Council deems ideally-suited to monitor and report on Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. We’ll give the last word to former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton:
This is exactly why we voted against the new human rights council.