West must stop appeasing efforts to ban criticism of Islam

Istanbul. Great city. But no "process" please...

Istanbul. Great city. But no “process” please…

By Michael Curtis:

It is no accident that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law …abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” It is also no accident that there is no such absolute provision in the Arab and Islamic world.

On the contrary, for at least fifteen years a concerted effort has been made by Islamic organizations, particularly the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) to prevent or limit criticism of Islam and the Prophet.

This effort of the OIC has led to calls for controls of free speech in democratic countries as well as implementation of repression in its own member states. Although this OIC objective and its consequences have become familiar, it is puzzling that the Obama Administration, and Hillary Clinton, while Secretary of State, did not resist it but rather seemed to compromise with it.

It should have been obvious that major international organs have been manipulated by the OIC to suppress speech. Each year from 1999 until 2010, one of the countries of the 57 member-state OIC, often Pakistan, has proposed resolutions in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and in the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) outlawing “defamation of religions.”

Rather than protection of religions in general, the intent of all the resolutions that have been passed is to declare criticism of Islam illegal and therefore punishable. More recently, OIC-inspired resolutions have condemned and called for penalization of what they term “Islamophobia.”

However, the number of states approving such resolutions has been declining. The OIC is aware of the fact that democratic countries have become alert to the fact that infringements of free speech result from any implementation of supposed “defamation” resolutions.

In 2011 the OIC, attempting to overcome criticism of its tactics, no longer used the concept of “defamation of religions.” It modified its extremist rhetoric, but not its objective.

On March 24, 2011 at the UNHRC, the OIC introduced Resolution 16/18. The Resolution was worded and then revised to make it more acceptable to the U.S. It avoided “defamation” and instead called for “fighting against intolerance, negative stereotyping, stigmatization, discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against individuals because of their religion or belief.” It seemingly appeared to be concerned with individuals, rather than a religion. The OIC tactic was successful. The Resolution, which is nonbinding, was adopted by consensus.

What is important was the next step, the creation of “The Istanbul Process” at a meeting in Istanbul in July 2011 initiated by Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary-General of the OIC, with the assistance of Hillary Clinton and Catherine Ashton, European Union (EU) Foreign Representative.

Read more at The Commentator

CAIR Leaders Curry Favor With Dictators

IPT, by John Rossomando:

The Alliance of Civilization Jihad

unaoc5 by , February 27, 2013:

As reported here early this morning, the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations met today in Vienna to… well, to do whatever it is alliances of civilizations do.

Actually, the goal of this Alliance is quite clear, even if it is not stated explicitly: to impose the will of the United Nations on all Western countries, especially those that have not yet implemented laws against “defamation of religions” as demanded by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

We are approaching endgame in the OIC’s long march through the major international institutions of Western culture. It began with the announcement in 2005 of the ten-year plan to end Islamophobia in the West, and the establishment of the Islamophobia Observatory shortly thereafter. These were obviously not enough to meet the Ummah’s needs, so it shifted its focus to other institutions. The OSCE must have also proved disappointing, as it is not high-profile and offers no prominent global platform.

The OIC has had better success with the General Assembly of the United Nations, taking virtual control of the organization by means of the votes of its 56 member states (57 if you count “Palestine”). However, this too is insufficient from the point of view of the embryonic World Caliphate. To establish full control, a permanent seat on the Security Council is an absolute necessity. The would-be Caliph — Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who obviously aspires to an office higher than prime minister of Turkey — has made it clear that Islam must be granted such a seat.

The process now unfolding before us on the international scene mirrors the “Civilization Jihad” launched long ago by the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States. With the installation of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, the Ikhwan has now positioned all its American pieces on the board in preparation for the final takedown of Israel. To secure their international geopolitical position, the Brothers and the OIC need to complete their takeover of the United Nations.

Today it seems they are very close to achieving success in — what shall we call their operation?

Perhaps the “Alliance of Civilization Jihad” would be most fitting.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Henrik Ræder Clausen and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff were in Vienna to attend and report on today’s event, the 5th Global Forum — UN Alliance of Civilizations.

Read Elisabeth’s account at Gates of Vienna

aoclogo0

via Is The Alliance Of Civilizations A Pro Sharia Front? (libertiesalliance.org)

The 5th Global Forum of The United Nations Alliance of Civilizations takes place in Vienna today.  In our experience most UN initiatives these days have a pro-sharia twist.  The UNHRC for instance spends a lot of time criticising Israel but does not seem to adequately confront the human rights abuses elsewhere (1). Perhaps the UNHRCs work is corrupted because it gives membership to countries who are human rights abusers.  It produces UNHRC Resolution 16/18 but apparently does nothing to ensure that the member states of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) permit the religious freedom, a freedom that it purports to uphold.  In effect UNHRC Resolution 16/18 has become a pro-sharia document designed specifically to expand the reach of sharia.

We expect that the Alliance of Civilizations will be no different and will prove to be yet another mechanism to demonise sharia critics and facilitate the expansion of the zone of sharia compliance that already causes immeasurable misery around the world.  We will be watching the 5th Global Forum with great interest.

See Tundra Tabloids for updates.  Updates will also be posted below:

(1) Israel right to say ‘Enough!’ to grotesquely biased UNHRC inquiry (Haaretz)

Updates:

We are told from people on the ground at the event that the person who introduced the event suggested that they expected more harmony from this forum.  Below is a gist of what specific individuals talked about:

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

Suggested that anti-Muslim sentiment was commonplace. That Muslims are being vilified instead of being embraced.  That leaders need to speak the language of tolerance.  That the three most important issues that needed to be addressed by all speakers were:

1) The impasse between Israelis and Palestinians

2) The situation in Mali

3) The situation in Syria

Prime Minister of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

Suggested that racist attacks are on the rise.  That the magnitude of the threat is threefold:

1) lack of information

2) Intolerance

3) Prejudice – he believes that we can eliminate the threat posed by prejudice.  He

mentioned that there are many good examples of people living in harmony and such societies are more successful – however he did not name any of these countries or societies.

He suggested that we witness harsh and insulting behaviour towards Muslims and that this is an unconscionable act.  Also that we need to act on prejudices and need to consider Islamophobia as a crime against humanity. He suggested that no religion would ever endorse violence, that Islam is a religion of peace and that the word ‘Islam’ means peace.

On behalf of turkey he asked whether the UN Security Council represented the whole world and he concluded that it did not. He asked whether it represented all religious groups.  He suggested that the fundamental problem is that the Alliance of Civilizations needs to establish and alliance with the Security Council.

ICLA Comment: Our prediction of that the Alliance of Civilizations is a pro-sharia front seems to be coming true based on much of what has been reported above.  The focus seems very focused on issues that are seen as important to Islamic countries.  Nothing has been said about the persecution of non-Muslims in the Islamic world.  It seems from what Mr Erdoğan was saying about the Security Council that there should be permanent Islamic representation on that body.  This perhaps is an indication that Islam has political objectives.  It must be remembered that the Security Council is not a religious assembly.

We have a further update.  It appears that human rights issues have not been raised at this event though the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights was mentioned twice.  Much has been said with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict and the plight of the Palestinian.  There was a round of applause when Palestine’s receipt of UNESCO status was mentioned.

Outgoing High Representative of the Alliance of Civilisations, Jorge Sampaio

He emphasized that we should not be talking but doing.  He raised the issue of successes and achievements of the Alliance of Civilizations but did not mention a single one.  He suggested that we need common ground and minimum standards of behivaiour, though he never mentioned what this might mean in practice.  He spoke about his desire for a world conference hosted by the Alliance of Civilizations with goal being to address the need to go back to zero with a bold vision and measurable goals.

Incoming High Representative of the Alliance of Civilisations, Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser

He referred to the prevalence of intolerance and xenophobia.  He emphasised the importance of the role of the Alliance of Civilizations to enhance international cooperation to advance a vision and ensure responsible leadership and good decision making.

ICLA Comment: It is clear that the Alliance of Civilizations is nothing more than a tool for totalitarian tyrants to impose their will on the rest of the world.  Dictatorships just want to impose their tyrannical rules on the rest of the world. When the free world says that it will not tolerate despotic rule, these dictatorships say that it is an insult to their culture. 

Press TV’s Obscene Anti-Semitism

789_largeIPT News


Iran’s Press TV scored an international scoop Tuesday. It turns out, it reports, the massacre of 20 schoolchildren and six of their teachers and administrators was not the work of a troubled loner. Rather, it was Israeli death squads exacting vengeance over a recent United Nations General Assembly vote granting Palestine nonmember observer status.

In a time of national grieving unmatched since the 9/11 attacks, the Iranian government’s English-language news outlet used the opportunity to promote vile anti-Semitic conspiracies so extreme that not even the most strident Islamists have offered anything close to them.

The claim came from Michael Harris, who was one of three panelists in a discussion about the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. While the other panelists focused on a culture of violence in America, or the issue of gun laws, Harris unleashed a torrent of Jew hatred.

“Hollywood is Jewish owned and Jewish controlled and they spew filth and they spew violence out,” he said. Jews are the ones pushing for gun control. Jews control Congress.

“And now here we go, here’s a revenge killing in the U.S., sponsored by Israel, that killed all these innocent children,” Harris said. “And that is something that Israelis do very, very well. They target the innocent, they target children, they target women and they avoid the issue. Because they’re angry they didn’t get their way and now Palestine has standing in the U.N. and Israel is going to be subject to the International Criminal Court and their leadership is going to be taken to task. So let’s connect the dots here about what’s going on globally, geo-politically with Israel involved.”

While the other two guests dismissed Harris’ theories, saying Israel had nothing to do with Newtown and tried to steer the conversation back to the brutal killing, the Press TV hostess never pushed back. A video of the segment shows Harris spoke longer than the others during the 25-minute segment and was given the last word.

The United States considers Iran the world’s leading state-sponsor of international terrorism. But that fact hasn’t stopped American Islamists, led by officials from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) from repeatedly appearing on Press TV programs to bash American policy or culture. It might be different if they tried to speak truth to power, criticizing Iran for its terror support or repression of its own people.

But instead, they have blamed America for Muslim riots over the Internet video mocking Mohammed last fall. They have cast America as being at war with Islam, a message considered to be one of the most potent tools in recruiting Muslims to violent jihad, and likened America’s treatment of Muslims to the way Jews were treated in Nazi Germany. Examples go on and on.

They grant legitimacy to a broadcast outlet pushing conspiracy theories like a modern Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Press TV followed up the Newtown panel discussion by publishing a story on Harris’ theory on its website. “Israeli death squads involved in Sandy Hook bloodbath: Intelligence analyst,” the headline blares. It describes Harris as “a former Republican candidate for governor of Arizona and GOP campaign finance chairman.”

The Press TV article asserts Israel staged the attack “to teach America a lesson, knowing that America would take the punishment, keep ‘quiet,’ and let a ‘fall guy’ take the blame.”

If the publishing of cartoons and Internet videos depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad can spark riots and killings throughout the world, what does a blood libel like the Sandy Hook conspiracy theory do to Muslim attitudes toward Jews?

Blaming Zionists and blaming Jews for problems large and small is a reflex action in parts of the Middle East, including claims Jews were behind the 9/11 attacks. Hamas instills it in young children. Islamists in Egypt blamed Jews for a New Year’s Eve 2011 bombing at a Coptic church that killed 21 people, a message echoed by Press TV.

The article on the Newtown shooting was written by Gordon Duff, identified as “a Marine Vietnam veteran, a combat infantryman, and Senior Editor at Veterans Today.” Harris also writes for Veterans Today, including articles defending David Duke as “a shining example of western freedom and democracy.”

Another article details his suspicions that Jews, what he calls “organized jewery” was behind Jared Loughner’s shooting attack in Tucson that wounded U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed six people, including U.S. District Judge John Roll.

“My point here is: will organized jewery, the Neo-Pharisees that comprise the unelected criminal shadow government sacrifice an asset like Congresswoman Giffords to advance their bigger agenda?? You bet they will. The criminals who took down the WTC and the Murrah Building in Oklahoma, will eagerly sacrifice a pawn to pass stricter gun control measures and dis-arm the US population. The armed US population is the biggest obstacle that still exists for the shadow government of the Neo-Pharisees to fully implement a totalitarian state here in the USA, just like they destroyed Czarist Russia and created the Soviet Union, they work day and night to impose that same hell on the citizens of the USA.”

Press TV officials should have been aware of Harris’ views before they invited him on the air and let him unleash his empty conspiracy theories and hate rhetoric.

Duff’s Press TV article says Harris points to “the flood of inconsistencies in the ‘cover story.'” But those amount to a series of unanswered questions about alleged accomplices and unsourced claims that police gunned down the shooter, Adam Lanza, after he tried to surrender.

“After Harris’ broadcast, key members of the military and law enforcement community contacted Veterans Today in full support of Harris’ analysis,” Duff writes.

“One three star general is quoted as saying, ‘Harris hit the nail right on the head and it is about time someone spoke up.'”

What other proof is needed? In the broadcast interview, Harris predicted a grand cover-up by Congress, which he said is owned by Zionists. The absence of proof, therefore, is his proof.

“So any truth of this, if there’s going to be, is going to be hidden because Israel wants it hidden because they are once again the guilty party,” Harris said. “You have to realize, Israel has been operating death squads in the United States now since Gabby Giffords and Judge Roll were shot in Tucson. There’s been other incidences. The Aurora, Colorado shooting that was, again, Israeli death squads operating in the U.S.”

Fellow panelist Raynard Jackson, a Washington-based political consultant, called Harris’ comments “irresponsible.” A third panelist, Don Debar, said that the United States is the “pre-eminent imperial power in the history of the planet.” As such, it controls Israel “although there is some backwash in the Congress and other places.”

Given the last word, Harris went off on another rant, condemning American drone strikes abroad, which, “again,” he said, “it goes back to Israeli influence in U.S. foreign policy.” If he had not done so in the previous 20 minutes, he made it clear that he and Iran are on the same page.

Read more at IPT

Benghazi Investigator Slams America and ‘Islamophobes’

By Matthew Vadum

America is a seething hotbed of “Islamophobia,” filled with ignorant racist rubes who irrationally fear the benign Muslim religion, according to the Obama administration’s lead investigator into the Benghazi atrocities.

So said former Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering in more polished, diplomatic language during an Oct. 23 panel discussion at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. The talk was on “what role the faith community can play in fighting Islamophobia,” a make-believe mental illness that Islamists would love to have listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Radical Islam’s stateside defenders frequently accuse anti-terrorism hawks of “McCarthyism,” hurling the epithet “Islamophobe” the same way American leftists use the word “racist” to shut down debate.

Pickering’s pontifications came two and a half weeks after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton named him to head a State Department “Accountability Review Board” tasked with examining the circumstances surrounding the deaths on Sept. 11, 2012, the 11th anniversary of 9/11, of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, information management officer Sean Smith, and security personnel Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods at the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.

At last week’s panel discussion, Pickering piously but incorrectly invoked the Holocaust to argue that American Muslims were somehow in danger.

“I’m not great at quotations,” he said, foreshadowing a misattribution to come.

“Perhaps it was [German theologian and dissident] Dietrich Bonhoeffer who said of the Nazis, when they came for the Jews, I didn’t speak up. I was not a Jew. When they came for the Catholics, I didn’t speak up, I was not a Catholic. When they came for us, no one spoke up. There was no one left to do so,” Pickering said, paraphrasing famous, poignant verses actually spoken by Third Reich-era German pastor Martin Niemoller.

Pickering said that Americans’ lack of familiarity with Islam –and not Islamic terrorist attacks on Americans— fuels hostility toward Muslims.

“Data shows that those Americans who do not know Muslims, who do not know much about Islam, are the ones who harbor the greatest feelings of prejudice,” he said.

There is a “strong, continuing, and perhaps, in an unfortunate way in some areas, growing, prejudice against Muslims and Islam,” he said.

However, he added that veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have so far avoided embracing this anti-Islamic bigotry. “Many of the soldiers are still serving and I think that also is helpful because they understand that as loyal Americans that kind of prejudice is not to be expressed.”

Pickering urged what might amount to a zero-tolerance policy against so-called Islamophobes in American society. “There are strong efforts as well that we must make to deal with opinion leaders who harbor these prejudices, who espouse them and spread them,” he said.

Although the former envoy did not elaborate on what those “strong efforts” might consist of, his statement is worrisome. The Obama administration is openly hostile to the First Amendment.

After the Benghazi debacle, President Obama went before the United Nations General Assembly and apologized for America’s free speech protections. Pushing the false cover story that the attacks on U.S. missions this past Sept. 11 were prompted by an anti-Islam video virtually no one saw, the president said that “the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” Weeks before that, Department of Justice official Thomas Perez pointedly refused during a congressional hearing to rule out supporting Saudi-style anti-blasphemy laws.

Read more at Front Page

Egyptian President Warns World: ‘We Will Not Allow’ Insults to Islam

Newly elected Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi speaks at the UN (Photo; Reuters)

Family Security Matters:

In his speech to the United Nations on Wednesday,  Egypt’s President  Mohamed  Morsi condemned “insults hurled on the prophet  of Islam,  Mohammed,” and said  the United Nations must do something  about it.

“We reject this. We cannot accept it,” he said, speaking of insults   to  Islam. “And we will be the opponents of those who do this. We will   not allow anyone to do this by word or deed.”

The warning that “We will not allow anyone to do this” was spoken   through a translator and did not appear in the prepared  text of Morsi’s  speech.

Mentioning “an organized campaign against Islamic sanctities,” Morsi   said  the U.N. has a “main responsibility” in addressing Islamophobia,   which “is  starting to have implications that clearly affect   international peace and  security.”

“We all have to work together,” Morsi said. “We must join hands in    confronting these regressive ideas that hinder cooperation among us. We   must  move together to confront extremism and discrimination and   incitement to  hatred on the basis of religion or race.”

Moments later, Morsi addressed freedom of expression, saying it has  limits:

“Egypt respects freedom of expression — freedom of expression that   is not  used to incite hatred against anyone, not a freedom of expression   that targets  a specific religion or a specific culture; a freedom of   expression that  tackles extremism and violence, not the freedom of   expression that deepens  ignorance and disregards others.

“We also, as we have said before and reaffirmed before, we also stand    firmly against the use of violence in expressing objection to these    obscenities.”

While Morsi did not call for a global ban on blasphemy in his speech to the  U.N., other Muslim leaders have done so.

As CNSNews.com  reported,   the leaders of the world’s two most populous Muslim countries  used   their speeches at the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday to call   for a legally-binding, global anti-blasphemy protocol.

Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and his Pakistan   counterpart,  Asif Ali Zardari, both argued that insults against   Mohammed, Islam’s prophet,  incite violence and are not legitimate free   speech.

For an in depth analysis of the entire Morsi speech see Ryan Mauro’s article, “Morsi Blasts UN With Brotherhood Agenda” at radicalislam.org

Also see Robert Spencer’s  Ahmadinejad and Morsi lay out the Islamic agenda (frontpagemag.com)

 

Obama to Condemn Christian Filmmaker Before United Nations

by John Nolte

Not only are we seeing the White House and State Department call more attention to the Mohammed-mocking “Innocence of Muslims” than any terrorist network ever could’ve hoped for, but the President’s indefensible scapegoating of the film and filmmaker to draw attention and blame away from U.S. security failures apparently knows no bounds.

Next week, Obama will denounce the film in a speech before the United Nations General Assembly:

National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor previews the president’s speech to the UN General Assembly next week:

“UNGA always provides an opportunity for the President to put the international situation in context, and to put forward a vision of US leadership. I would certainly expect the President to address the recent unrest in the Muslim world, and the broader context of the democratic transitions in the Arab World.”

“As he has in recent days, the President will make it clear that we reject the views in this video, while also underscoring that violence is never acceptable[.]

My God, between the media and the Obama White House, we are finally witnessing Orwell’s “1984” blossom to life.

As our economy slows, incomes shrink, unemployment creeps up, and poverty explodes — the media assures us we’re in “recovery” and that our frustrations should be taken out on “Emmanuel Goldstein,” also known as “America’s Successful.”

As Obama’s appalling policy of disengaging in the Middle East comes to fruition in the form of the region exploding and al-Qaeda’s targeted assassination of an American ambassador — the media spends two weeks savaging Mitt Romney and directing our sorrow, rage, and helplessness on “Emmanuel Goldstein,” also known as “A Stupid Filmmaker.”

For weeks this administration, aided and abetted by The State Media, has shamelessly lied to us about what happened in Libya. Moreover, in order to cover up and distract for unforgivable security lapses, this hapless filmmaker has been targeted for all of the blame — certainly more blame than the Administration’s failure to secure a consulate on 9/11 (of all days), but even more blame than the actual murderers.

And now, even though we know the truth about what really happened in Libya, it won’t stop. It will never stop. Because Obama knows his media will never make him pay a political price for lying and scapegoating.

At all costs, the media quietly whispers amongst themselves, Obama must be reelected.

Read more at Breitbart

 

 

Scores of U.S. Visas for Ahmadinejad’s Bulging Entourage

By Claudia Rosett:

When Iran’s pro-genocide president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, attends the United Nations General Assembly annual opening in New York this coming week, how many Iranian officials will he bring in his entourage?

Far too many, if the numbers reported today by Iran’s Fars News Agency are to be believed. As Fars describes it, the U.S. has denied entry visas to 20 Iranian officials, but that’s out of “the 160 people for whom the Iranian government had demanded entry visas two months ago.”

Let’s do the math. 160 visas demanded, minus 20 denied = a whopping total of 140 visas issued for the Ahmadinejad delegation to the UN General Assembly.

That would be 140 visas allowing entry for officials and affiliates of a regime under UN and U.S. sanctions — a nuclear-bomb-seeking regime implicated just last fall in an alleged terror plot to murder the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. by bombing a restaurant in Washington, D.C.; a regime whose terror-based rule, networks and ambitions violate the UN’s own charter and threaten America and America’s allies.

That’s 140 visas for a regime that continues to dodge sanctions with shifting, globe-girdling networks of front companies and illicit procurement operations for its missile and nuclear programs. Presumably, U.S. authorities — at considerable expense to U.S. taxpayers — will not only protect Ahmadinejad and his retinue while they are in New York, but also keep an eye on the doings of members of this massive Tehran roadshow, while they enjoy the amenities of Manhattan. But U.S. officialdom didn’t manage to prevent Ahmadinejad himself from recruiting the services of an Iranian-American sanctions violator, Ali Amirnazmi, during one of his previous trips to UN headquarters in New York. Instead, U.S. taxpayers got to foot the bill, rather later, for prosecuting this fellow, once law enforcement eventually caught up with him.

For the U.S. State Department, it is apparently routine to issue scores of U.S. visas for Iran’s massive delegations.  In 2010, when Ahmadinejad made an extra trip to the UN in New York, to attend a summit on nonproliferation (no, I’m not kidding), the U.S. State Department apparently issued 80 visas for that delegation – a number that became public because Iran had apparently requested a total of 81 visas, and when State denied just one of them, Iran wrote to the UN to complain about the lone denial. For State, it’s business as usual to admit scores of Iranian officials to New York every time they fancy a visit to a UN summit. As for New York’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg, he’s on record as shrugging off these huge Iranian delegations as distasteful, but an unavoidable part of hosting the UN, which he regards as a boon to New York City’s economy. (Surely New York could more profitably put its resources into welcoming tax-paying honest commerce, rather than gloating Iranian envoys?)

Is anyone in American officialdom counting the real cost to the U.S. of permitting Iran’s president to roll into Manhattan with an entourage that this year looks likely to surpass the size of the U.S. Senate? Even beyond the costs of security and surveillance, such U.S. kow-towing to Iran’s visa demands allows Iran to saturate the UN summit with Iranian officials, and sends Iran the message that it is welcome to exploit access to the UN. Further abuse of such access is sure to follow, especially with Iran serving these next three years as head of the 120-member Non-Aligned Movement, which includes well over half the members of the UN General Assembly.

Will Ahmadinejad’s delegation to New York this coming week actually include, as the Fars dispatch implies, 140 members?  Who are these people? There is no simple way to check. The U.S. State Department does not release lists of visas issued for UN meetings in New York — though it should. What’s to hide? And while the UN does post lists of delegation members, these lists tend not to appear until weeks after the General Assembly has concluded its opening business. When these lists do appear, they can be incomplete — based on information submitted by the member states. Iran’s record is not one of full disclosure.

There’s a powerful argument for banning Iran’s envoys wholesale from entry to the U.S., no matter what the UN, or the U.S. State Department, or Mayor Bloomberg might prefer. America could actually do the UN a favor in this regard, by holding it to the terms of its own charter — something that could potentially bring a big boost to the tenor and behavior of an organization that is open, in theory, only to peace-loving nations dedicated to such worthy goals as upholding human dignity. When Iran’s officials threaten to wipe Israel off the map, the UN response should be to eject Iran from the UN. If the UN won’t do that, and the U.S. State Department insists on allowing the president of Iran to come to New York to strut the stage of the UN General Assembly, the very least the State Department could do is refuse visas to the rest of his entourage. Let them, in all their massive numbers, tune in by webcast from Tehran. It would be cheaper and safer for New York, for America, and ultimately for that “international community” now descending on Manhattan.

published at PJMedia

U.S. Hands Ahmadinejad a Global Microphone

by: Anne Bayefsky:

Just a few days after the anniversary of the September 11 terror attacks, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will travel to New York City. Once he arrives he will be handed a platform to incite violence and hostility from the center of the UN universe, just a few miles from Ground Zero.

This is a man who openly advocates genocide, brazenly endeavors to commit terrorist attacks on American soil, kills and kidnaps Americans abroad, brutalizes his own people, sponsors terrorism around the world, and is on the verge of acquiring a nuclear bomb.

Today, on 9/11, we need to ask why. Why is he being given this global megaphone?

In September of 2010 Ahmadinejad used the podium of the United Nations General Assembly to make this claim about the 9/11 terror attacks: “Some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy…”

In September of 2011 he complained that “Colonial powers … threaten anyone who questions the Holocaust.”

It is a moral outrage that the Obama administration is facilitating Ahmadinejad’s return to the United States in September of 2012.

Many argue that the 1947 Headquarters Agreement between the UN and the U.S. leaves no room for the White House to maneuver on this point. The deal that was struck states that the U.S. government “shall not impose any impediments to transit to or from the headquarters district” (a defined area in New York City’s east side) to a representative of a UN member state.

But the same agreement also says the following:  “It is agreed that no form of racial or religious discrimination shall be permitted within the headquarters district.”

Ahmadinejad is the quintessential bigot.  In 2008, he told the General Assembly “a small but deceitful number of people called Zionists … have been dominating an important portion of the financial and monetary centers as well as the political decision-making centers of some Europeans countries and the US in a deceitful, complex and furtive manner.”  If the agreement were applied as it should be, “no form of racial or religious discrimination” would mean no President Ahmadinejad in New York.

In 1988 Yassir Arafat, then Head of the Palestine Liberation Organization was denied a visa and unimpeded transit when he tried to address the General Assembly, despite the objections of UN legal counsel. The State Department pointed to the “security reservation” that Congress had attached to the resolution which brought the Headquarters Agreement into force. Congress had stipulated that nothing in the agreement diminished or weakened “the right of the United States to safeguard its own security…”

Surely, the security threat posed by aiding and abetting Ahmadinejad is as great or greater than the threat posed by Arafat.

Denying Ahmadinejad a New York launching pad also meets the expectations of the UN Charter itself, since all UN members have “resolved” “to reaffirm faith … in the dignity and worth of the human person,” “to establish conditions under which justice … can be maintained,” and “to employ international machinery for the promotion of … advancement of all peoples.”

But the Obama administration is not enabling Ahmadinejad’s warmongering hate speech just because today’s state department lawyers assert that their hands are tied.  Legitimizing the presence of the Iranian president in the United States on the world stage is a key tenet of  President Obama’s foreign policy. It goes by various lofty names like “diplomacy” or “engagement.”

Monday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Bloomberg Radio, when asked about setting “red lines” to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon: “We’re not setting deadlines … [W]e have more time … to do everything we can to bring Iran to a good faith negotiation.”

Read more at Fox News

Related articles