Discovering Kryptonite, Disabling Superman

Cross-posed by Maggie at Maggie’s Notebook

Barack
Obama’s none-too-subtle globalist tendencies, and the U.N.’s enraptured
enchantment with Islam will fit each other like a silken glove.

How
does America refuse to race down this dangerous super-highway? How do
we expose the U.N.’s capitulation to Arab nations wanting Israel
destroyed? How has the free world allowed this to happen? How does the
corruption in the U.N. become a pressing issue to Americans? How do we
get the American taxpayer to listen to, and recognize, the truth?

General Assembly Ignored Sudan, But Condemned Israel 22 Times

The
countless anti-Israel resolutions and related debates consume an
astonishing proportion of the UN community’s precious resources. This
year, during the 61th Session of the General Assembly (2006-2007), the
time spent by ambassadors on enacting the 22nd anti-Israel resolution
of the year was time not spent on passing a single resolution on
Sudan’s genocide in Darfur.

Anne Bayefsky, writing
for National Review Online, looks at the future of U.S.-U.N. relations
with Obama in the Oval Office, and looks back at the mistakes of George
W. Bush.

U.N. American Agenda
National Review Online
by Anne Bayefsky

Nobody
is happier about the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency of the
United States than the folks at the United Nations. It is as if they
finally discovered kryptonite, and Superman will soon be disabled.

The
U.N. is an uncomplicated place. Every sick, unsatiated tyrant, European
has-been, or miserable wretch brainwashed about the Great Satan wants
to take America down – unless they are able to immigrate of course.
Their modus operandi? The United Nations.

The
beauty of it, from the perspective of the majority, is that Americans
are paying for their own demise. Americans are even convinced that the
flagellation must be deserved.

President Obama will take over
from where what might be called “Bush III” left off. The foreign policy
of Bush II was so different than that of the man currently in office,
it’s hard to ascribe them to the same human being.

Even die-hard
U.N. enthusiasts admit they were pleased with many aspects of the
American-UN relationship over the last few years, particularly after
Bush III fed Bush II’s U.N. ambassador John Bolton to the wolves.
Ongoing genocide in Darfur was shuffled off to the ponderous
International Criminal Court. The Israel-Lebanon war was “solved” with
a Security Council resolution. The U.N. reform package, and any serious
effort at economic oversight after Kofi Annan’s Oil-for-food scandal,
was tossed out the window. The green light was given to a multi-billion
dollar renovation of U.N. headquarters in midtown Manhattan,
notwithstanding advice that it could have done for a fraction of the
cost. Efforts to tie reform or accountability to American U.N.
contributions were abandoned, and five billion a year flows smoothly
from American taxpayers to U.N. bank accounts.

On November 13,
2008, Bush III will chum around with Saudi mobster King Abdullah at
U.N. premises in New York. The occasion is a Saudi-initiated event on
“a culture of peace” which a U.N. spokesperson describes as “religious
dialogue, plus.” The spectacle completes the Bush III metamorphosis.
Think back to the image of Christian American soldiers stationed in
Saudi Arabia in order to protect the country from Saddam Hussein, but
forced to hide the crosses around their necks because their public
display is a criminal act in the Kingdom?

Bush III
notwithstanding, President Obama will have what his friends will call
an unprecedented opportunity to tie American foreign policy to the U.N.
ship of state, lance it down, and sail off into the sunset, never to be
separated again. The predicament of the Saudi wife would be an apt
comparison.

The U.N. apparatus has mapped out the priorities for
President Obama’s early days in office (taking it for granted he’ll be
hightailing it out of Iraq), and the only question is how fast
President Obama will say “I do.” Here’s the plan now sitting on the
President-elect’s desk:

Run
for election to the U.N. Human Rights Council as a vote of confidence
in the U.N. “human rights” apparatus and the ability to change it from
the inside. (Forget that the U.S. would have one vote, that the Western
regional group of states is overwhelmingly outnumbered, and that reform
of an agency serving the human rights abusers is the last thing of
interest to the abusers firmly in control.)

Decide to participate in the Durban II “anti-racism” conference in
April 2009, and send along a high-level emissary such as the Secretary
of State. It would be hard to run for re-election to the Human Rights
Council without attending the Council’s number-one priority, which is
scheduled to take place shortly before the election. (Ignore that
Durban II is a unredeemable and dangerous fraud. It adopts an
anti-racism mantra to foment racism, the demonization of Israel and the
defeat of free speech.)

Revitalize the Middle East Quartet, which drives the Arab-Israeli
conflict through a multilateral prism with the U.N. as a full and equal
partner. (Dismiss the fact that the U.N. partner always weighs in on
just one side of the conflict, adopting the predetermined position that
Israel is the “root” of the problem and any Arab “peace” proposal is
the solution.)

Put Israel on the chopping block. “Israel first” has long been the
calling card of the UN. The U.N. governing principle is this: “if only
Israel did x, y, and z,” (the list to be expanded in response to
successive Arab no’s), animus against the West would cease,
terrorism would stop, the messiah would appear, and there would be no
more war. (This might be called the “ass-backwards approach to Middle
East politics,” since Israel is actually on the front line of the war
against democracy and America’s way of life, not bringing up the rear.
Serving up an Israeli hors d’oeuvre is just that – first course.)

Drive the effort to stop terrorism through the 2006 United Nations
Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. (The strategy contains no definition
of terrorism since U.N. members can’t agree on what counts as
terrorism. It inverts priorities by focusing first and foremost on
alleged “conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism,” such as
“poverty” and “youth unemployment” “religious discrimination” and
“socio-economic marginalization.” Plain old Jew-hatred or enmity of
freedom and equality are mysteriously absent from the list of causes.)

Agree to some form of global taxation, giving rise to an even more
powerful, wealthy, and undemocratic U.N. fiefdom (and a poorer America).

All
that remains is for President Obama to put a date beside each one of
the items on the U.N.’s first “to do” list. And down we’ll go.

— Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and at Touro College. She is also editor of www.EyeontheUN.org