Nikki Haley Threatens U.N. With Defunding Over Resolution Condemning U.S. Jerusalem Decision By Tim Hains

Source: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/12/21/nikki_haley_threatens_un_with_defunding_over_resolution_condemning_us_jerusalem_decision.html

December 21, 2017

UN Ambassador Nikki Haley weighs in on the General Assembly's debate about whether or not to condemn the U.S. for recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

In a major diplomatic blow to Israel and U.S. President Donald Trump, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution rejecting the American recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, with 128 member states voting in favor of the resolution and a mere nine voting against it.

NIKKI HALEY: The United States is by far, the single largest contributor to the United Nations and its agencies.

We do this in part to advance our values and our interests. When that happens, our participation in the UN produces great good for the world... We hold outlaw regimes accountable. We do this because it represents who we are. It is our American way.

But I will be honest with you, when we make generous contributions to the UN, we also have a legitimate expectation that our goodwill is recognized and respected.

When a nation is singled out for an attack in this organization, that nation is disresepected. What's more, that nation is asked to pay for the privilege of being disrespected.

In the case of the United States, we are asked to pay more than anyone else for that dubious privilege.

Unlike some U.N, member countries, the United States government is answerable to its people, as such we have an obligation to acknowledge when our political and financial capital is being poorly spent.

We have an obligation to demand more for our investment, and if our investment fails, we have an obligation to spend our resources in more productive ways. Those are the thoughts that come to mind when we consider the resolution before us today.

Full text of Nikki Haley’s speech to UN General Assembly on Jerusalem

Source: https://www.timesofisrael.com/full-text-of-nikki-haleys-speech-to-un-general-assembly-on-jerusalem/

'The US will remember this day, in which it was singled out for attack in the General Assembly for the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation'

21 December 2017


United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, addresses the General Assembly prior to the vote on Jerusalem, on December 21, 2017, at UN Headquarters in New York. (AFP PHOTO / EDUARDO MUNOZ ALVAREZ)

US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley spoke to the UN General Assembly ahead of its vote on the status of Jerusalem, December 21, 2017:

Thank you, Mr. President.

To its shame, the United Nations has long been a hostile place for the state of Israel. Both the current and the previous Secretary-Generals have objected to the UN’s disproportionate focus on Israel. It’s a wrong that undermines the credibility of this institution, and that in turn is harmful for the entire world.

I’ve often wondered why, in the face of such hostility, Israel has chosen to remain a member of this body. And then I remember that Israel has chosen to remain in this institution because it’s important to stand up for yourself. Israel must stand up for its own survival as a nation; but it also stands up for the ideals of freedom and human dignity that the United Nations is supposed to be about.

Standing here today, being forced to defend sovereignty and the integrity of my country – the United States of America – many of the same thoughts have come to mind. The United States is by far the single largest contributor to the United Nations and its agencies. We do this, in part, in order to advance our values and our interests. When that happens, our participation in the UN produces great good for the world. Together we feed, clothe, and educate desperate people. We nurture and sustain fragile peace in conflict areas throughout the world. And we hold outlaw regimes accountable. We do this because it represents who we are. It is our American way.

But we’ll be honest with you. When we make generous contributions to the UN, we also have a legitimate expectation that our good will is recognized and respected. When a nation is singled out for attack in this organization, that nation is disrespected. What’s more, that nation is asked to pay for the “privilege” of being disrespected.

In the case of the United States, we are asked to pay more than anyone else for that dubious privilege. Unlike in some UN member countries, the United States government is answerable to its people. As such, we have an obligation to acknowledge when our political and financial capital is being poorly spent.

We have an obligation to demand more for our investment. And if our investment fails, we have an obligation to spend our resources in more productive ways. Those are the thoughts that come to mind when we consider the resolution before us today.

The arguments about the President’s decision to move the American embassy to Jerusalem have already been made. They are by now well known. The decision was in accordance to U.S. law dating back to 1995, and it’s position has been repeatedly endorsed by the American people ever since. The decision does not prejudge any final status issues, including Jerusalem’s boundaries. The decision does not preclude a two-state solution, if the parties agree to that. The decision does nothing to harm peace efforts. Rather, the President’s decision reflects the will of the American people and our right as a nation to choose the location of our embassy. There is no need to describe it further.

Instead, there is a larger point to make. The United States will remember this day in which it was singled out for attack in the General Assembly for the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation. We will remember it when we are called upon to once again make the world’s largest contribution to the United Nations. And we will remember it when so many countries come calling on us, as they so often do, to pay even more and to use our influence for their benefit.

America will put our embassy in Jerusalem. That is what the American people want us to do, and it is the right thing to do. No vote in the United Nations will make any difference on that.

But this vote will make a difference on how Americans look at the UN and on how we look at countries who disrespect us in the UN. And this vote will be remembered.

Thank you.

How each country voted at the UN on Jerusalem status resolution

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/22/middleeast/jerusalem-vote-united-nations-list-intl/index.html

Voted "No" to the resolution: 9

Guatemala
Honduras
Israel
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Nauru
Palau
Togo
US

Abstained: 35

Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Australia
Bahamas
Benin
Bhutan
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Cameroon
Canada
Colombia
Croatia
Czech Republic
Dominican Republic
Equatorial Guinea
Fiji
Haiti
Hungary
Jamaica
Latvia
Lesotho
Kiribati
Malawi
Mexico
Panama
Paraguay
Philippines
Poland
Romania
Rwanda
Solomon Islands
South Sudan
Trinidad and Tobago
Tuvalu
Uganda
Vanuatu

Voted "Yes" to the resolution: 128

Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Andorra
Angola
Armenia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belgium
Belize
Bolivia
Botswana
Brazil
Brunei
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cape Verde
Cambodia
Chad
Chile
China
Comoros
Congo
Costa Rica
Cuba
Cyprus
Denmark
Dijbouti
Dominica
Ecuador
Egypt
Eritrea
Estonia
Finland
France
Gabon
Gambia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Grenada
Guinea
Guyana
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Ireland
Italy
Ivory Coast
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Lebanon
Liberia
Libya
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Madagascar
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Malta
Mauritania
Mauritius
Monaco
Montenegro
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
North Korea
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Papua New Guinea
Peru
Portugal
Qatar
Russia
St Vincent and Grenadines
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia
Seychelles
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
Somalia
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Suriname
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Macedonia
Tunisia
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zimbabwe

Israel in talks with more than 10 countries over Jerusalem embassy move By Chris Perez

Source: https://nypost.com/2017/12/25/israel-in-talks-with-more-than-10-countries-over-jerusalem-embassy-move/

December 25, 2017


Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely

Israel is in talks with more than 10 countries — including some in Europe — about potentially moving their respective embassies to Jerusalem, according to officials.

Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely on Monday said the nations were interested in following President Trump’s footsteps and declaring the Israeli city the new capital in the wake of Guatemala’s recent decision to do so.

While she refused to name the countries, Hotovely told Israel Radio that they were from every continent on earth.

Honduras is reportedly the next in line to take Trump’s lead.

“We are in contact with at least ten countries, some of them in Europe,” Hotovely said, according to i24NEWS.

Honduras, like Guatemala, was one of the nine nations that voted in support of the US in the UN General Assembly’s resolution to oppose Trump’s Jerusalem decision.

Guatemalan President Jimmy Morales announced Sunday that he would be moving his country’s embassy to Jerusalem, despite the UN vote.

Hotovely told local media that the discussions going on with the other nations were still in the early stages. She said they were taking place “with more than 10 countries, but not many more.”

Late Chicago Tribune Columnist Mike Royko On Political Correctness

A Nose Rub Of Sorts For Ditzy Word Jocks

Source: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1990-06-01/news/9002140598_1_dictionary-words-fried-chicken

June 01, 1990|By Mike Royko.

Maybe it's time to wave the white flag. The age of super-sensitivity is crushing me.

I started to feel like a beaten man while reading a list of words that I shouldn't use because they might offend someone.

The bad-word dictionary was put together by a panel of news people on something called the Multicultural Management Program at the University of Missouri School of Journalism.

The introduction to their bad-word dictionary says:

"As newspapers move into the 1990s, there will be more emphasis on including minorities in daily stories-accurately, succinctly and in good taste. Language usage that has been acceptable in the past may no longer be acceptable.

"The following is a checklist of words, many objectionable, that reporters and editors must be aware of in order to avoid offending and perpetuating stereotypes."

Some of the words on the list are obviously offensive: nigger, chink, faggot. So you don`t see them in newspapers.

But "Dutch treat?" "Airhead?" And how about such shockers as barracuda, burly, buxom, dear, dingbat, ditz, dizzy, fried chicken, gorgeous, gyp, housewife, illegal alien, Ivan, jock, johns, lazy, pert, petite, rubbing noses, shiftless, stunning, sweetie, and ugh.

That's right, "ugh." The dictionary says: "A gutteral word used to mimic American Indian speech. Highly offensive."

Why not "Dutch treat?" They say: "To share the cost, as in a date. Implies that Dutch people are cheap."

Shall I go on? It depresses me, but why not?

- Barracuda: "A negative generalization of persons without morals and/or ethical standards or judgments. Many times directed at forceful women."

- Airhead: "Term is an objectionable description, generally aimed at women."

- Burly: "An adjective too often associated with large black men, implying ignorance, and considered offensive in this context."

- Buxom: "Offensive reference to a woman`s chest."

- Dear: "A term of endearment objectionable to some. Usage such as 'He was a dear man,' or 'she is a dear,' should be avoided."

- Dingbat: "Objectionable term that describes women as intellectually inferior."

- Ditz: "Objectionable term meaning stupid."

- Dizzy: "Avoid as an adjective for women."

- Fried chicken: "A loaded phrase when used carelessly and as a stereotype, referring to the cuisine of black people. Also applies to watermelon."

- Gorgeous: "An adjective that describes female physical attributes. Use carefully."

- Gyp: "An offensive term, meaning to cheat, derived from Gypsy."

- Illegal alien: "Often used to refer to Mexicans and Latin Americans believed to be in the United States without visas; the preferred term is undocumented worker or undocumented resident."

- Ivan: "A common and offensive substitute for a Soviet person."

- Jock: "A term applied to both men and women who participate in sports. Can be offensive to some."

- Johns: "Men who frequent prostitutes, but not a proper generic term for men or bathrooms."

- Lazy: "Use advisedly, especially when describing non-whites."

- Pert: "An adjective describing a female characteristic. Avoid usage."

- Petite: "Reference to a woman`s body size. Can be offensive."

- Rubbing noses: "Allegedly an Eskimo kiss. However, Eskimos don`t rub noses and object to the characterization."

- Senior citizens: "Do not use for anyone under 65. . . . Do not describe people as elderly, senile, matronly or well-preserved. . . . Do not use dirty old man, codger, coot, geezer, silver fox, old-timers, Pop, old buzzard."

- Shiftless: "As a description for blacks, highly objectionable."

- Stunning: "Avoid physical descriptions."

- Sweetie: "Objectionable term of endearment. Do not use."

I've changed my mind. I refuse to knuckle down to the dizzy new-age journalistic airheads in this ditzy Multicultural Management Program.

These dingbats appear to be bigots themselves. They list dozens of words- including fried chicken-that they say offend blacks, gays or women.

But they don`t include "honky," which many blacks call whites, or dago, wop, heeb, kike, mick, herring-choker, frog, kraut, bohunk or polack. Ain't us honkies got feelings too?

Whether or not they like it, Ivan Boesky is a Wall Street barracuda. William Perry, who used to be a fat slob, is now merely burly. My wife is petite and a gorgeous sweetie.

If some geezer unzips in a schoolyard, I reserve my constitutional right to call him a dirty old man.

The damn Rooskies have aimed missiles at me for 40 years, so maybe I'll refer to a Soviet as an Ivan. I've been called worse.

I'll continue to go have Dutch-treat lunches with my friends and check the bill to make sure the waiter didn't gyp me.

Why not "illegal alien?" It`s specific. It means an alien who is here in violation of our immigration laws. But what's an "undocumented worker?"

If I come to work without my wallet, I don't have any documents with me, so I`m an undocumented worker. Will I be deported?

If I decide to say "I hit the john," instead of "I visited the room where one disposes of bodily wastes," I'll do so.

When I put together a softball team, I'll recruit real jocks, not a bunch of wimps, nerds, dweebs or weenies.

And little kids have been rubbing noses and calling it an "Eskimo kiss" as long as I can remember. And that's a long time, since I border on being a geezer, a coot or a codger.

Fried chicken, fried chicken, fried chicken. I said it and I'm glad. Sue me.

In conclusion, your dictionary is a stunning example of lazy, shiftless thinking.

Ugh.

The Politically Smug Offer To Correct My Many Flaws By Mike Royko

Source: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19931105&slug=1730048

November 5, 1993

AS hard as I try to be sensitive and politically correct, I can't avoid bumbling my way into boorish opinions, thus offending those who are truly enlightened.

And it seems to be getting worse all the time. Before noon today, I heard from four members of four groups who bawled me out for insulting them in recent columns.

It began with Erin Gallob, of Crawford, Colo., who didn't like something I wrote about politically correct choices of Halloween costumes for children.

She says: "You ask why should we be sensitive to the feelings of witches?

"My reply: Witchcraft or Wicce is a legitimate, nature-based religion practiced by many people both in America and abroad, and should be accorded the same respect as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc.

"The witch portrayed today at Halloween is the Goddess in her crone aspect. She signifies the dying year and the wisdom that comes with age.

"It was only after the onset of Christianity that the Pagan Wisewoman became a figure of fear and hatred.

"So there is, as you can see, a very good reason to be sensitive to the feelings of witches like myself."

OK, from now on I will be sensitive to the feelings of Ms. Gallob and other witches.

But not vampires. Terrible drinkers. Don't like 'em, don't trust 'em; never have, never will, and I don't want them living next door to me. And I will continue to speak out against them. Werewolves, too. Keep you awake all night with their damn howling.

Next, I managed to anger Edward L. Koven, of Highland Park, Ill., by recounting anecdotes about John Kruk, the wise-cracking Philadelphia baseball player.

One was when a female fan saw Kruk smoking and berated him, saying that an athlete should not use tobacco. Kruk responded, "Lady, I'm not an athlete, I'm a baseball player."

This prompted Mr. Koven to say that my "concept of a hero, John Kruk, is quite warped."

"Since tobacco is a drug containing at least 43 carcinogens and toxins, it should be added to the list of other drugs banned in baseball. Tobacco kills. Kruk and other ballplayers should spread that message - not poisonous tobacco smoke.

"Perhaps you could find other heroes, such as the physicians, nurses and family members who care for and treat the millions of victims of tobacco smoke."

OK, I vow to never again be so warped as to write favorably about Kruk, that despicable spewer of carcinogens and toxins. And to think I cheered for him and his team in the World Series. I am so ashamed.

The third rebuke came from Frank De Avila, of Chicago, who was offended by a column I wrote about Mexico's refusal to extradite Mexicans who commit crimes in the United States, then flee back to their homeland.

De Avila said that I am a known racist and have "single-handedly managed to humiliate millions of honest and law-abiding Mexicans and Mexican-Americans," and that I "implied that they are child abusers, rapists, murderers and drug smugglers."

Well, the last thing I want to do is insult "millions" of law-abiding people. And it was insensitive of me not to realize that when I wrote about specific fugitives, such as the man who raped and almost murdered a 5-year-old girl, millions of law-abiding Mexicans and Mexican-Americans would assume that I was accusing them of being rapists.

Nor will I ever write about any criminals of Polish, Scandinavian, Italian, Greek, German or Asian ancestry, or those who are Catholic or Protestant, and those who are bald, tall, short, medium-height, nearsighted or red-haired, because I wouldn't want to insult the hundreds of millions, or even billions of people who make up those groups.

Besides my being insensitive, our switchboard and mail room couldn't handle all the cries of anguish.

So I apologize to anyone who is of the same ethnic background as serial killer John Gacy, whatever it is. When I said Gacy is a creep, I didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

Finally, there is a Mrs. Johnson, who said she lives in the University of Chicago neighborhood, but did not tell me her first name. However, she did say that I am a hopeless white bigot because I disagreed with the jury's rather mild verdict in the Reginald Denny case.

"What does a racist like you know about what those two boys have been through?" she shouted into the phone. "What do you know about how they grew up being deprived and being disrespected? All you know about is that stupid videotape. What do you know about the social conditions and the economics that forced these boys to do what they did? If you weren't so racist and ignorant, you'd know about those things and you wouldn't write the way you did."

She made a compelling argument. Yes, it is true that social and economic conditions contribute to crime. And they surely were a factor in the attack on truck driver Reginald Denny.

So I must concede that if Damian Williams had been born in a wealthy and privileged environment, he would not have picked up that brick and bashed Reginald Denny in the head.

Maybe he would have used a polo mallet.

(Copyright, 1993, The Chicago Tribune)

Mike Royko's column appears Friday on editorial pages of The Times.