Skip to comments.U.K. Pulls Plug on United Nations Spending in Opposition of U.S."
Posted on 03/04/2011 11:00:48 AM PST by Scanian
Critics of U.S. spending on the United Nations got a huge boostand supporters of that spending, especially the Obama Administration, took a body blowfrom an unlikely source this week: the British government, long one of the U.N.s staunchest supporters.
In a sweeping and hard-nosed reorganization of priorities for its $10.6 billion multilateral foreign aid program, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government of Prime Minister David Cameron has pulled the financial plug entirely on four U.N. agencies at the end of next year, put three others judged merely adequate on notice that they could face the same fate unless they improve their performance as a matter of absolute urgency; and issued pointed criticisms of almost all the rest.
The major exception: UNICEF, the U.N. childrens aid agency, which got a strong endorsement and a funding increase.
The tough actions were revealed as the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, led by House Foreign Affairs Committee chairperson Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, has been gearing up an extended critical look at U.N. funding as part of its overall budget austerity plan. The British revelations also came while U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice was on an extended cross-country tour, drumming up grass-roots support for U.N. funding in what is sure to be a protracted battle. Unveiling of the new British priorities undoubtedly will hearten her opponents on Capitol Hill.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
He has been a pleasant surprise, especially when considering that he is in a coalition with the "British Obama," Nick Clegg.
Now, if he can arrange a visa for Michael Savage...
Not that Savage wants to go there, mind you.
I hear you and wonder if Cameron could change Savage’s mind LOL
If you think that USG and State workers are overpaid and have giant benefits..then just take a look at what UN employees get. They really do think of themselves as the elite and privileged.
Besides high pay..complete medical..they get private school and University tuition for their kids. Their kids get to go to US Ivy league schools and the UN pays the bill.
This really stunned me, as UNICEF is the most left-leaning organization in the UN. If you doubt that, go to your local library and read some of their materials or dig it out online. When UNICEF Trick-or-Treaters come to my house each year, I ask them if they support anti-American brain washing. When they say "No", I ask them to do their homework and study the materials of the organization they're working for. I wouldn't give a dime to UNICEF.
The UN along with ATF, Pubic Broadcasting, and Planned “Parenthood” should be cut off from tax payer funds.
If the ‘Rats insist on CR’s, the pubbies can keep calling for cuts just like that.
If they did, I have a hunch the ‘Rats will come up with a budget quick-like.
Obama has moved US Foreign Policy to the left of Europe.
Well, I hope WE don’t!
Truthfully though-—did you really expect Cameron to do as well as he has considering that he has Clegg hung around his neck?
He has some downside but I think he is showing far more commitment to West than anybody in the Dhimmi Party has in years.
Could be...it shouldn’t be that hard to show that things have changed with Jacqui Smith’s departure.
I’d love for Cameron to convince Savage to make the trip. And then set up a twin bill with Mike and Geert Wilders on the same night.
Don’t misunderstand. I applaud his steps to cut back on the UN contribution and I hope the US does the same. I am, however, shocked that he kept the UNICEF funding in place given their past track record.
Part of the difference has to do with rotten US FP under Obama. But some of the Europeans have gotten a clue, based on harsh economic reality if nothing else.
Right now, I see Cameron, Merkel, and Sarko vying for the role of “Leader of the Free World.”
Obama forfeited any consideration his first week in office.
Good for the Brits! Now if the U.S. would only follow suit...
obama and the likes of Holder plus THEIR people will always want to give our money away.
Cameron’s actions suggest that he would like to be viewed as the Leader of the West, a title that Obama clearly doesn’t give a ‘Rat’s patooty about.
A pleasant shock for a change!
I’d like to know the Brits’ justification myself. Maybe it will come out shortly.
The only thing I can think of is that the Tories may feel that former colonies and Commonwealth countries derive some benefit from UNICEF. No excuse-—but it might be a reason.
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen however is a stinking open-borders RINO.
That district sure ain’t what it used to be for the right. Lots of Central and South Americans have moved in making any kind of GOP representation in the future a bit dubious. Plus the younger Cuabans are nothing like their parents and grandparents. So we end up with Ileana.
She does, however, come up with some good Spanish language attacks on Obamacare, wild spending, and other stuff which I have sent to some South American friends who buy into all the international media’s “Saint Obama” BS.
But I do wish we could come up with someone more conservative.
Maybe Allen West has a brother or sister?
Doubledown Boehner! Defund these criminal bastards now
Yeah, but they are working with children, so they are pretty much bullet proof at the moment. What politician wants to be accused of “hurting the kids”? It will take a little longer before the UK population is wised up enough for Cameron to be able to move on UNICEF.
Thats an easy one. See post #21
Therein is the crux of ALL of our problems. Politicians only care about getting reelected by people who really don't understand the issues. They give away our money [i.e., the 60% of us who pay taxes] to those who don't pay taxes. Personally, my feeling is: If you don't pay taxes, you don't get to vote. Think about how that would alter the landscape!
Don't get me wrong, I think Democracy is great - there is a very definite link between free societies and rich, happy, and/or powerful societies. I'd certainly prefer to live in a democratic society than any of the autocracy's, theocracy's and plain dictatorships that are the lot of far too many people in this world. But there are weaknesses, and we need to be aware of them.
I dunno...all the cuts the Tories have made have resulted in similar demagoguery.
Absolutely true. However, consider this. In fact, we are a Republic, not a Democracy...a small, but significant difference. We do operate on representative gov't. However, we do have the technology now to do away with representatives and let the people vote on major issues directly. Voting electronically after qualifying (retina scan, finger prints, ??) is possible. With dead people in Lake County, Indiana, voting twice, how bad could this alternative be?
Letting people vote on issues directly would make the problem of democracy worse. By the end of the Athenian democracy (a pure and direct democracy), the Athenian people were voting themselves generous helpings of silver tetradrachms from the public treasury.
At least representative government puts the brakes on the whim of the mob to a certain extent...
The fact is that democracies, even those with inbuilt constitutional absolutes like the US, are dependent on citizens taking an active part. This should not surprise. How can government "of the people, for the people, by the people" work if the people concerned do not participate?
You’re right...on all counts.