<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Obama&#039;s Enemies List: A Growing List of Obama&#039;s Enemies &#187; Unemployment</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.obamashitlist.com/category/unemployment/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com</link>
	<description>Are you on OBAMASHITLIST?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:30:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Hope, Handbags, and Hypocrisy</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/hope-handbags-and-hypocrisy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/hope-handbags-and-hypocrisy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:00:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>LanaGalloway</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unemployment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[street-journal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[super]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[words]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/hope-handbags-and-hypocrisy/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ This morning’s Wall Street Journal reports on Obama’s “Runway to Win” fashion fundraiser tonight, where the campaign will begin hawking campaign-themed apparel and accessories from high-end designers. The article also raises some serious issues about potential campaign finance law violations: “Jan Baran, an election lawyer with Wiley Rein LLP, said designers can&#8217;t ask employees to work on political projects unless they willingly volunteered their time. ‘Someone who is paid to do campaign work is not a volunteer,’ he said. If the designer or staff are paid by anyone other than the campaign, it would be considered a campaign contribution from a company to a candidate.” These are serious questions and deserve a serious investigation—and an honest answer from the self-proclaimed “most transparent administration in history.” But visitors to www.RunwaytoWin.com may find themselves asking yet another question: Is the Obama campaign promoting a president or a product? The high-priced T-shirts ($45), totes ($75), and scarves ($95) are designed by the likes of Vera Wang, Marc Jacobs, and Beyoncé, and feature logos (the Obama ‘O’), slogans (“Greater Together”), and images (of the president himself). While the products’ prices are high by conventional standards, it all speaks to a certain cheapening of the commander-in-chief. It underscores yet again the Obama campaign’s desire to run on something—anything!—other than the president’s record. In 2008, Barack Obama had no record, so he ran on empty slogans. In 2012, he has a record, but because that record is so abysmal, the campaign has calculated that they must run a campaign that deliberately avoids mentioning it. The campaign has new slogans, old logos, and equally vapid platitudes—all meant to distract from high unemployment, rising debt, and the overwhelming sense that America is headed in the wrong direction. The American people won’t be distracted, but the Obama campaign has managed to distract themselves from reality. Team Obama talks about “fighting” for the middle class and about vague notions of “fairness”—and then they peddle a $95 scarf.  In the Obama economy, few can realistically afford to be campaign- chic —even if these are supposed to be discounted prices. (See the RNC’s video, “ The Obama 2012 Fashion Show ”) This tone-deafness comes on the same day that Team Obama took hypocrisy to a new level—embracing the very Super PACs that the president once called a “threat to democracy.” It’s just the latest broken promise from Barack Obama and, like the fashion fundraising, directly undermines the administration’s own rhetoric. Seeing an opportunity for millions of dollars of pro-Obama cash, the campaign decided politics trumped principle and reversed their own position on Super PACs, encouraging donors to support the third party group Priorities USA. Barack Obama once declared that as a result of Super PACs, “every American might end up suffering.” Now, the Obama campaign has decided that, in the words of a $50 pin designed by Eddie Borgo, Barack Obama and his Super PAC could be “greater together.” Never mind the effect on “every American.” It really is all about “Priorities.” Obama now prioritizes fundraising over fighting supposed “suffering.” It doesn’t take a fashion designer to see that’s a bad look on him. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/hope-handbags-and-hypocrisy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hope, Handbags, and Hypocrisy</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/hope-handbags-and-hypocrisy-3/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/hope-handbags-and-hypocrisy-3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:00:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HigleyLocklear930</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unemployment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack-obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commander]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[designer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fashion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[overwhelming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[street-journal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[super]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[usa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[words]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/hope-handbags-and-hypocrisy-3/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ This morning’s Wall Street Journal reports on Obama’s “Runway to Win” fashion fundraiser tonight, where the campaign will begin hawking campaign-themed apparel and accessories from high-end designers. The article also raises some serious issues about potential campaign finance law violations: “Jan Baran, an election lawyer with Wiley Rein LLP, said designers can&#8217;t ask employees to work on political projects unless they willingly volunteered their time. ‘Someone who is paid to do campaign work is not a volunteer,’ he said. If the designer or staff are paid by anyone other than the campaign, it would be considered a campaign contribution from a company to a candidate.” These are serious questions and deserve a serious investigation—and an honest answer from the self-proclaimed “most transparent administration in history.” But visitors to www.RunwaytoWin.com may find themselves asking yet another question: Is the Obama campaign promoting a president or a product? The high-priced T-shirts ($45), totes ($75), and scarves ($95) are designed by the likes of Vera Wang, Marc Jacobs, and Beyoncé, and feature logos (the Obama ‘O’), slogans (“Greater Together”), and images (of the president himself). While the products’ prices are high by conventional standards, it all speaks to a certain cheapening of the commander-in-chief. It underscores yet again the Obama campaign’s desire to run on something—anything!—other than the president’s record. In 2008, Barack Obama had no record, so he ran on empty slogans. In 2012, he has a record, but because that record is so abysmal, the campaign has calculated that they must run a campaign that deliberately avoids mentioning it. The campaign has new slogans, old logos, and equally vapid platitudes—all meant to distract from high unemployment, rising debt, and the overwhelming sense that America is headed in the wrong direction. The American people won’t be distracted, but the Obama campaign has managed to distract themselves from reality. Team Obama talks about “fighting” for the middle class and about vague notions of “fairness”—and then they peddle a $95 scarf.  In the Obama economy, few can realistically afford to be campaign- chic —even if these are supposed to be discounted prices. (See the RNC’s video, “ The Obama 2012 Fashion Show ”) This tone-deafness comes on the same day that Team Obama took hypocrisy to a new level—embracing the very Super PACs that the president once called a “threat to democracy.” It’s just the latest broken promise from Barack Obama and, like the fashion fundraising, directly undermines the administration’s own rhetoric. Seeing an opportunity for millions of dollars of pro-Obama cash, the campaign decided politics trumped principle and reversed their own position on Super PACs, encouraging donors to support the third party group Priorities USA. Barack Obama once declared that as a result of Super PACs, “every American might end up suffering.” Now, the Obama campaign has decided that, in the words of a $50 pin designed by Eddie Borgo, Barack Obama and his Super PAC could be “greater together.” Never mind the effect on “every American.” It really is all about “Priorities.” Obama now prioritizes fundraising over fighting supposed “suffering.” It doesn’t take a fashion designer to see that’s a bad look on him. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/hope-handbags-and-hypocrisy-3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hope, Handbags, and Hypocrisy</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/hope-handbags-and-hypocrisy-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/hope-handbags-and-hypocrisy-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:00:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>LegacyVankampen375</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unemployment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack-obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commander]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fashion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[overwhelming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[super]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[words]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/hope-handbags-and-hypocrisy-2/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ This morning’s Wall Street Journal reports on Obama’s “Runway to Win” fashion fundraiser tonight, where the campaign will begin hawking campaign-themed apparel and accessories from high-end designers. The article also raises some serious issues about potential campaign finance law violations: “Jan Baran, an election lawyer with Wiley Rein LLP, said designers can&#8217;t ask employees to work on political projects unless they willingly volunteered their time. ‘Someone who is paid to do campaign work is not a volunteer,’ he said. If the designer or staff are paid by anyone other than the campaign, it would be considered a campaign contribution from a company to a candidate.” These are serious questions and deserve a serious investigation—and an honest answer from the self-proclaimed “most transparent administration in history.” But visitors to www.RunwaytoWin.com may find themselves asking yet another question: Is the Obama campaign promoting a president or a product? The high-priced T-shirts ($45), totes ($75), and scarves ($95) are designed by the likes of Vera Wang, Marc Jacobs, and Beyoncé, and feature logos (the Obama ‘O’), slogans (“Greater Together”), and images (of the president himself). While the products’ prices are high by conventional standards, it all speaks to a certain cheapening of the commander-in-chief. It underscores yet again the Obama campaign’s desire to run on something—anything!—other than the president’s record. In 2008, Barack Obama had no record, so he ran on empty slogans. In 2012, he has a record, but because that record is so abysmal, the campaign has calculated that they must run a campaign that deliberately avoids mentioning it. The campaign has new slogans, old logos, and equally vapid platitudes—all meant to distract from high unemployment, rising debt, and the overwhelming sense that America is headed in the wrong direction. The American people won’t be distracted, but the Obama campaign has managed to distract themselves from reality. Team Obama talks about “fighting” for the middle class and about vague notions of “fairness”—and then they peddle a $95 scarf.  In the Obama economy, few can realistically afford to be campaign- chic —even if these are supposed to be discounted prices. (See the RNC’s video, “ The Obama 2012 Fashion Show ”) This tone-deafness comes on the same day that Team Obama took hypocrisy to a new level—embracing the very Super PACs that the president once called a “threat to democracy.” It’s just the latest broken promise from Barack Obama and, like the fashion fundraising, directly undermines the administration’s own rhetoric. Seeing an opportunity for millions of dollars of pro-Obama cash, the campaign decided politics trumped principle and reversed their own position on Super PACs, encouraging donors to support the third party group Priorities USA. Barack Obama once declared that as a result of Super PACs, “every American might end up suffering.” Now, the Obama campaign has decided that, in the words of a $50 pin designed by Eddie Borgo, Barack Obama and his Super PAC could be “greater together.” Never mind the effect on “every American.” It really is all about “Priorities.” Obama now prioritizes fundraising over fighting supposed “suffering.” It doesn’t take a fashion designer to see that’s a bad look on him. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/hope-handbags-and-hypocrisy-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Day Ahead: Tuesday, February 7</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/the-day-ahead-tuesday-february-7/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/the-day-ahead-tuesday-february-7/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>LogemannCid284</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unemployment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[beacon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[document-dumps]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[donations-tied]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[launched-today]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[market-takes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[michigan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[near-lawmakers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[return-major]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[super]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[super-bowl]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[usa]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/the-day-ahead-tuesday-february-7/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ The Washington Free Beacon launched today ( Free Beacon ) Once considered "a threat to our Democracy," Obama embraces Super PACs ( CBS ) Obama to return major donations tied to fugitive ( NY Times ) Friday night Solyndra document dumps ( Politico ) Army tries to silence chaplains about birth control mandates ( CNS ) Underemployment is up to 18.7% ( Gallup ) On health care, Heritage Foundation awkwardly defends itself ( USA Today ) Another Romneycare-driven tax hike ( Boston Herald ) Earmarks often used for projects near lawmakers' properties ( WaPo ) Serious pessimism]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/the-day-ahead-tuesday-february-7/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The United Nations&#8217; Rogue Agency</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/the-united-nations-rogue-agency/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/the-united-nations-rogue-agency/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Onoshobishobi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unemployment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Nations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[communication]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[director]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ronald reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[university]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/the-united-nations-rogue-agency/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ We have all heard the jocular remark about the inmates taking over the asylum. But I had never actually witnessed that unnerving event until last October 31, when I spent an afternoon in the press gallery of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization in Paris. The vast conference hall was not quite a madhouse, but it was noisy, agitated, and full of wild surmise. Hundreds of delegates from member states milled about, chattering excitedly as the president of UNESCO's biennial general conference plaintively called for them to take their seats and get on with the business at hand. To wit, voting on a request by the Palestinian Authority for membership—and with it, the first recognition of its statehood by a United Nations agency. The stakes were high. In its quest for statehood without making concessions to Israel, the PA had applied for full membership in the UN in September, but it was obvious that the U.S. would veto that ploy in the Security Council. So PA President Mahmoud Abbas was targeting a weak link in the UN system where the veto does not exist. He knew that UNESCO, with its fuzzy cultural mandate, was as open to political manipulation now as it had been when it was an ideological battlefield in the Cold War. The U.S. had made abundantly clear that, due to laws dating from the 1990s, admitting Palestine to any UN agency would mean an immediate cutoff of American funding. In UNESCO's case, this amounted to fully 22 percent of its budget. There was no leeway for interpretation, no possibility of waiving the laws' provisions. Perversely, that seemed only to sharpen the delegates' appetite for admitting Palestine. As the roll was called, it became obvious that they relished thumbing their collective nose at the U.S. and the handful of member states that held this was the wrong place to decide Palestinian statehood. Cheers greeted votes in favor by delegations from Africa, South America, the Middle East, Russia, China, and, of course, France. Joining the fun was the ambassador from Uzbekistan, the beauteous 32-year-old Lola Karimova-Tillyaeva, socialite daughter of President Islam Karimov, whose use of torture against dissidents, including boiling to death, the UN itself has termed "systematic." A sprinkling of moans or boos rippled through the assembly when the U.S., Germany, Holland, and a few others voted against. The president repeatedly called for a bit of decorum. Not a chance: now the grinning, gibbering, gesticulating inmates had indeed taken over. The final vote was 107 in favor to 14 against, with 52 abstentions. For anyone who still believed in UNESCO's mission, it was an appalling spectacle. With that frivolous, self-defeating act, UNESCO signaled to the world that, once again, it was becoming the UN's over-politicized rogue agency. IT WAS A LOSE-LOSE MOVE both for Palestine and UNESCO itself. After the grandstanding, Palestine was no closer to statehood and possibly further away, hardening positions and jeopardizing the peace process. "It was an extremely reckless and callous move by Abbas," one dismayed Western ambassador to UNESCO told me later. "There are no winners in this. Abbas has alienated some of his most important supporters." The State Department and both parties in Congress quickly denounced the vote. As Texas Republican Kay Granger, chair of the House State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, had warned, "I have made it clear to the Palestinian leadership that I would not support sending U.S. taxpayer money to the Palestinians if they sought statehood at the United Nations. There are consequences for short-cutting the process, not only for the Palestinians, but for our longstanding relationship with the United Nations." UNESCO immediately began suffering those consequences, starting with the loss of America's contribution of about $80 million to its budget for last year, for 2012, and perhaps indefinitely. "We have to take drastic action and take it now," the director general, Irina Bokova, said unhappily. "We are reviewing all activities in all areas, including staff travel, publications, communication costs, meetings, and the rest." Some 20 of its 57 field offices might have to be closed. It is paying the logical price for letting politics trump its cultural/educational mandate, and demonstrating that UNESCO lends itself, systemically, to this kind of abuse. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it, as the man said, and this fiasco reminded me of the bad old days of the 1980s. UNESCO was then a hotbed of vicious anti-Western ideology complete with strident condemnations of America. Instead of concentrating on fostering "full and equal opportunities for education for all, in the unrestricted pursuit of objective truth, and in the free exchange of ideas and knowledge," it became a political tool wielded by the Third World and the Soviet bloc. "If you don't like what we are proposing," an African delegate once shouted at Westerners, "we will jam it down your throats until you choke!" One notorious program promoted a socialist-lining New International Economic Order. Its undeclared purpose was to redistribute Western wealth to a global welfare state; private enterprise was dismissed as "an economy of waste." Educational grants were funding violent Marxist movements like the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Soviet-armed South-West Africa People's Organization. Another wayward project was euphemistically called Communication in the Service of Man. In reality it promoted a New World Information and Communication Order with state licensing and codes of correct conduct for newsmen. When in 1983 France expelled 47 KGB spies, a dozen were under cover at UNESCO. The director general was one Amadou-Mahtar M'Bow, a volatile, irascible Senegalese who ran it like a profitable personal fief. Official funds were used to stroke his supporters. All job appointments and promotions were personally approved by him and based on ideology and nationality. When a planned U.S. audit of financial irregularities was announced, a mysterious fire destroyed key files. Disgusted and demoralized, competent senior staff fled, one protesting in writing "the destruction of professionalism." The U.S., too, left: Ronald Reagan finally had enough and pulled America out of UNESCO in 1984. WITH NO PERCEPTIBLE REPERCUSSIONS on American citizens except tax savings, it stayed out for 19 years. In 2003, George W. Bush took us back in "as a symbol of our commitment to human dignity." The organization had been reformed, he noted hopefully at the time, "and America will participate fully in its mission to advance human rights and tolerance and learning." Laura Bush later became, and remains, a UNESCO goodwill ambassador. After all, idealistic America has always been an important part of this organization with utopian visions, beginning with its creation. The first American member of the executive board, the writer Archibald MacLeish, wrote the high-flown preamble to UNESCO's constitution: "Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed." Today it has grown to 195 member states, more than any other multinational organization including the UN itself. Its staff of some 2,000 toil in half-a-dozen buildings at its sprawling Paris headquarters and field offices. They handle a biennial budget of $653 million, plus millions more in extra-budgetary contributions. At its best, it can be useful for monitoring and standard-setting in fields like education, science, and information. Member-state delegations I spoke with voiced many complaints about UNESCO—especially its growing politicization—but mostly like its education programs. American officials generally praise its efforts for universal literacy and clean water, women's education, and disaster preparedness. One of its largest American-supported education projects is in Afghanistan, with literacy centers for both civilians and Afghan police officers. Membership can also be good for American business. Companies like Apple, Cisco, Intel, Google, and Microsoft are cooperating with UNESCO because it opens access to global markets. As David T. Killion, U.S. ambassador to the organization, told me, "We think there are critical American interests at stake here: moral, cultural, national security, even economic interests. We think this is a strategic piece of real estate in the international system. It can get us to places we couldn't get to otherwise." But Killion has been publicly critical of the political manipulation that goes on. Formerly a leading voice on international organizations with the House Foreign Affairs Committee, he made the rounds of delegations trying to dissuade them from voting for Palestinian admission. During the executive board's debate on the question he took the floor to express America's "strong opposition." He added, "We are profoundly disappointed that this issue has injected a difficult political issue into this organization, and believe that it has the potential to undermine severely the organization's ability to carry out its critical mandate." In 2010, he protested UNESCO's tendency to single out Israel for criticism. "This undermines UNESCO's credibility," he said. "The U.S. strongly encourages the executive board to seek an alternative to highly politicized decisions and seemingly permanent agenda items focused only on one country." If the organization keeps hammering Israel, it is due to its aggressive Arab-African regional bloc of members. Its influence over UNESCO can be seen in ways large and small. There was the scandal over World Philosophy Day. UNESCO inexplicably decided the 2010 conference would be held in Tehran, capital of that beacon of free thought, Iran—an inexcusable choice by an organization supposedly dedicated to freedom and human rights. Shocked academics around the world declared a boycott, calling the confab a propaganda exercise for a brutal regime. "It's as if they decided to hold a philosophy conference in Berlin in 1938—with Goebbels as its head!" said Dr. Ramin Jahanbegloo, an expatriate Iranian philosopher teaching at the University of Toronto. Backpedaling, an embarrassed UNESCO first said the conference would go ahead as scheduled, then tried to dissociate itself from events in Teheran by holding a parallel meeting in Paris. Confusion all around, along with red faces. UNESCO's warped attitude toward Israel showed again in its ham-fisted condemnation last fall of a political cartoon. Published in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz , it depicted Premier Benjamin Netanyahu and his defense minister briefing pilots before an imaginary attack on Iran, telling them to target UNESCO's office in the West Bank on their way back—a joking reference to Netanyahu's anger over the admission of Palestine. Within hours, a UNESCO assistant director general solemnly summoned Israeli Ambassador Nimrod Barkan and handed him an overwrought official protest saying, preposterously, that the cartoon "endangers the lives of unarmed diplomats." Barkan merely reminded him that Israel enjoys a free press. "We've heard of Islamists raging against supposedly disrespectful cartoons," an Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman commented, "but UN officials going down the same road, that's a whole new ballgame." THAT BLUNDER WAS ONLY a peccadillo compared with the ludicrous mess last year over filling an opening on the UNESCO committee that deals with human rights issues. The mind-boggling choice: Syria. No matter that the UN's own High Commissioner for Human Rights recommends that the regime of Bashar al-Assad be prosecuted in the International Criminal Court in The Hague for crimes against humanity. That includes slaughtering some 5,000 demonstrators, including 300 children, and arresting 14,000 in its recent crackdown on opposition protests. This grotesquerie was created by manipulating the organization's skewed procedural rules. Syria was elected to the executive board two years ago, and all members have the right to sit on its committees. Once the Arab bloc decided for its own reasons to put Syria on human rights, it was a done deal. "It's shameful for the UN's prime agency on science, culture, and education to take a country that is shooting its own people and empower it to decide human rights issues on a global scale," says Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based UN Watch, an independent human rights monitoring group. Commented Florida Republican Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, "UNESCO continues to outdo itself with stunning displays of irresponsible and dangerous behavior. The selection of Syria to serve on a UNESCO committee responsible for human rights is an affront to those suffering at the hands of tyrants all around the world. The Administration must continue to follow U.S. law and withhold funds to UNESCO so our tax dollars are not used to support this increasingly irresponsible agency." Attempting to distance itself from the gaffe, UNESCO quietly let it be known that Director General Bokova actually disapproved of the choice but had her hands tied. That only underscored that Bokova, a soft-spoken, graying, grandmotherly lady of 60, has a tiger by the tail. In reality the organization is run by the volatile, unpredictable, pliant general conference, and the 58-member executive board that sets the conference agenda. The Arab-African bloc has an automatic 20 votes on the board, and can easily find another 10 from emerging nations for a majority to push through policies predictably anti-Western, or utterly irrational, like the vote on Palestine. However well-intentioned, Bokova is powerless to control or prevent its rogue actions. Elected in 2009 as UNESCO's first woman director general, Bokova was a member of Bulgaria's Socialist—formerly Communist—Party, as well as ambassador to France and UNESCO itself. She had served as Bulgaria's foreign minister under Premier Zhan Videnov, who did little to clean up the country's post-communist cesspool of organized crime and corruption. She is a convert to press freedom—she certainly did not learn it from her father, who edited Bulgaria's main, party-lining communist newspaper. Like many of the privileged of her generation, she studied at Moscow's State Institute of International Relations, later doing stints at the University of Maryland and Harvard. "I am from this cold war generation that lived through this period; we didn't choose it," Bokova told the New York Times defensively before her election. "I have nothing to be ashamed of." Her election was symptomatic of the penchant of multilateral organizations for choosing the least common denominator. She is certainly not the strong, decisive leader UNESCO needs to keep the rambunctious executive board and general conference from riding roughshod over it. But in one respect at least, Bokova's election helped UNESCO avoid another spectacular calamity. Her only rival for the position, backed by the Arab-African bloc, was the Egyptian culture minister Farouk Hosny. Hosny's record for promoting culture and defending human rights was of the Middle Eastern variety. He had declared he would personally burn any Jewish book found in Egypt's great Alexandria library. He also boasted he had helped organize the 1985 escape of the Palestine Liberation Front hijackers of the Achille Lauro cruise ship, the charmers who shot the disabled American Leon Klinghoffer and shoved him overboard in his wheelchair. This being UNESCO, Hosny almost became its director. Arm-twisting and threatening, Egypt and its allies on the executive board managed to push the election to five rounds of voting—unprecedented in the organization's history—before Bokova narrowly won. That a thug like Hosny could come within a hair of UNESCO's top job speaks volumes. ITS STATE PRIORITIES are also revealing. Number one on the official list is Africa, followed by gender equality. Only then come proper core activities like education, ethics, and intercultural dialogue. So no one should be surprised if the African tail wags the UNESCO dog. Official documents are peppered with the phrase "especially in Africa." Its Cultural Commission considers that intercultural dialogue mainly means raising awareness of the slave trade, slavery, and the African diaspora. The general conference last November proudly expressed its official satisfaction with the publication of the eight-volume General History of Africa , "making this masterpiece of UNESCO one of the major intellectual achievements of the 20th century [sic]." This order of priorities can lead to the occasional crack-up. Most spectacular in recent memory was the $3 million UNESCO Obiang Nguema Mbasogo International Prize for Research in the Life Sciences, set up in 2008. Never awarded, it was suspended in 2010 after protests ranging from Nobel laureates and press freedom groups to human rights defenders around the world. How could such a generous, euphonious, impressively named prize with the worthy goal of encouraging scientific research cause such a brouhaha? Consider the donor. President Obiang, who has ruled Equatorial Guinea with a despotic hand since taking power in a coup 30 years ago, is justly renowned for rigged elections, arrest and murder of opposition leaders, muzzling the press, and what a UN special rapporteur termed "inhuman conditions" and "systematic torture" in the country's prisons. Along with this goes, naturally, unabashed corruption in the use of the country's abundant oil wealth for himself and his family. Appropriately enough, the $3 million prize money was delivered to UNESCO in cash. When protests over this transparent attempt to improve a brutal dictator's image became too embarrassing, Bokova called for the prize to be withdrawn in 2010 and said she would not be involved with it. Furious backroom politicking followed. Western diplomats, typically scared of looking colonialist or, quelle horreur , anti-African, took a back seat and left it to the sub-Saharans to annul the prize and return the money, presumably in small-denomination banknotes. The Arabs said they would support any decision by the Africans. Those worthies said the prize must be awarded. There things stand, with UNESCO still holding the $3 million—Obiang refuses to take it back—and scheduled to take up the question again in April. Bokova, being against the prize after being for it, was left looking compromised. As a longtime secretariat member told me privately, "There was a very strong feeling here that it was wrong to accept it, just as we were against admitting Palestine. But these things get done anyway, despite what we feel is right." Clearly out of control, it's anyone's guess what this outfit's next caper might be. Compared with the missteps of priority Africa, priority gender equality looks innocent enough. Of course women and girls should be taught to read and write, and UNESCO has programs in that field. And they should certainly be protected from discrimination, though it's hard to see what UNESCO does about that except preach the good word. But in its effort to please feminist zealots, the organization inevitably ends up looking more than a bit silly. As when it slavishly altered UNESCO's slogan to read, "Building peace in the minds of men and women ." It has become a one-stop shop for everything on the feminists' shopping list, plus some pleasant surprises. Do media women in the Maghreb need courses in "gender sensitive scriptwriting"? It held a workshop in Casablanca for that. Do downtrodden female philosophers need to "write free from the looming gaze of an imaginary, universal, male reader"? There's a Women Philosophers' Journal where they can. And while writing, they can refer to the UNESCO "Guidelines on Gender-Neutral Language" pamphlet, with its gross cartoons showing male chauvinists ruthlessly dominating helpless females. It is surely helpful to women raising children amid poverty and disease to know that "human power" is better than "manpower," "wife and husband" preferable to "man and wife," "intrepid child" tops "tomboy." OF ALL UNESCO's countless programs, the World Heritage List is by far the best known. The 936 properties in 153 countries, including 21 in the U.S. from Yellowstone to the Statue of Liberty, are selected as being "of outstanding universal value." When the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage was adopted in 1972, it was to ensure that important natural and manmade sites were not wantonly endangered—a worthy cause to be sure. But today UNESCO has twisted its meaning to satisfy as many of its client activists as possible. The new slogan of its flagship program is World Heritage and Sustainable Development , thereby pleasing the greens and those who view UNESCO primarily as an economic development, not cultural, agency. (Just for the record, culture properly understood has nothing whatever to do with economic development, as many an impecunious writer can attest.) As Irina Bokova said in a recent speech announcing the upcoming 40th anniversary celebrations of the convention, "Heritage stands at the crossroads of climate change, social transformations and processes of reconciliation between peoples. Heritage carries high stakes—for the identity and belonging of peoples, for the sustainable economic and social development of communities." Anybody feel left out? To be sure, with a headquarters staff of 80 running the program, the World Heritage Committee can sometimes help avoid damage to important sites. When in 1995 Egypt planned a new highway near the Giza Pyramids which might have blighted the site, negotiations with the Egyptian government found a solution. And when the archaeological site of Delphi in Greece was threatened by plans for an aluminum plant nearby, the Greek government was persuaded to find another location. But many observers are increasingly unhappy with the way the World Heritage Committee operates. They accuse it of inappropriate politicization and, ultimately, corruption of its original mandate. This came to light publicly at the general conference last November, when the Estonian ambassador, Marten Kokk, stood up and said aloud what many insiders were thinking. "We regret to say," he declared, "that the increasing operational problems and politicization of the World Heritage Committee compromise the credibility of the [1972] Convention and the World Heritage List." He also criticized conflicts of interest on the committee, with members abusing their positions to win selection of candidate sites in their home countries. Interviews with other delegations made clear what Kokk was concerned about. "Several delegations are unhappy with the way the Committee is selecting sites for its list," the ambassador of one Nordic country told me. (Delegations I interviewed insisted on anonymity when voicing criticism.) "Too often, the decision is made not on the grounds of a site's historical or aesthetic value, but for political reasons. As a result, the committee's choices diverge more and more frequently from the professional advice of the outside experts who make recommendations. This is against the very raison d'être of the 1972 Convention." A member of a different delegation, who sat on the committee for four years, confirmed this. "It's clear that, for political reasons, the World Heritage Committee is not complying with the recommendations of the experts in selecting sites," he said. "There are many obvious cases. We regret this very much." A recent report by an external auditor confirms the program's corruption. It notes that in one recent year, six candidate sites that the experts did not find "of outstanding universal value" were selected as heritage sites anyway for political and economic reasons. MEMBER STATES OBVIOUSLY consider that it is worth doing whatever necessary to get as many World Heritage sites as possible. They mean prestige, jobs, and economic development in the form of increased tourism. Travel agencies tout package tours focused on World Heritage-listed sites, manna from heaven for poor countries. "Is the World Heritage Committee politicized?" asked one disabused Western ambassador I talked with. "Everything at the UN is politicized. Should the committee be overturning the recommendations of the experts? Absolutely not, and we have to put pressure on member states not to do that anymore." A committee official says that it is now considering the growing criticism and issuing new operational guidelines. "We hope these reforms will correct anomalies," he says, without explaining how. Some locations with World Heritage sites are learning that it's not an unmixed blessing. The German city of Dresden, known for its splendid baroque and rococo architecture, won heritage status in 2004 for its restored city center including palaces, churches, opera houses, and museums. Then in 2006 UNESCO's culture police frowned on the city fathers' decision to build a four-lane bridge across the river Elbe, more than a mile away from the historic center. They gravely "delisted" the city in 2009 for refusing to obey orders not to build. The citizens of Dresden now enjoy their new bridge and somehow continue to thrive in one of Germany's fastest-growing cities. Latest target of UNESCO intrusion is Liverpool. The English city on the Mersey, home of the Beatles, founded in 1207, was granted World Heritage status in 2004. Alas, a three-day visit by UNESCO inspectors last fall concluded with the warning that it would lose its status unless it made radical changes to the $9 billion Liverpool Waters project to regenerate its northern docklands. The project, a half-mile from the historic center, includes offices, a shopping mall, cruise liner terminal, and other job-creating features. "This project is absolutely vital for the future of the city," the head of the Liverpool city council, Joe Anderson, told me on the phone. "We have a 29 percent unemployment rate, and this will create jobs both now and for generations to come. Plans dating back 100 years show our forefathers wanted a similar docklands development. And now we have these outsiders trying to tell us how to shape our city." He still hopes for a compromise, but Liverpudlians will get their new docklands. The intrusions can get worse. Maladroitly designating a World Heritage site can actually spark warfare, a rather serious unintended consequence for an organization striving for a "culture of peace." That happened on the Cambodia-Thailand border after the Preah Vihear temple was selected in July 2008 in response to a Cambodian request. This reignited a longstanding border dispute over that area. Within weeks the first Thai and Cambodian soldiers were being killed in firefights, while thousands of civilians fled. The 1,000-year-old temple itself was damaged. The military standoff continues while the International Court of Justice considers the case. Meanwhile, UNESCO's boffins recently created a functionary's dream: a program that is, literally, infinite. If you liked physical, measurable World Heritage, they reasoned, you'll love the intangible heritage that can exist simply in the minds and habits of certain people. This can mean everything from oral traditions, performing arts, social practices, quaint rituals and festivities, to "knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe." There are already 267 intangible heritage items, but, as an expansive program official explains, "There exist in the world thousands, even billions of potential practices that could be on the list. It's unlimited and infinite. The only limit is our capacity to handle it." You can bet that will be growing. Meanwhile, recent additions include the Mibu no Hana Taue rice planting ritual in Japan, Mexico's mariachi music, French cooking and horseback-riding, and Croatia's Nijemo Kolo, a silent circle dance from the hinterland of Dalmatia. The only really important heritage ritual still missing from the list is the Texas Two-Step, though it does unfortunately involve a man leading a woman. LESS THAN A DECADE after the U.S. rejoined, UNESCO, with the Palestinian flag now flying at its headquarters, has shown convincingly that it is back to its old political games. Whatever the best intentions of the secretariat, political infighting will always trump good works. Africa, the Middle East, and the emerging nations own it. They may individually contribute 1 percent or less to the budget, but their vote equals America's. Without weighted voting according to contributions, or some safety valve like the UN's Security Council, they will stay in the driver's seat. It is unrealistic to think the U.S. can significantly influence UNESCO's direction, as the futile campaign to block the admission of Palestine shows. The organization does have worthwhile programs in literacy, tsunami warning systems, clean water, post-disaster relief, and others. But unlike some other UN agencies that occasionally have quantifiable, visible results, most of UNESCO's activities are impossible to assess objectively and are oriented to pleasing its activist clients. Moreover, in the absence of any sunset clauses, vested interests can keep asinine or downright undesirable programs, all with overwhelmingly self-important names, running indefinitely. Britain, far more tough-minded toward ineffective UN agencies than the Obama administration, did its own independent assessment of UNESCO last year. Among other failings, the study found it "is unable to identify its impact. Systematic results reporting and evaluation is not adequately practiced.… UNESCO is under-delivering significantly in its leadership of the education sector.… Long-lasting historic underperformance now means much of UNESCO's mandate is often done elsewhere." Without improvement, the UK threatens to cut its funding, as it has already to UN Habitat, the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, and the International Labor Organization. Do useful programs in education and the like require a heavy, inept, expensive international bureaucracy? Or could unilateral foreign aid, along with ad hoc groupings of nations, nongovernmental organizations, and corporate sponsors do the job more efficiently? The question is rapidly becoming academic for the U.S. By cutting off its funding to UNESCO, America has de facto begun heading for the exit. It is not an option to humiliatingly lose all moral authority there by trying to remain a member without paying our dues. (Internal murmuring against the U.S. on this score has already begun.) Washington policymakers must accept the logic of this situation and either change the laws that created it or declare America's official withdrawal. Bokova's December trip to Washington to lobby the Hill changed few minds. Her argument, that U.S. influence abroad will be reduced without its voice at the culture palace on the Seine, pales beside UNESCO's endemic flaws. "UNESCO is easy to criticize, even to mock. How could it be otherwise? Here we have an organization which has set out to influence the educational, scientific and cultural activities of the world—no less. Obviously ridiculous and laughable! Yet would it not be more helpful to suspend judgment at least until the facts have been looked at as a whole?" Those words were written in 1951 by a former UNESCO staff member, Britain's Theodore Besterman, in the first book ever published about the organization. It shows that the UN's cultural agency, with its ill-defined, infinite utopian mandate, has been open to abuse and invited criticism since the beginning. The difference is that now the facts are in. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/the-united-nations-rogue-agency/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The United Nations&#8217; Rogue Agency</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/the-united-nations-rogue-agency-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/the-united-nations-rogue-agency-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kalpanaceo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unemployment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Nations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bulgaria]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[communication]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[egypt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[university]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/the-united-nations-rogue-agency-2/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ We have all heard the jocular remark about the inmates taking over the asylum. But I had never actually witnessed that unnerving event until last October 31, when I spent an afternoon in the press gallery of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization in Paris. The vast conference hall was not quite a madhouse, but it was noisy, agitated, and full of wild surmise. Hundreds of delegates from member states milled about, chattering excitedly as the president of UNESCO's biennial general conference plaintively called for them to take their seats and get on with the business at hand. To wit, voting on a request by the Palestinian Authority for membership—and with it, the first recognition of its statehood by a United Nations agency. The stakes were high. In its quest for statehood without making concessions to Israel, the PA had applied for full membership in the UN in September, but it was obvious that the U.S. would veto that ploy in the Security Council. So PA President Mahmoud Abbas was targeting a weak link in the UN system where the veto does not exist. He knew that UNESCO, with its fuzzy cultural mandate, was as open to political manipulation now as it had been when it was an ideological battlefield in the Cold War. The U.S. had made abundantly clear that, due to laws dating from the 1990s, admitting Palestine to any UN agency would mean an immediate cutoff of American funding. In UNESCO's case, this amounted to fully 22 percent of its budget. There was no leeway for interpretation, no possibility of waiving the laws' provisions. Perversely, that seemed only to sharpen the delegates' appetite for admitting Palestine. As the roll was called, it became obvious that they relished thumbing their collective nose at the U.S. and the handful of member states that held this was the wrong place to decide Palestinian statehood. Cheers greeted votes in favor by delegations from Africa, South America, the Middle East, Russia, China, and, of course, France. Joining the fun was the ambassador from Uzbekistan, the beauteous 32-year-old Lola Karimova-Tillyaeva, socialite daughter of President Islam Karimov, whose use of torture against dissidents, including boiling to death, the UN itself has termed "systematic." A sprinkling of moans or boos rippled through the assembly when the U.S., Germany, Holland, and a few others voted against. The president repeatedly called for a bit of decorum. Not a chance: now the grinning, gibbering, gesticulating inmates had indeed taken over. The final vote was 107 in favor to 14 against, with 52 abstentions. For anyone who still believed in UNESCO's mission, it was an appalling spectacle. With that frivolous, self-defeating act, UNESCO signaled to the world that, once again, it was becoming the UN's over-politicized rogue agency. IT WAS A LOSE-LOSE MOVE both for Palestine and UNESCO itself. After the grandstanding, Palestine was no closer to statehood and possibly further away, hardening positions and jeopardizing the peace process. "It was an extremely reckless and callous move by Abbas," one dismayed Western ambassador to UNESCO told me later. "There are no winners in this. Abbas has alienated some of his most important supporters." The State Department and both parties in Congress quickly denounced the vote. As Texas Republican Kay Granger, chair of the House State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, had warned, "I have made it clear to the Palestinian leadership that I would not support sending U.S. taxpayer money to the Palestinians if they sought statehood at the United Nations. There are consequences for short-cutting the process, not only for the Palestinians, but for our longstanding relationship with the United Nations." UNESCO immediately began suffering those consequences, starting with the loss of America's contribution of about $80 million to its budget for last year, for 2012, and perhaps indefinitely. "We have to take drastic action and take it now," the director general, Irina Bokova, said unhappily. "We are reviewing all activities in all areas, including staff travel, publications, communication costs, meetings, and the rest." Some 20 of its 57 field offices might have to be closed. It is paying the logical price for letting politics trump its cultural/educational mandate, and demonstrating that UNESCO lends itself, systemically, to this kind of abuse. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it, as the man said, and this fiasco reminded me of the bad old days of the 1980s. UNESCO was then a hotbed of vicious anti-Western ideology complete with strident condemnations of America. Instead of concentrating on fostering "full and equal opportunities for education for all, in the unrestricted pursuit of objective truth, and in the free exchange of ideas and knowledge," it became a political tool wielded by the Third World and the Soviet bloc. "If you don't like what we are proposing," an African delegate once shouted at Westerners, "we will jam it down your throats until you choke!" One notorious program promoted a socialist-lining New International Economic Order. Its undeclared purpose was to redistribute Western wealth to a global welfare state; private enterprise was dismissed as "an economy of waste." Educational grants were funding violent Marxist movements like the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Soviet-armed South-West Africa People's Organization. Another wayward project was euphemistically called Communication in the Service of Man. In reality it promoted a New World Information and Communication Order with state licensing and codes of correct conduct for newsmen. When in 1983 France expelled 47 KGB spies, a dozen were under cover at UNESCO. The director general was one Amadou-Mahtar M'Bow, a volatile, irascible Senegalese who ran it like a profitable personal fief. Official funds were used to stroke his supporters. All job appointments and promotions were personally approved by him and based on ideology and nationality. When a planned U.S. audit of financial irregularities was announced, a mysterious fire destroyed key files. Disgusted and demoralized, competent senior staff fled, one protesting in writing "the destruction of professionalism." The U.S., too, left: Ronald Reagan finally had enough and pulled America out of UNESCO in 1984. WITH NO PERCEPTIBLE REPERCUSSIONS on American citizens except tax savings, it stayed out for 19 years. In 2003, George W. Bush took us back in "as a symbol of our commitment to human dignity." The organization had been reformed, he noted hopefully at the time, "and America will participate fully in its mission to advance human rights and tolerance and learning." Laura Bush later became, and remains, a UNESCO goodwill ambassador. After all, idealistic America has always been an important part of this organization with utopian visions, beginning with its creation. The first American member of the executive board, the writer Archibald MacLeish, wrote the high-flown preamble to UNESCO's constitution: "Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed." Today it has grown to 195 member states, more than any other multinational organization including the UN itself. Its staff of some 2,000 toil in half-a-dozen buildings at its sprawling Paris headquarters and field offices. They handle a biennial budget of $653 million, plus millions more in extra-budgetary contributions. At its best, it can be useful for monitoring and standard-setting in fields like education, science, and information. Member-state delegations I spoke with voiced many complaints about UNESCO—especially its growing politicization—but mostly like its education programs. American officials generally praise its efforts for universal literacy and clean water, women's education, and disaster preparedness. One of its largest American-supported education projects is in Afghanistan, with literacy centers for both civilians and Afghan police officers. Membership can also be good for American business. Companies like Apple, Cisco, Intel, Google, and Microsoft are cooperating with UNESCO because it opens access to global markets. As David T. Killion, U.S. ambassador to the organization, told me, "We think there are critical American interests at stake here: moral, cultural, national security, even economic interests. We think this is a strategic piece of real estate in the international system. It can get us to places we couldn't get to otherwise." But Killion has been publicly critical of the political manipulation that goes on. Formerly a leading voice on international organizations with the House Foreign Affairs Committee, he made the rounds of delegations trying to dissuade them from voting for Palestinian admission. During the executive board's debate on the question he took the floor to express America's "strong opposition." He added, "We are profoundly disappointed that this issue has injected a difficult political issue into this organization, and believe that it has the potential to undermine severely the organization's ability to carry out its critical mandate." In 2010, he protested UNESCO's tendency to single out Israel for criticism. "This undermines UNESCO's credibility," he said. "The U.S. strongly encourages the executive board to seek an alternative to highly politicized decisions and seemingly permanent agenda items focused only on one country." If the organization keeps hammering Israel, it is due to its aggressive Arab-African regional bloc of members. Its influence over UNESCO can be seen in ways large and small. There was the scandal over World Philosophy Day. UNESCO inexplicably decided the 2010 conference would be held in Tehran, capital of that beacon of free thought, Iran—an inexcusable choice by an organization supposedly dedicated to freedom and human rights. Shocked academics around the world declared a boycott, calling the confab a propaganda exercise for a brutal regime. "It's as if they decided to hold a philosophy conference in Berlin in 1938—with Goebbels as its head!" said Dr. Ramin Jahanbegloo, an expatriate Iranian philosopher teaching at the University of Toronto. Backpedaling, an embarrassed UNESCO first said the conference would go ahead as scheduled, then tried to dissociate itself from events in Teheran by holding a parallel meeting in Paris. Confusion all around, along with red faces. UNESCO's warped attitude toward Israel showed again in its ham-fisted condemnation last fall of a political cartoon. Published in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz , it depicted Premier Benjamin Netanyahu and his defense minister briefing pilots before an imaginary attack on Iran, telling them to target UNESCO's office in the West Bank on their way back—a joking reference to Netanyahu's anger over the admission of Palestine. Within hours, a UNESCO assistant director general solemnly summoned Israeli Ambassador Nimrod Barkan and handed him an overwrought official protest saying, preposterously, that the cartoon "endangers the lives of unarmed diplomats." Barkan merely reminded him that Israel enjoys a free press. "We've heard of Islamists raging against supposedly disrespectful cartoons," an Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman commented, "but UN officials going down the same road, that's a whole new ballgame." THAT BLUNDER WAS ONLY a peccadillo compared with the ludicrous mess last year over filling an opening on the UNESCO committee that deals with human rights issues. The mind-boggling choice: Syria. No matter that the UN's own High Commissioner for Human Rights recommends that the regime of Bashar al-Assad be prosecuted in the International Criminal Court in The Hague for crimes against humanity. That includes slaughtering some 5,000 demonstrators, including 300 children, and arresting 14,000 in its recent crackdown on opposition protests. This grotesquerie was created by manipulating the organization's skewed procedural rules. Syria was elected to the executive board two years ago, and all members have the right to sit on its committees. Once the Arab bloc decided for its own reasons to put Syria on human rights, it was a done deal. "It's shameful for the UN's prime agency on science, culture, and education to take a country that is shooting its own people and empower it to decide human rights issues on a global scale," says Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based UN Watch, an independent human rights monitoring group. Commented Florida Republican Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, "UNESCO continues to outdo itself with stunning displays of irresponsible and dangerous behavior. The selection of Syria to serve on a UNESCO committee responsible for human rights is an affront to those suffering at the hands of tyrants all around the world. The Administration must continue to follow U.S. law and withhold funds to UNESCO so our tax dollars are not used to support this increasingly irresponsible agency." Attempting to distance itself from the gaffe, UNESCO quietly let it be known that Director General Bokova actually disapproved of the choice but had her hands tied. That only underscored that Bokova, a soft-spoken, graying, grandmotherly lady of 60, has a tiger by the tail. In reality the organization is run by the volatile, unpredictable, pliant general conference, and the 58-member executive board that sets the conference agenda. The Arab-African bloc has an automatic 20 votes on the board, and can easily find another 10 from emerging nations for a majority to push through policies predictably anti-Western, or utterly irrational, like the vote on Palestine. However well-intentioned, Bokova is powerless to control or prevent its rogue actions. Elected in 2009 as UNESCO's first woman director general, Bokova was a member of Bulgaria's Socialist—formerly Communist—Party, as well as ambassador to France and UNESCO itself. She had served as Bulgaria's foreign minister under Premier Zhan Videnov, who did little to clean up the country's post-communist cesspool of organized crime and corruption. She is a convert to press freedom—she certainly did not learn it from her father, who edited Bulgaria's main, party-lining communist newspaper. Like many of the privileged of her generation, she studied at Moscow's State Institute of International Relations, later doing stints at the University of Maryland and Harvard. "I am from this cold war generation that lived through this period; we didn't choose it," Bokova told the New York Times defensively before her election. "I have nothing to be ashamed of." Her election was symptomatic of the penchant of multilateral organizations for choosing the least common denominator. She is certainly not the strong, decisive leader UNESCO needs to keep the rambunctious executive board and general conference from riding roughshod over it. But in one respect at least, Bokova's election helped UNESCO avoid another spectacular calamity. Her only rival for the position, backed by the Arab-African bloc, was the Egyptian culture minister Farouk Hosny. Hosny's record for promoting culture and defending human rights was of the Middle Eastern variety. He had declared he would personally burn any Jewish book found in Egypt's great Alexandria library. He also boasted he had helped organize the 1985 escape of the Palestine Liberation Front hijackers of the Achille Lauro cruise ship, the charmers who shot the disabled American Leon Klinghoffer and shoved him overboard in his wheelchair. This being UNESCO, Hosny almost became its director. Arm-twisting and threatening, Egypt and its allies on the executive board managed to push the election to five rounds of voting—unprecedented in the organization's history—before Bokova narrowly won. That a thug like Hosny could come within a hair of UNESCO's top job speaks volumes. ITS STATE PRIORITIES are also revealing. Number one on the official list is Africa, followed by gender equality. Only then come proper core activities like education, ethics, and intercultural dialogue. So no one should be surprised if the African tail wags the UNESCO dog. Official documents are peppered with the phrase "especially in Africa." Its Cultural Commission considers that intercultural dialogue mainly means raising awareness of the slave trade, slavery, and the African diaspora. The general conference last November proudly expressed its official satisfaction with the publication of the eight-volume General History of Africa , "making this masterpiece of UNESCO one of the major intellectual achievements of the 20th century [sic]." This order of priorities can lead to the occasional crack-up. Most spectacular in recent memory was the $3 million UNESCO Obiang Nguema Mbasogo International Prize for Research in the Life Sciences, set up in 2008. Never awarded, it was suspended in 2010 after protests ranging from Nobel laureates and press freedom groups to human rights defenders around the world. How could such a generous, euphonious, impressively named prize with the worthy goal of encouraging scientific research cause such a brouhaha? Consider the donor. President Obiang, who has ruled Equatorial Guinea with a despotic hand since taking power in a coup 30 years ago, is justly renowned for rigged elections, arrest and murder of opposition leaders, muzzling the press, and what a UN special rapporteur termed "inhuman conditions" and "systematic torture" in the country's prisons. Along with this goes, naturally, unabashed corruption in the use of the country's abundant oil wealth for himself and his family. Appropriately enough, the $3 million prize money was delivered to UNESCO in cash. When protests over this transparent attempt to improve a brutal dictator's image became too embarrassing, Bokova called for the prize to be withdrawn in 2010 and said she would not be involved with it. Furious backroom politicking followed. Western diplomats, typically scared of looking colonialist or, quelle horreur , anti-African, took a back seat and left it to the sub-Saharans to annul the prize and return the money, presumably in small-denomination banknotes. The Arabs said they would support any decision by the Africans. Those worthies said the prize must be awarded. There things stand, with UNESCO still holding the $3 million—Obiang refuses to take it back—and scheduled to take up the question again in April. Bokova, being against the prize after being for it, was left looking compromised. As a longtime secretariat member told me privately, "There was a very strong feeling here that it was wrong to accept it, just as we were against admitting Palestine. But these things get done anyway, despite what we feel is right." Clearly out of control, it's anyone's guess what this outfit's next caper might be. Compared with the missteps of priority Africa, priority gender equality looks innocent enough. Of course women and girls should be taught to read and write, and UNESCO has programs in that field. And they should certainly be protected from discrimination, though it's hard to see what UNESCO does about that except preach the good word. But in its effort to please feminist zealots, the organization inevitably ends up looking more than a bit silly. As when it slavishly altered UNESCO's slogan to read, "Building peace in the minds of men and women ." It has become a one-stop shop for everything on the feminists' shopping list, plus some pleasant surprises. Do media women in the Maghreb need courses in "gender sensitive scriptwriting"? It held a workshop in Casablanca for that. Do downtrodden female philosophers need to "write free from the looming gaze of an imaginary, universal, male reader"? There's a Women Philosophers' Journal where they can. And while writing, they can refer to the UNESCO "Guidelines on Gender-Neutral Language" pamphlet, with its gross cartoons showing male chauvinists ruthlessly dominating helpless females. It is surely helpful to women raising children amid poverty and disease to know that "human power" is better than "manpower," "wife and husband" preferable to "man and wife," "intrepid child" tops "tomboy." OF ALL UNESCO's countless programs, the World Heritage List is by far the best known. The 936 properties in 153 countries, including 21 in the U.S. from Yellowstone to the Statue of Liberty, are selected as being "of outstanding universal value." When the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage was adopted in 1972, it was to ensure that important natural and manmade sites were not wantonly endangered—a worthy cause to be sure. But today UNESCO has twisted its meaning to satisfy as many of its client activists as possible. The new slogan of its flagship program is World Heritage and Sustainable Development , thereby pleasing the greens and those who view UNESCO primarily as an economic development, not cultural, agency. (Just for the record, culture properly understood has nothing whatever to do with economic development, as many an impecunious writer can attest.) As Irina Bokova said in a recent speech announcing the upcoming 40th anniversary celebrations of the convention, "Heritage stands at the crossroads of climate change, social transformations and processes of reconciliation between peoples. Heritage carries high stakes—for the identity and belonging of peoples, for the sustainable economic and social development of communities." Anybody feel left out? To be sure, with a headquarters staff of 80 running the program, the World Heritage Committee can sometimes help avoid damage to important sites. When in 1995 Egypt planned a new highway near the Giza Pyramids which might have blighted the site, negotiations with the Egyptian government found a solution. And when the archaeological site of Delphi in Greece was threatened by plans for an aluminum plant nearby, the Greek government was persuaded to find another location. But many observers are increasingly unhappy with the way the World Heritage Committee operates. They accuse it of inappropriate politicization and, ultimately, corruption of its original mandate. This came to light publicly at the general conference last November, when the Estonian ambassador, Marten Kokk, stood up and said aloud what many insiders were thinking. "We regret to say," he declared, "that the increasing operational problems and politicization of the World Heritage Committee compromise the credibility of the [1972] Convention and the World Heritage List." He also criticized conflicts of interest on the committee, with members abusing their positions to win selection of candidate sites in their home countries. Interviews with other delegations made clear what Kokk was concerned about. "Several delegations are unhappy with the way the Committee is selecting sites for its list," the ambassador of one Nordic country told me. (Delegations I interviewed insisted on anonymity when voicing criticism.) "Too often, the decision is made not on the grounds of a site's historical or aesthetic value, but for political reasons. As a result, the committee's choices diverge more and more frequently from the professional advice of the outside experts who make recommendations. This is against the very raison d'être of the 1972 Convention." A member of a different delegation, who sat on the committee for four years, confirmed this. "It's clear that, for political reasons, the World Heritage Committee is not complying with the recommendations of the experts in selecting sites," he said. "There are many obvious cases. We regret this very much." A recent report by an external auditor confirms the program's corruption. It notes that in one recent year, six candidate sites that the experts did not find "of outstanding universal value" were selected as heritage sites anyway for political and economic reasons. MEMBER STATES OBVIOUSLY consider that it is worth doing whatever necessary to get as many World Heritage sites as possible. They mean prestige, jobs, and economic development in the form of increased tourism. Travel agencies tout package tours focused on World Heritage-listed sites, manna from heaven for poor countries. "Is the World Heritage Committee politicized?" asked one disabused Western ambassador I talked with. "Everything at the UN is politicized. Should the committee be overturning the recommendations of the experts? Absolutely not, and we have to put pressure on member states not to do that anymore." A committee official says that it is now considering the growing criticism and issuing new operational guidelines. "We hope these reforms will correct anomalies," he says, without explaining how. Some locations with World Heritage sites are learning that it's not an unmixed blessing. The German city of Dresden, known for its splendid baroque and rococo architecture, won heritage status in 2004 for its restored city center including palaces, churches, opera houses, and museums. Then in 2006 UNESCO's culture police frowned on the city fathers' decision to build a four-lane bridge across the river Elbe, more than a mile away from the historic center. They gravely "delisted" the city in 2009 for refusing to obey orders not to build. The citizens of Dresden now enjoy their new bridge and somehow continue to thrive in one of Germany's fastest-growing cities. Latest target of UNESCO intrusion is Liverpool. The English city on the Mersey, home of the Beatles, founded in 1207, was granted World Heritage status in 2004. Alas, a three-day visit by UNESCO inspectors last fall concluded with the warning that it would lose its status unless it made radical changes to the $9 billion Liverpool Waters project to regenerate its northern docklands. The project, a half-mile from the historic center, includes offices, a shopping mall, cruise liner terminal, and other job-creating features. "This project is absolutely vital for the future of the city," the head of the Liverpool city council, Joe Anderson, told me on the phone. "We have a 29 percent unemployment rate, and this will create jobs both now and for generations to come. Plans dating back 100 years show our forefathers wanted a similar docklands development. And now we have these outsiders trying to tell us how to shape our city." He still hopes for a compromise, but Liverpudlians will get their new docklands. The intrusions can get worse. Maladroitly designating a World Heritage site can actually spark warfare, a rather serious unintended consequence for an organization striving for a "culture of peace." That happened on the Cambodia-Thailand border after the Preah Vihear temple was selected in July 2008 in response to a Cambodian request. This reignited a longstanding border dispute over that area. Within weeks the first Thai and Cambodian soldiers were being killed in firefights, while thousands of civilians fled. The 1,000-year-old temple itself was damaged. The military standoff continues while the International Court of Justice considers the case. Meanwhile, UNESCO's boffins recently created a functionary's dream: a program that is, literally, infinite. If you liked physical, measurable World Heritage, they reasoned, you'll love the intangible heritage that can exist simply in the minds and habits of certain people. This can mean everything from oral traditions, performing arts, social practices, quaint rituals and festivities, to "knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe." There are already 267 intangible heritage items, but, as an expansive program official explains, "There exist in the world thousands, even billions of potential practices that could be on the list. It's unlimited and infinite. The only limit is our capacity to handle it." You can bet that will be growing. Meanwhile, recent additions include the Mibu no Hana Taue rice planting ritual in Japan, Mexico's mariachi music, French cooking and horseback-riding, and Croatia's Nijemo Kolo, a silent circle dance from the hinterland of Dalmatia. The only really important heritage ritual still missing from the list is the Texas Two-Step, though it does unfortunately involve a man leading a woman. LESS THAN A DECADE after the U.S. rejoined, UNESCO, with the Palestinian flag now flying at its headquarters, has shown convincingly that it is back to its old political games. Whatever the best intentions of the secretariat, political infighting will always trump good works. Africa, the Middle East, and the emerging nations own it. They may individually contribute 1 percent or less to the budget, but their vote equals America's. Without weighted voting according to contributions, or some safety valve like the UN's Security Council, they will stay in the driver's seat. It is unrealistic to think the U.S. can significantly influence UNESCO's direction, as the futile campaign to block the admission of Palestine shows. The organization does have worthwhile programs in literacy, tsunami warning systems, clean water, post-disaster relief, and others. But unlike some other UN agencies that occasionally have quantifiable, visible results, most of UNESCO's activities are impossible to assess objectively and are oriented to pleasing its activist clients. Moreover, in the absence of any sunset clauses, vested interests can keep asinine or downright undesirable programs, all with overwhelmingly self-important names, running indefinitely. Britain, far more tough-minded toward ineffective UN agencies than the Obama administration, did its own independent assessment of UNESCO last year. Among other failings, the study found it "is unable to identify its impact. Systematic results reporting and evaluation is not adequately practiced.… UNESCO is under-delivering significantly in its leadership of the education sector.… Long-lasting historic underperformance now means much of UNESCO's mandate is often done elsewhere." Without improvement, the UK threatens to cut its funding, as it has already to UN Habitat, the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, and the International Labor Organization. Do useful programs in education and the like require a heavy, inept, expensive international bureaucracy? Or could unilateral foreign aid, along with ad hoc groupings of nations, nongovernmental organizations, and corporate sponsors do the job more efficiently? The question is rapidly becoming academic for the U.S. By cutting off its funding to UNESCO, America has de facto begun heading for the exit. It is not an option to humiliatingly lose all moral authority there by trying to remain a member without paying our dues. (Internal murmuring against the U.S. on this score has already begun.) Washington policymakers must accept the logic of this situation and either change the laws that created it or declare America's official withdrawal. Bokova's December trip to Washington to lobby the Hill changed few minds. Her argument, that U.S. influence abroad will be reduced without its voice at the culture palace on the Seine, pales beside UNESCO's endemic flaws. "UNESCO is easy to criticize, even to mock. How could it be otherwise? Here we have an organization which has set out to influence the educational, scientific and cultural activities of the world—no less. Obviously ridiculous and laughable! Yet would it not be more helpful to suspend judgment at least until the facts have been looked at as a whole?" Those words were written in 1951 by a former UNESCO staff member, Britain's Theodore Besterman, in the first book ever published about the organization. It shows that the UN's cultural agency, with its ill-defined, infinite utopian mandate, has been open to abuse and invited criticism since the beginning. The difference is that now the facts are in. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/the-united-nations-rogue-agency-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The United Nations&#8217; Rogue Agency</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/the-united-nations-rogue-agency-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/the-united-nations-rogue-agency-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>richwas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unemployment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Nations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bulgaria]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[city]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[communication]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[director]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recommendations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/the-united-nations-rogue-agency-2/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ We have all heard the jocular remark about the inmates taking over the asylum. But I had never actually witnessed that unnerving event until last October 31, when I spent an afternoon in the press gallery of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization in Paris. The vast conference hall was not quite a madhouse, but it was noisy, agitated, and full of wild surmise. Hundreds of delegates from member states milled about, chattering excitedly as the president of UNESCO's biennial general conference plaintively called for them to take their seats and get on with the business at hand. To wit, voting on a request by the Palestinian Authority for membership—and with it, the first recognition of its statehood by a United Nations agency. The stakes were high. In its quest for statehood without making concessions to Israel, the PA had applied for full membership in the UN in September, but it was obvious that the U.S. would veto that ploy in the Security Council. So PA President Mahmoud Abbas was targeting a weak link in the UN system where the veto does not exist. He knew that UNESCO, with its fuzzy cultural mandate, was as open to political manipulation now as it had been when it was an ideological battlefield in the Cold War. The U.S. had made abundantly clear that, due to laws dating from the 1990s, admitting Palestine to any UN agency would mean an immediate cutoff of American funding. In UNESCO's case, this amounted to fully 22 percent of its budget. There was no leeway for interpretation, no possibility of waiving the laws' provisions. Perversely, that seemed only to sharpen the delegates' appetite for admitting Palestine. As the roll was called, it became obvious that they relished thumbing their collective nose at the U.S. and the handful of member states that held this was the wrong place to decide Palestinian statehood. Cheers greeted votes in favor by delegations from Africa, South America, the Middle East, Russia, China, and, of course, France. Joining the fun was the ambassador from Uzbekistan, the beauteous 32-year-old Lola Karimova-Tillyaeva, socialite daughter of President Islam Karimov, whose use of torture against dissidents, including boiling to death, the UN itself has termed "systematic." A sprinkling of moans or boos rippled through the assembly when the U.S., Germany, Holland, and a few others voted against. The president repeatedly called for a bit of decorum. Not a chance: now the grinning, gibbering, gesticulating inmates had indeed taken over. The final vote was 107 in favor to 14 against, with 52 abstentions. For anyone who still believed in UNESCO's mission, it was an appalling spectacle. With that frivolous, self-defeating act, UNESCO signaled to the world that, once again, it was becoming the UN's over-politicized rogue agency. IT WAS A LOSE-LOSE MOVE both for Palestine and UNESCO itself. After the grandstanding, Palestine was no closer to statehood and possibly further away, hardening positions and jeopardizing the peace process. "It was an extremely reckless and callous move by Abbas," one dismayed Western ambassador to UNESCO told me later. "There are no winners in this. Abbas has alienated some of his most important supporters." The State Department and both parties in Congress quickly denounced the vote. As Texas Republican Kay Granger, chair of the House State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, had warned, "I have made it clear to the Palestinian leadership that I would not support sending U.S. taxpayer money to the Palestinians if they sought statehood at the United Nations. There are consequences for short-cutting the process, not only for the Palestinians, but for our longstanding relationship with the United Nations." UNESCO immediately began suffering those consequences, starting with the loss of America's contribution of about $80 million to its budget for last year, for 2012, and perhaps indefinitely. "We have to take drastic action and take it now," the director general, Irina Bokova, said unhappily. "We are reviewing all activities in all areas, including staff travel, publications, communication costs, meetings, and the rest." Some 20 of its 57 field offices might have to be closed. It is paying the logical price for letting politics trump its cultural/educational mandate, and demonstrating that UNESCO lends itself, systemically, to this kind of abuse. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it, as the man said, and this fiasco reminded me of the bad old days of the 1980s. UNESCO was then a hotbed of vicious anti-Western ideology complete with strident condemnations of America. Instead of concentrating on fostering "full and equal opportunities for education for all, in the unrestricted pursuit of objective truth, and in the free exchange of ideas and knowledge," it became a political tool wielded by the Third World and the Soviet bloc. "If you don't like what we are proposing," an African delegate once shouted at Westerners, "we will jam it down your throats until you choke!" One notorious program promoted a socialist-lining New International Economic Order. Its undeclared purpose was to redistribute Western wealth to a global welfare state; private enterprise was dismissed as "an economy of waste." Educational grants were funding violent Marxist movements like the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Soviet-armed South-West Africa People's Organization. Another wayward project was euphemistically called Communication in the Service of Man. In reality it promoted a New World Information and Communication Order with state licensing and codes of correct conduct for newsmen. When in 1983 France expelled 47 KGB spies, a dozen were under cover at UNESCO. The director general was one Amadou-Mahtar M'Bow, a volatile, irascible Senegalese who ran it like a profitable personal fief. Official funds were used to stroke his supporters. All job appointments and promotions were personally approved by him and based on ideology and nationality. When a planned U.S. audit of financial irregularities was announced, a mysterious fire destroyed key files. Disgusted and demoralized, competent senior staff fled, one protesting in writing "the destruction of professionalism." The U.S., too, left: Ronald Reagan finally had enough and pulled America out of UNESCO in 1984. WITH NO PERCEPTIBLE REPERCUSSIONS on American citizens except tax savings, it stayed out for 19 years. In 2003, George W. Bush took us back in "as a symbol of our commitment to human dignity." The organization had been reformed, he noted hopefully at the time, "and America will participate fully in its mission to advance human rights and tolerance and learning." Laura Bush later became, and remains, a UNESCO goodwill ambassador. After all, idealistic America has always been an important part of this organization with utopian visions, beginning with its creation. The first American member of the executive board, the writer Archibald MacLeish, wrote the high-flown preamble to UNESCO's constitution: "Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed." Today it has grown to 195 member states, more than any other multinational organization including the UN itself. Its staff of some 2,000 toil in half-a-dozen buildings at its sprawling Paris headquarters and field offices. They handle a biennial budget of $653 million, plus millions more in extra-budgetary contributions. At its best, it can be useful for monitoring and standard-setting in fields like education, science, and information. Member-state delegations I spoke with voiced many complaints about UNESCO—especially its growing politicization—but mostly like its education programs. American officials generally praise its efforts for universal literacy and clean water, women's education, and disaster preparedness. One of its largest American-supported education projects is in Afghanistan, with literacy centers for both civilians and Afghan police officers. Membership can also be good for American business. Companies like Apple, Cisco, Intel, Google, and Microsoft are cooperating with UNESCO because it opens access to global markets. As David T. Killion, U.S. ambassador to the organization, told me, "We think there are critical American interests at stake here: moral, cultural, national security, even economic interests. We think this is a strategic piece of real estate in the international system. It can get us to places we couldn't get to otherwise." But Killion has been publicly critical of the political manipulation that goes on. Formerly a leading voice on international organizations with the House Foreign Affairs Committee, he made the rounds of delegations trying to dissuade them from voting for Palestinian admission. During the executive board's debate on the question he took the floor to express America's "strong opposition." He added, "We are profoundly disappointed that this issue has injected a difficult political issue into this organization, and believe that it has the potential to undermine severely the organization's ability to carry out its critical mandate." In 2010, he protested UNESCO's tendency to single out Israel for criticism. "This undermines UNESCO's credibility," he said. "The U.S. strongly encourages the executive board to seek an alternative to highly politicized decisions and seemingly permanent agenda items focused only on one country." If the organization keeps hammering Israel, it is due to its aggressive Arab-African regional bloc of members. Its influence over UNESCO can be seen in ways large and small. There was the scandal over World Philosophy Day. UNESCO inexplicably decided the 2010 conference would be held in Tehran, capital of that beacon of free thought, Iran—an inexcusable choice by an organization supposedly dedicated to freedom and human rights. Shocked academics around the world declared a boycott, calling the confab a propaganda exercise for a brutal regime. "It's as if they decided to hold a philosophy conference in Berlin in 1938—with Goebbels as its head!" said Dr. Ramin Jahanbegloo, an expatriate Iranian philosopher teaching at the University of Toronto. Backpedaling, an embarrassed UNESCO first said the conference would go ahead as scheduled, then tried to dissociate itself from events in Teheran by holding a parallel meeting in Paris. Confusion all around, along with red faces. UNESCO's warped attitude toward Israel showed again in its ham-fisted condemnation last fall of a political cartoon. Published in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz , it depicted Premier Benjamin Netanyahu and his defense minister briefing pilots before an imaginary attack on Iran, telling them to target UNESCO's office in the West Bank on their way back—a joking reference to Netanyahu's anger over the admission of Palestine. Within hours, a UNESCO assistant director general solemnly summoned Israeli Ambassador Nimrod Barkan and handed him an overwrought official protest saying, preposterously, that the cartoon "endangers the lives of unarmed diplomats." Barkan merely reminded him that Israel enjoys a free press. "We've heard of Islamists raging against supposedly disrespectful cartoons," an Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman commented, "but UN officials going down the same road, that's a whole new ballgame." THAT BLUNDER WAS ONLY a peccadillo compared with the ludicrous mess last year over filling an opening on the UNESCO committee that deals with human rights issues. The mind-boggling choice: Syria. No matter that the UN's own High Commissioner for Human Rights recommends that the regime of Bashar al-Assad be prosecuted in the International Criminal Court in The Hague for crimes against humanity. That includes slaughtering some 5,000 demonstrators, including 300 children, and arresting 14,000 in its recent crackdown on opposition protests. This grotesquerie was created by manipulating the organization's skewed procedural rules. Syria was elected to the executive board two years ago, and all members have the right to sit on its committees. Once the Arab bloc decided for its own reasons to put Syria on human rights, it was a done deal. "It's shameful for the UN's prime agency on science, culture, and education to take a country that is shooting its own people and empower it to decide human rights issues on a global scale," says Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based UN Watch, an independent human rights monitoring group. Commented Florida Republican Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, "UNESCO continues to outdo itself with stunning displays of irresponsible and dangerous behavior. The selection of Syria to serve on a UNESCO committee responsible for human rights is an affront to those suffering at the hands of tyrants all around the world. The Administration must continue to follow U.S. law and withhold funds to UNESCO so our tax dollars are not used to support this increasingly irresponsible agency." Attempting to distance itself from the gaffe, UNESCO quietly let it be known that Director General Bokova actually disapproved of the choice but had her hands tied. That only underscored that Bokova, a soft-spoken, graying, grandmotherly lady of 60, has a tiger by the tail. In reality the organization is run by the volatile, unpredictable, pliant general conference, and the 58-member executive board that sets the conference agenda. The Arab-African bloc has an automatic 20 votes on the board, and can easily find another 10 from emerging nations for a majority to push through policies predictably anti-Western, or utterly irrational, like the vote on Palestine. However well-intentioned, Bokova is powerless to control or prevent its rogue actions. Elected in 2009 as UNESCO's first woman director general, Bokova was a member of Bulgaria's Socialist—formerly Communist—Party, as well as ambassador to France and UNESCO itself. She had served as Bulgaria's foreign minister under Premier Zhan Videnov, who did little to clean up the country's post-communist cesspool of organized crime and corruption. She is a convert to press freedom—she certainly did not learn it from her father, who edited Bulgaria's main, party-lining communist newspaper. Like many of the privileged of her generation, she studied at Moscow's State Institute of International Relations, later doing stints at the University of Maryland and Harvard. "I am from this cold war generation that lived through this period; we didn't choose it," Bokova told the New York Times defensively before her election. "I have nothing to be ashamed of." Her election was symptomatic of the penchant of multilateral organizations for choosing the least common denominator. She is certainly not the strong, decisive leader UNESCO needs to keep the rambunctious executive board and general conference from riding roughshod over it. But in one respect at least, Bokova's election helped UNESCO avoid another spectacular calamity. Her only rival for the position, backed by the Arab-African bloc, was the Egyptian culture minister Farouk Hosny. Hosny's record for promoting culture and defending human rights was of the Middle Eastern variety. He had declared he would personally burn any Jewish book found in Egypt's great Alexandria library. He also boasted he had helped organize the 1985 escape of the Palestine Liberation Front hijackers of the Achille Lauro cruise ship, the charmers who shot the disabled American Leon Klinghoffer and shoved him overboard in his wheelchair. This being UNESCO, Hosny almost became its director. Arm-twisting and threatening, Egypt and its allies on the executive board managed to push the election to five rounds of voting—unprecedented in the organization's history—before Bokova narrowly won. That a thug like Hosny could come within a hair of UNESCO's top job speaks volumes. ITS STATE PRIORITIES are also revealing. Number one on the official list is Africa, followed by gender equality. Only then come proper core activities like education, ethics, and intercultural dialogue. So no one should be surprised if the African tail wags the UNESCO dog. Official documents are peppered with the phrase "especially in Africa." Its Cultural Commission considers that intercultural dialogue mainly means raising awareness of the slave trade, slavery, and the African diaspora. The general conference last November proudly expressed its official satisfaction with the publication of the eight-volume General History of Africa , "making this masterpiece of UNESCO one of the major intellectual achievements of the 20th century [sic]." This order of priorities can lead to the occasional crack-up. Most spectacular in recent memory was the $3 million UNESCO Obiang Nguema Mbasogo International Prize for Research in the Life Sciences, set up in 2008. Never awarded, it was suspended in 2010 after protests ranging from Nobel laureates and press freedom groups to human rights defenders around the world. How could such a generous, euphonious, impressively named prize with the worthy goal of encouraging scientific research cause such a brouhaha? Consider the donor. President Obiang, who has ruled Equatorial Guinea with a despotic hand since taking power in a coup 30 years ago, is justly renowned for rigged elections, arrest and murder of opposition leaders, muzzling the press, and what a UN special rapporteur termed "inhuman conditions" and "systematic torture" in the country's prisons. Along with this goes, naturally, unabashed corruption in the use of the country's abundant oil wealth for himself and his family. Appropriately enough, the $3 million prize money was delivered to UNESCO in cash. When protests over this transparent attempt to improve a brutal dictator's image became too embarrassing, Bokova called for the prize to be withdrawn in 2010 and said she would not be involved with it. Furious backroom politicking followed. Western diplomats, typically scared of looking colonialist or, quelle horreur , anti-African, took a back seat and left it to the sub-Saharans to annul the prize and return the money, presumably in small-denomination banknotes. The Arabs said they would support any decision by the Africans. Those worthies said the prize must be awarded. There things stand, with UNESCO still holding the $3 million—Obiang refuses to take it back—and scheduled to take up the question again in April. Bokova, being against the prize after being for it, was left looking compromised. As a longtime secretariat member told me privately, "There was a very strong feeling here that it was wrong to accept it, just as we were against admitting Palestine. But these things get done anyway, despite what we feel is right." Clearly out of control, it's anyone's guess what this outfit's next caper might be. Compared with the missteps of priority Africa, priority gender equality looks innocent enough. Of course women and girls should be taught to read and write, and UNESCO has programs in that field. And they should certainly be protected from discrimination, though it's hard to see what UNESCO does about that except preach the good word. But in its effort to please feminist zealots, the organization inevitably ends up looking more than a bit silly. As when it slavishly altered UNESCO's slogan to read, "Building peace in the minds of men and women ." It has become a one-stop shop for everything on the feminists' shopping list, plus some pleasant surprises. Do media women in the Maghreb need courses in "gender sensitive scriptwriting"? It held a workshop in Casablanca for that. Do downtrodden female philosophers need to "write free from the looming gaze of an imaginary, universal, male reader"? There's a Women Philosophers' Journal where they can. And while writing, they can refer to the UNESCO "Guidelines on Gender-Neutral Language" pamphlet, with its gross cartoons showing male chauvinists ruthlessly dominating helpless females. It is surely helpful to women raising children amid poverty and disease to know that "human power" is better than "manpower," "wife and husband" preferable to "man and wife," "intrepid child" tops "tomboy." OF ALL UNESCO's countless programs, the World Heritage List is by far the best known. The 936 properties in 153 countries, including 21 in the U.S. from Yellowstone to the Statue of Liberty, are selected as being "of outstanding universal value." When the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage was adopted in 1972, it was to ensure that important natural and manmade sites were not wantonly endangered—a worthy cause to be sure. But today UNESCO has twisted its meaning to satisfy as many of its client activists as possible. The new slogan of its flagship program is World Heritage and Sustainable Development , thereby pleasing the greens and those who view UNESCO primarily as an economic development, not cultural, agency. (Just for the record, culture properly understood has nothing whatever to do with economic development, as many an impecunious writer can attest.) As Irina Bokova said in a recent speech announcing the upcoming 40th anniversary celebrations of the convention, "Heritage stands at the crossroads of climate change, social transformations and processes of reconciliation between peoples. Heritage carries high stakes—for the identity and belonging of peoples, for the sustainable economic and social development of communities." Anybody feel left out? To be sure, with a headquarters staff of 80 running the program, the World Heritage Committee can sometimes help avoid damage to important sites. When in 1995 Egypt planned a new highway near the Giza Pyramids which might have blighted the site, negotiations with the Egyptian government found a solution. And when the archaeological site of Delphi in Greece was threatened by plans for an aluminum plant nearby, the Greek government was persuaded to find another location. But many observers are increasingly unhappy with the way the World Heritage Committee operates. They accuse it of inappropriate politicization and, ultimately, corruption of its original mandate. This came to light publicly at the general conference last November, when the Estonian ambassador, Marten Kokk, stood up and said aloud what many insiders were thinking. "We regret to say," he declared, "that the increasing operational problems and politicization of the World Heritage Committee compromise the credibility of the [1972] Convention and the World Heritage List." He also criticized conflicts of interest on the committee, with members abusing their positions to win selection of candidate sites in their home countries. Interviews with other delegations made clear what Kokk was concerned about. "Several delegations are unhappy with the way the Committee is selecting sites for its list," the ambassador of one Nordic country told me. (Delegations I interviewed insisted on anonymity when voicing criticism.) "Too often, the decision is made not on the grounds of a site's historical or aesthetic value, but for political reasons. As a result, the committee's choices diverge more and more frequently from the professional advice of the outside experts who make recommendations. This is against the very raison d'être of the 1972 Convention." A member of a different delegation, who sat on the committee for four years, confirmed this. "It's clear that, for political reasons, the World Heritage Committee is not complying with the recommendations of the experts in selecting sites," he said. "There are many obvious cases. We regret this very much." A recent report by an external auditor confirms the program's corruption. It notes that in one recent year, six candidate sites that the experts did not find "of outstanding universal value" were selected as heritage sites anyway for political and economic reasons. MEMBER STATES OBVIOUSLY consider that it is worth doing whatever necessary to get as many World Heritage sites as possible. They mean prestige, jobs, and economic development in the form of increased tourism. Travel agencies tout package tours focused on World Heritage-listed sites, manna from heaven for poor countries. "Is the World Heritage Committee politicized?" asked one disabused Western ambassador I talked with. "Everything at the UN is politicized. Should the committee be overturning the recommendations of the experts? Absolutely not, and we have to put pressure on member states not to do that anymore." A committee official says that it is now considering the growing criticism and issuing new operational guidelines. "We hope these reforms will correct anomalies," he says, without explaining how. Some locations with World Heritage sites are learning that it's not an unmixed blessing. The German city of Dresden, known for its splendid baroque and rococo architecture, won heritage status in 2004 for its restored city center including palaces, churches, opera houses, and museums. Then in 2006 UNESCO's culture police frowned on the city fathers' decision to build a four-lane bridge across the river Elbe, more than a mile away from the historic center. They gravely "delisted" the city in 2009 for refusing to obey orders not to build. The citizens of Dresden now enjoy their new bridge and somehow continue to thrive in one of Germany's fastest-growing cities. Latest target of UNESCO intrusion is Liverpool. The English city on the Mersey, home of the Beatles, founded in 1207, was granted World Heritage status in 2004. Alas, a three-day visit by UNESCO inspectors last fall concluded with the warning that it would lose its status unless it made radical changes to the $9 billion Liverpool Waters project to regenerate its northern docklands. The project, a half-mile from the historic center, includes offices, a shopping mall, cruise liner terminal, and other job-creating features. "This project is absolutely vital for the future of the city," the head of the Liverpool city council, Joe Anderson, told me on the phone. "We have a 29 percent unemployment rate, and this will create jobs both now and for generations to come. Plans dating back 100 years show our forefathers wanted a similar docklands development. And now we have these outsiders trying to tell us how to shape our city." He still hopes for a compromise, but Liverpudlians will get their new docklands. The intrusions can get worse. Maladroitly designating a World Heritage site can actually spark warfare, a rather serious unintended consequence for an organization striving for a "culture of peace." That happened on the Cambodia-Thailand border after the Preah Vihear temple was selected in July 2008 in response to a Cambodian request. This reignited a longstanding border dispute over that area. Within weeks the first Thai and Cambodian soldiers were being killed in firefights, while thousands of civilians fled. The 1,000-year-old temple itself was damaged. The military standoff continues while the International Court of Justice considers the case. Meanwhile, UNESCO's boffins recently created a functionary's dream: a program that is, literally, infinite. If you liked physical, measurable World Heritage, they reasoned, you'll love the intangible heritage that can exist simply in the minds and habits of certain people. This can mean everything from oral traditions, performing arts, social practices, quaint rituals and festivities, to "knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe." There are already 267 intangible heritage items, but, as an expansive program official explains, "There exist in the world thousands, even billions of potential practices that could be on the list. It's unlimited and infinite. The only limit is our capacity to handle it." You can bet that will be growing. Meanwhile, recent additions include the Mibu no Hana Taue rice planting ritual in Japan, Mexico's mariachi music, French cooking and horseback-riding, and Croatia's Nijemo Kolo, a silent circle dance from the hinterland of Dalmatia. The only really important heritage ritual still missing from the list is the Texas Two-Step, though it does unfortunately involve a man leading a woman. LESS THAN A DECADE after the U.S. rejoined, UNESCO, with the Palestinian flag now flying at its headquarters, has shown convincingly that it is back to its old political games. Whatever the best intentions of the secretariat, political infighting will always trump good works. Africa, the Middle East, and the emerging nations own it. They may individually contribute 1 percent or less to the budget, but their vote equals America's. Without weighted voting according to contributions, or some safety valve like the UN's Security Council, they will stay in the driver's seat. It is unrealistic to think the U.S. can significantly influence UNESCO's direction, as the futile campaign to block the admission of Palestine shows. The organization does have worthwhile programs in literacy, tsunami warning systems, clean water, post-disaster relief, and others. But unlike some other UN agencies that occasionally have quantifiable, visible results, most of UNESCO's activities are impossible to assess objectively and are oriented to pleasing its activist clients. Moreover, in the absence of any sunset clauses, vested interests can keep asinine or downright undesirable programs, all with overwhelmingly self-important names, running indefinitely. Britain, far more tough-minded toward ineffective UN agencies than the Obama administration, did its own independent assessment of UNESCO last year. Among other failings, the study found it "is unable to identify its impact. Systematic results reporting and evaluation is not adequately practiced.… UNESCO is under-delivering significantly in its leadership of the education sector.… Long-lasting historic underperformance now means much of UNESCO's mandate is often done elsewhere." Without improvement, the UK threatens to cut its funding, as it has already to UN Habitat, the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, and the International Labor Organization. Do useful programs in education and the like require a heavy, inept, expensive international bureaucracy? Or could unilateral foreign aid, along with ad hoc groupings of nations, nongovernmental organizations, and corporate sponsors do the job more efficiently? The question is rapidly becoming academic for the U.S. By cutting off its funding to UNESCO, America has de facto begun heading for the exit. It is not an option to humiliatingly lose all moral authority there by trying to remain a member without paying our dues. (Internal murmuring against the U.S. on this score has already begun.) Washington policymakers must accept the logic of this situation and either change the laws that created it or declare America's official withdrawal. Bokova's December trip to Washington to lobby the Hill changed few minds. Her argument, that U.S. influence abroad will be reduced without its voice at the culture palace on the Seine, pales beside UNESCO's endemic flaws. "UNESCO is easy to criticize, even to mock. How could it be otherwise? Here we have an organization which has set out to influence the educational, scientific and cultural activities of the world—no less. Obviously ridiculous and laughable! Yet would it not be more helpful to suspend judgment at least until the facts have been looked at as a whole?" Those words were written in 1951 by a former UNESCO staff member, Britain's Theodore Besterman, in the first book ever published about the organization. It shows that the UN's cultural agency, with its ill-defined, infinite utopian mandate, has been open to abuse and invited criticism since the beginning. The difference is that now the facts are in. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/the-united-nations-rogue-agency-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Keystone and the Unions</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/keystone-and-the-unions/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/keystone-and-the-unions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>clarenbachvanderkam718</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unemployment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[construction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democratic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[green]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jobs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[keystone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[north]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pipeline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[thousands]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/keystone-and-the-unions/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ President Barack Obama placated one wing of his liberal base, environmentalists, with his decision to kill the Keystone Pipeline, but he's angered another -- labor unions. Some of them, anyway. Terry O'Sullivan, head of the Laborers' International Union of North America ( LIUNA ), has called Obama's action "politics at its worst," saying that "once again the President has sided with environmentalists instead of blue collar construction workers." O'Sullivan angrily vowed that "workers across the U.S. will not forget this." The Keystone project has long pitted the two key Obama constituencies against one another. Green groups agitated against the pipeline over worries of water contamination and other (largely baseless) environmental fears, while many building and trade unions lusted after the thousands of construction jobs the pipeline would create in the United States. Mark H. Ayers, president of the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO has publicly hammered the jobs issue. In a January 18th press release, Ayers voiced the frustration of many union workers, saying "…with a national unemployment rate in construction at 16 percent nationally, it is beyond disappointing that President Obama placed a higher priority on politics rather than our nation's number one challenge: jobs." James T. Callahan, president of the International Union of Operating Engineers, agrees, complaining to the Washington Post ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/keystone-and-the-unions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama’s failed promises: Nevada edition</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/04/obamas-failed-promises-nevada-edition/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/04/obamas-failed-promises-nevada-edition/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 22:37:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HigleyLocklear930</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unemployment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012-elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[florida]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[press-release]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[street]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/04/obamas-failed-promises-nevada-edition/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ The good folks at the RNC took a look  at what candidate Obama promised in Nevada during the 2008 presidential campaign &#8230; and the record of failure that followed. The result reveals President Obama&#8217;s failure to live up to candidate Obama&#8217;s promises. In a new video the RNC reminds us of how Obama&#8217;s failed promises impact Nevada. Nevada has the highest unemployment rate in the country &#8212; 12.6%, the highest foreclosure filings in the country and more than 58% of properties with mortgages underwater: Research proving Obama&#8217;s failed promises is provided below the fold courtesy of the RNC. FAILED ON HOUSING PROMISE: Obama Promised Nevadans That He Would “Act Quickly To Help People Stay In Their Homes”  “I&#8217;ll also act quickly to help people stay in their homes, something that&#8217;s especially critical here in Nevada where foreclosure rates are five times the national average. I&#8217;ll help responsible homeowners refinance their mortgages on affordable terms, and put in place a three-month moratorium on foreclosures to give folks the breathing room they need to get back on their feet. And I won&#8217;t let banks and lenders off the hook when it was their greed and irresponsibility that got us into this mess.” (Senator Barack Obama,  Remarks At A Campaign Event , Reno, NV, 10/25/08)   FAILURE:   Obama’s “Mosaic” Of Housing Policies Is “ Entering Its Fourth Year Of Weak Sales And High Foreclosures.”  &#8220;The proposal, to be released in the coming weeks, is the latest addition to a mosaic of Obama administration programs aimed at boosting the housing market, which is entering its fourth year of weak sales and high foreclosures.&#8221; (Lorraine Woellert, &#8220;Obama Pushes Proposal To Streamline Refinancing For Homeowners,&#8221;  Bloomberg , 1/25/12) Under Obama’s Housing Programs “ Fewer Than 1,000 Loans Have Refinanced.”    &#8221;Haven&#8217;t similar programs been tried before? Yes. But those programs put in place a series of rules designed to ensure that government entities weren&#8217;t taking on more risk by allowing investors and banks to offload risky mortgages onto the government. In 2010, for example, the Obama administration rolled out a program to let underwater borrowers refinance through the FHA, but that program required banks to first write down loan balances so that borrowers could qualify under existing rules. Fewer than 1,000 loans have refinanced through the program. Congress approved a more complicated version of this idea in spring 2008 called Hope for Homeowners, but it also resulted in just a few hundred refinances.&#8221; (Nick Timiraos, &#8220;Six Questions On Obama&#8217;s Mortgage Refinance Proposal,&#8221;  The Wall Street Journal , 1/25/12) Four Years Later Housing Is Still “ Especially Critical Here In Nevada”   “For 60 Consecutive Months, Nevada Has Had The Highest Foreclosure Rate Of Any State. That&#8217;s Five Long, Painful Years.”  (Dana Bash and Deirdre Walsh, “No Silver Lining In Housing Market As Nevada Votes,”  CNN , 2/3/12)   “More Than 6 Percent Of Nevada Housing Units (One In 16) Had At Least One Foreclosure Filing In 2011, Giving It The Nation’s Highest State Foreclosure Rate For The Fifth Consecutive Year”  (RealtyTrac, “2011 Year-End Foreclosure Market Report: Foreclosures On The Retreat,”  Press Release , 1/12/12)   “[L]as Vegas Posted The Nation’s Top Foreclosure Rate For The Year Among Metropolitan Statistical Areas…”  “With 7.38 percent of its housing units (one in 14) with at least one foreclosure filing in 2011, Las Vegas posted the nation’s top foreclosure rate for the year among metropolitan statistical areas with a population of 200,000 or more.” (RealtyTrac, “2011 Year-End Foreclosure Market Report: Foreclosures On The Retreat,”  Press Release , 1/12/12) In Nevada, Nearly Two-Thirds Of Homeowners Are Underwater On Their Mortgages.  &#8221;Data earlier this year from CoreLogic.com showed that nearly two-in-three Nevada homeowners owed more on their property than their homes were worth &#8211; a situation also known as being &#8216;underwater.&#8217; Nevada was followed by Arizona (51 percent), Florida (47 percent) and Michigan (36 percent) in terms of underwater loans.&#8221; (Aaron Blake, &#8220;Obama And The Politics Of The Housing Foreclosure Crisis,&#8221;  The Washington Post &#8216;s “ The Fix  ,“ 10/24/11) FAILED ON AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE IN 2008, OBAMA PROMISED NEVADANS THAT HIS HEALTH CARE PLAN WOULD LOWER PREMIUMS PROMISE: Obama Said That Under His Plan, Americans Would See “Lower Premiums.”  “If you have health insurance, the only thing that will change under my plan is that we will lower premiums.” (Senator Barack Obama,  Remarks At A Campaign Event , Reno, NV, 10/25/08) FAILURE:  Factcheck.org: ObamaCare Is Actually Making Health Care &#8220;Less Affordable.&#8221;  &#8220;At the moment, the new law is making health care slightly less affordable. Independent health care experts say the law has caused some insurance premiums to rise. As we wrote in October, the new law has caused about a 1 percent to 3 percent increase in health insurance premiums for employer-sponsored family plans because of requirements for increased benefits. Last year&#8217;s premium increases cast even more doubt on another promise the president has made &#8211; that the health care law would &#8216;lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year.&#8217;&#8221; (D&#8217;Angelo Gore, &#8220;Promises, Promises,&#8221;  Factcheck.org , 1/4/12)   The Washington Post   &#8216;s The Fact Checker: “Insurance Premiums Have Gone Up . . .”  &#8220;Moreover, at this point it is debatable whether the law has made health care more affordable. Insurance premiums have gone up, in part because of new benefits mandated by the law.&#8221; (Glenn Kessler, &#8220;The Fine Print In Obama&#8217;s &#8216;Promises Kept&#8217; Ad,&#8221;  The Washington Post&#8217;s  &#8221;  The Fact Checker ,&#8221; 1/6/12)   Kaiser Study Found That Costs Of Family Coverage “Climbed” 9 Percent In 2011.  “The average cost of a family policy climbed 9 percent in 2011 to $15,073, according to a poll of 2,088 private companies and state and local government agencies by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation in Menlo Park, California, and the Chicago- based American Hospital Association’s Health Research and Educational Trust.” (Jeffrey Young, “Health-Benefit Costs Rise Most In Six Years,”  Bloomberg , 9/27/11) Workers Paid An Average Of $132 More For Family Coverage In 2011 Than They Did In 2010.  &#8220;Although premiums rose, employers kept the percentage of the premium workers pay about the same: An average of 18 percent for single coverage and 28 percent for family plans. Still, with rising costs, workers paid more, up an average of $132 a year for family coverage. Since 1999, the dollar amount workers contribute toward premiums nationally has grown 168 percent, while their wages have grown by 50 percent, according to the survey.&#8221; (Julie Appleby, &#8220;Cost Of Employer Insurance Plans Surge In 2011,&#8221;  Kaiser Health News , 9/27/11) The Cost Of Single Employee Coverage Grew 8 Percent According To The Kaiser Survey.  &#8220;Family plan premiums hit $15,073 on average, while coverage for single employees grew 8 percent to $5,429, according to a survey released Tuesday by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research &#038; Educational Trust. (KHN is an editorially-independent program of the foundation.)&#8221; (Julie Appleby, &#8220;Cost Of Employer Insurance Plans Surge In 2011,&#8221;  Kaiser Health News , 9/27/11)   Nevada Received A Waiver From ObamaCare To Avoid “Destabilization” The Obama Administration Gave Nevada A Statewide Waiver From ObamaCare To Avoid “ Destabilization Of The Individual Market .”  “The Health and Human Services Department announced late Friday that Nevada had secured a statewide waiver from certain implementation requirements of the Obama administration’s health care law, because forcing them through, the department found, ‘may lead to the destabilization of the individual market.’” (Karoun Demirjian, “Nevada Secures Partial Waiver From Federal Health Care Law,”  Las Vegas Sun , 5/16/11) Nevada Received A Waiver Reducing The Requirement Of Revenue Spent On Medical Expenses From 80 Percent To 75 Percent Due To Fears It Would Drive Golden Rule And Aetna From The Insurance Market.  “Nevada’s Insurance Division had appealed to the feds to reduce the federal requirement that health plans serving people who buy insurance on their own must spend at least 80 percent of the money they collect on medical expenses. Under the national rule, companies that don’t spend that percentage of revenue on medical costs have to cut policyholders rebate checks starting this year. Nevada asked that requirement be reduced to 72 percent for one year, arguing that top insurance providers would be so strapped to make the payments that they’d exit the state market. Health and Human Services didn’t fully buy that argument, but did agree to reduce the requirement to 75 percent for a year, expressing concern about what might happen to people with policies from insurers Golden Rule and Aetna if they didn’t.” (Karoun Demirjian, “Nevada Secures Partial Waiver From Federal Health Care Law,”  Las Vegas Sun , 5/16/11) FAILED ON GREEN ENERGY JOBS IN 2008, OBAMA PROMISED TO CREATE GREEN ENERGY JOBS AND REDUCE DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL PROMISE: Obama Said He Would “Create Five Million” New Jobs And “End Our Dependence On Oil From Middle East Dictators.”  “If I am President, I will invest $15 billion a year in renewable sources of energy to create five million new, green jobs over the next decade &#8211; jobs that pay well and can&#8217;t be outsourced; jobs building solar panels and wind turbines and fuel-efficient cars; jobs that will help us end our dependence on oil from Middle East dictators.” (Senator Barack Obama,  Remarks At A Campaign Event , Reno, NV, 10/25/08)   FAILURE:  Obama Has Taken Credit For 2.7 Million Green Energy Jobs That He Did Not Create.  “The Brookings Institution study refers to 2.7 million workers currently employed by the clean economy — not the number of jobs created by Obama, which a viewer might interpret from the ad. The report found that ‘clean economy establishments’ added half a million jobs between 2003 and 2010, comprising six years of the Bush administration.” (“AdWatch: Obama’s 1 st  Campaign TV Ad Defends His Energy Record Without Feel-Good Images,”  The Associated Press ,  1/20/12) Obama’s $38.6 Billion Green Loan Program Created Only 3,500 Jobs, But Obama Had Predicted It Would Save Or Create 65,000.  “The Washington Post reported in September that Mr. Obama’s $38.6 billion green loan program had created a mere 3,500 jobs over two years. He had predicted it would ‘save or create’ 65,000.” (Editorial, “The Non-Green Job Boom,”  The Wall Street Journal ,  11/28/11) Obama’s $500 Million Program Designed To Train Workers For Green Jobs “Has Come Up Far Short Of Its Goals.”  “The Labor Department&#8217;s inspector general says a $500 million program designed to train workers for green jobs has come up far short of its goals. A report finds that only about 8,000 people participating in the program have actually found work so far. That&#8217;s just 10 percent of the target goal of placing 80,000 workers in careers in energy efficiency or renewable energy by 2013.” (“Report Says Green Jobs Program Far Short Of Goals,”  The Associated Press , 10/3/11) It Is “Absolutely Not True” That Obama’s Policies Have Helped Wean The U.S. From Foreign Oil.  “When asked, though, whether the Obama administration&#8217;s policies have helped wean the U.S. from foreign oil, [Oppenheimer &#038; Co. energy analyst Fadel] Gheit was equally emphatic. ‘Absolutely not true,’ Gheit said. ‘It was all market driven and all through American ingenuity….It was no thanks to Washington, not thanks to lobbyists, not thanks to anybody.’” (Josh Gerstein, “What Obama’s First Ad Doesn’t Say,”  Politico’s  &#8220;Under The Radar&#8221; , 1/19/12) The Obama Administration Denied A Permit To Build The Keystone Pipeline.  “The Obama administration announced Wednesday that it will deny a permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline, an important link between a U.S. market that&#8217;s thirsty for energy and a rich source of petroleum in nice, stable, neighborly Canada.” (Editorial, “Pipeline Politics: Misguided Obama Blocks Keystone Pipeline,”  Chicago Tribune , 1/19/12) “The Oil From Canada Could Ultimately Supplant Much Of The Oil The United States Imports From The Middle East And Other Unstable Regions. It Could Give The Country A Measure Of Energy Security.”  (Editorial, “Pipeline Delay An Insult To Jobless,”  The Detroit News , 11/14/11) Previous editions of Obama&#8217;s failed promises: Obama&#8217;s failed promises: Florida edition Obama&#8217;s failed promises: Iowa edition ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/04/obamas-failed-promises-nevada-edition/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Economics projects a 94 EV defeat for Barack Obama</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/03/economics-projects-a-94-ev-defeat-for-barack-obama/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/03/economics-projects-a-94-ev-defeat-for-barack-obama/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 03:30:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>apgreco</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unemployment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[doom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gdp]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[growth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[north]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prediction]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/03/economics-projects-a-94-ev-defeat-for-barack-obama/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Over at the American Enterprise Institute, James Pethokoukis modeled the economy and the effect of the economy on the 2012 elections . He calculated what unemployment would look like under 28 different scenarios, varying both job and labor force growth rates to cover the range of possibilities, ad the results look bad if there&#8217;s any sort of return to the previous trend, should job growth rates not grow sharply. Even worse for the President, Pethokoukis applied a model by Ray Fair to guess the resulting share of the vote Barack Obama will win based on likely GDP growth rates. Pethokoukis calls the resulting prediction a &#8220;close race,&#8221; but it actually isn&#8217;t. Using Swingometer and some simple math, I think the prediction is one of a nearly 100 EV win for the Republican nominee. Pethokoukis uses Fair&#8217;s model to project that the Obama/Biden ticket should get 47.8% of the two-party popular vote in November, if the economy sees 2% growth this year. In 2008, the McCain/Palin ticket received 46.3% of the two-party vote, meaning Obama had a 7.4 point lead. For Obama to get only 47.8% would give the Republican ticket a 4.4 point lead in the two-party vote, meaning the prediction is of an 11.8 point swing from Democrats to Republicans from 2008 to 2012. The Swingometers at Unlikely Voter happen to work with swings in the two party vote. We can take that 11.8 and plug it right in . The result is not particularly close, in my opinion: That&#8217;s right: Using the Pethokoukis figures and plugging them into my Swingometer, 2% GDP growth predicts a 316-222 Electoral College victory for the Republicans. Republicans swing Nebraska&#8217;s second district, Colorado, Minnesota, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, New Hampshire, and even Maine&#8217;s second district. I don&#8217;t call that a close contest at all. 94 EVs would be the biggest Republican win since 1988. We can&#8217;t really expect old-fashioned blowouts anymore, though. In 1956, 1964, and 1980, the parties and the nation were less polarized on the issues and on philosophy. There were conservative Democrats and Rockefeller Republicans. Republicans and Democrats could easily find themselves preferring the other party&#8217;s candidate. Now, though, conservative Democrats are gone, the Rockefeller Republicans are gone, and the nation is polarized. Democrats aren&#8217;t going to win Texas and Republicans aren&#8217;t going to win California. So a nearly 100 EV win I don&#8217;t call particularly close on the modern scale. Certainly, in this scenario, we&#8217;re not having a late night wondering who won. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/03/economics-projects-a-94-ev-defeat-for-barack-obama/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

