President Trump and Ambassador Haley Cut United Nations Funding by Almost $300 Million, Globalists Explode

Re-Blogged From iPatriot

U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley is having the week of her career, and inspiring many patriotic Americans while she’s at it.

Haley has an undoubtedly difficult job.  Her role as a liaison between the increasingly populist Trump administration and the evermore globalism-based United Nations puts the ambassador between a rock and a hard place.  Filled with glass.  And bees.  Barefoot.


In other words, it’s not a very glamorous gig, but Haley has been an absolute and unequivocal rockstar in recent days thanks to her mic-dropping moments on the floor of the General Assembly.

It all began with President Trump’s decision to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, making a de facto declaration of America’s recognition of the holy city as the Capital of Israel.  This has predictably angered the non-Christian world, including the nearby Palestinians and their pals in the caliphate, who would much rather see Israel wiped off the map completely.

In defense of this move, Nikki Haley has been on a warpath with the U.N., doling out punishing reminders to the General Assembly of America’s generosity and clout within the globalist organization.  After the petulant posse of nations decided to continue bristling at the firebrand of an ambassador, Haley then dropped another bombshell:  She’s cutting them off.

“Nikki Haley, United States Ambassador to the United Nations (U.N.), announced Sunday night that the federal government has reduced its contribution to the U.N.’s annual budget by 285 million dollars.

“The Christmas Eve statement reads in full:

“‘Today, the United Nations agreed on a budget for the 2018-2019 fiscal year. ‎Among a host of other successes, the United States negotiated a reduction of over $285 million off the 2016-2017 final budget. In addition to these significant cost savings, we reduced the UN’s bloated management and support functions, bolstered support for key U.S. priorities throughout the world, and instilled more discipline and accountability throughout the UN system.’

“’The inefficiency and overspending of the United Nations are well known. We will no longer let the generosity of the American people be taken advantage of or remain unchecked. This historic reduction in spending – in addition to many other moves toward a more efficient and accountable UN – is a big step in the right direction. While we are pleased with the results of this year’s budget negotiations, you can be sure we’ll continue to look at ways to increase the UN’s efficiency‎ while protecting our interests,’ said Ambassador Haley.”


Nikki Haley’s unenviable task has quickly become a stage for the rising star, whose stern and patriotic actions have infused a bit of action into the otherwise stuffy organization, and signaled to the world that the United States is back to doing with the United States does.

To those who still wish to stand in the way of Nikki Haley, we wish them all the luck in the world.




12 thoughts on “President Trump and Ambassador Haley Cut United Nations Funding by Almost $300 Million, Globalists Explode

  1. Intrigued by your description of Trump’s decision as “angering the non-Christian world”. Palestinians are Christians as well as Muslim, and not “pals” of the Caliphate. It also angered the Pope, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem and most European countries including the UK, which nearly always votes with America at the UN – not this time though. A vote of 128-9 says it all. When America thinks one thing, and almost the entire rest of the world thinks another, the US should really think hard about whether it’s just possible they are in the wrong.


    • And then, there were those who abstained or didn’t show up for the vote. But still, a majority voted against the US as you said.

      There’s an old saying that, One person in the right constitutes a majority of one. And, I remember my Dad saying, “If your friends jumped off a roof, would you jump off also?”

      Rather than go with the majority, I prefer looking at the facts. Fact: Jerusalem is where Israel has their seat of government, and where they say their capitol is. Fact: A majority of Islamic countries in and near the Middle East not only hate Israel, but want the country and its people pushed into the sea. (And, Muslim leaders wouldn’t mind it if all non-muslims would cease to exist as well.)

      So, it seems to me that nothing we do will satisfy them. And, while their oil and threat of terrorism around the world may cower many in the rest of the countries of the world, I prefer to support my friends.

      BTW, I didn’t write that essay.


      • Ok, you didn’t write it but you’ve made a strong defence of it. I don”t think it’s a fact that a majority of Muslim countries want Israeli people pushed into the sea. Even the more extreme elements like the Hamas leader has said he has no quarrel with the Jewish people – only the state of Israel. It’s a fact that Jerusalem is an internationally disputed city. It is holy to 3 major world religions. To recognise it as the capital of Israel – a state which persecutes Christians and Muslims – is biased and offensive to followers of both religions. Maybe if President Trump recognises Palestine and opens a Palestinian Embassy there too, that would even things out a bit and calm tensions.
        Also, you shouldn’t confuse terrorists with Muslim people and governments. Flawed though many governments are, they are not behind the terrorism happening around the world. Not a single state supports ISIL.


  2. If you think that Muslim leaders are OK with jews and that Israel persecutes Christians and Muslims, then I think we should agree to disagree. Our perceptions of the world are too far apart for us to agree on this issue.


  3. I think you’re right, but it’s important we expose our views to each other. At some point the world will have to find a solution that is fair to Muslims, Christians and Jews. It has to start with people talking to each other with respect. There are many Christians and Muslims who have been forced off their land by Israel to make way for illegal Jewish settlements where they are barred from entering – they cannot even buy back their own land or rent it. Then there are the thousands of prisoners detained in jails without trial and the periodic attacks on homes, schools and hospitals (usually a disproportionate response to Palestinian terrorism) resulting in much loss of innocent life. That’s what I mean by persecution. President Carter and Bishop Desmond Tutu have described Israel as an apartheid regime and I have to agree. These are just some of the grievances that need to be addressed to create peace. Anyway, that’s me done! I hope a solution can be found one day that satisfies everyone, but I fear it won’t be soon and the Jerusalem capital decision certainly doesn’t help.


  4. “…disproportionate response to Palestinian terrorism…”

    I assume you’re talking about Israel’s response to rocket attacks on civilians in Israel from Gaza or the West Bank. From what I see, Israel goes after the site of the rocket launch – and not after every rocket either – and does not specifically target “homes, schools, and hospitals” indiscriminately. Even though no peace accord has been reached, Israel has granted – unilaterally – autonomy to these areas, so attacks from sites based there can better be described as cross-border warfare. Israel is a country and has the right to defend itself.

    I agree that it’s likely that some innocent loss of life occurs, but that’s because the rockets are being fired from civilian areas.

    As to “apartheid,” I’d refer you to another of my posts:

    If you’d like to continue ‘talking’ that’s fine, but only if you say the truth rather than made up stuff (talking points) from the ultra left. I can’t allow my blog to be used for spreading misinformation.


    • Israel was created by the UN in 1948. At that time there was no Palestine as a country, the UN didn’t create one, and today there still is no country called Palestine. Some Arabs abandoned their previous homes within the newly created Israel, while others have stayed – and have enjoyed full rights as Israelis.

      In 1948, Arab countries surrounding (some not even bordering) Israel, didn’t like what the UN did, and they started a war – which they lost. So far as I know, there never was a peace treaty ending that war.

      In 1967, Israel’s Arab neighbors started another war to “drive Israel into the sea.” They lost this war also. Again, there was no peace treaty.

      Both of these wars were fought on the Arab side by countries not including Palestine – because no such country existed.

      Over time, Israelis started building in the territories that were captured during the 1967 war. Eventually, Egypt signed a peace agreement with Israel, part of which included Israel dismantling settlements in the Sinai and in Gaza. Israeli settlements in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem remain.

      Some years later, Israel unilaterally set up / allowed to be created semi-autonomous regions in the West Bank and in Gaza. Settlements in these areas have continued and expanded, and Israel has annexed some of this land. ‘Border crossings’ for Arabs in the West Bank to go into Israel proper for work have gone through cycles of open-closed-open, etc in response to the Intifada and other terrorist activities. I’m not familiar with settlement restrictions for Arabs, but I expect that also may be for security reasons.

      All the issues still are on the table, with the exception of Israel’s right to exist within defensible borders. To resolve these issues, both Israel and its Arab neighbors MUST be willing to negotiate in good faith. Those issues include the possible creation of a separate country of Palestine.

      I am not optimistic on peace talks happening – ever – since Israel’s Arab neighbors have allowed 50 years since the last war ended and still they refuse to talk. More than that, where Palestinians are housed with Arab country borders, it is in concentration camp conditions,

      BTW, I have read all three articles you have linked to. Two are straight opinion pieces, while the third asserted a fact but the article ended abruptly by the web site, so no proof could be offered. Even so, Israel holding those it deems dangerous seems quite likely, as the US and many other countries do. And, what has happened to the millions of Jews who used to live in Muslim countries? They weren’t allowed to emigrate, and yet they’re gone! How about some balance in your charges?


      • When the British mandate to govern Palestine came to an end in 1948, the UN passed a resolution dividing the territory into 6 parts – 3 parts to become an independent Palestine and 3 parts for a Jewish homeland which became Israel. Jerusalem was allocated to neither, with its status to be agreed by negotiation between the 2 states. UN resolutions are binding on member states, hence the strong opposition to America’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, which is a breach of this UN resolution. After the vote, Jewish paramilitaries annexed north west territory allocated to Palestine, giving the Arab residents an opportunity to take Israeli citizenship or leave. In other parts of Palestine/Israel, a number of massacres of Arabs took place, and this led to approximately 750,000 Palestinians fleeing their homes. The link below reports one of these, and it’s roll in provoking the exodus is acknowledged by Menachem Begin, later to be Prime Minister of Israel. . After this, Egyptian and Jordanian troops walked into Gaza and the West Bank respectively, to protect Arab residents there. I’m unable to find any reports of atrocities by these armies, btw. Due to this tense standoff, the state of Palestine was never created, despite the UN resolution calling for it. You’re right that the 1967 war was an attempt to reclaim the whole territory for Palestine, so perhaps the Arab countries brought the subsequent occupation on themselves. Nevertheless, Jordan and Egypt have since signed peace agreements with Israel, which means they now recognise its existence. The autonomy you mentioned was not quite unilateral on Israel’s part, but a result of the Oslo Peace Accord between Israel and the PLO. This autonomy was supposed to be the first step on the road to a full Palestinian state, but negotiations subsequently broke down after Hamas (opposed to the Israeli state) defeated Fatah (which recognises Israel) in a Palestinian election. There is now a stalemate as Israel will not talk to Hamas but has also opposed new Palestinian elections, unless Hamas are banned from taking part. There is, of course, still a Fatah Palestinian President.
        Have you any evidence that millions of Jews lived in Arab countries and were not allowed to leave? I hope you’re not suggesting an unreported holocaust. I apologise if I’ve misunderstood your comments, but you did accuse me of making up things so I think you should be careful about implied accusations. The Jewish population of the holy land has increased from 76,000 in 1920 to more than 6 million today. It is made up of immigrants from Europe, North America and the Arab world.
        The purpose of my writing is not to claim Arab countries are wonderfully governed compared to Israel. I would never attempt to defend the atrocities in Syria or the religious intolerance in Saudi Arabia. However, you can’t blame the Palestinians for that. The problem is that the American political establishment has a complete blind spot to Israel’s faults, unlike the Arab countries. That’s why it finds itself so isolated at the UN.


      • Yes, my understanding is that Jews throughout Arab countries have been forced out, forced to convert, or murdered in large numbers. If you want to call it a hidden holocast, I won’t argue with your terminology. One piece of ‘evidence’ is a speech at the UN:

        The video pretty well challenges Arab countries to say where their Jews are. Question: Are you suggesting that there weren’t any Jews in those countries?! are you suggesting there is no persecution of any remaining Jews in those countries? Arab leaders noted more than 1 million Jews outside ‘Palestine’ who would be in danger (
        ‘”On 24 November the head of the Egyptian delegation to the General Assembly, Muhammad Hussein Heykal Pasha, said that “the lives of 1,000,000 Jews in Moslem countries would be jeopardized by the establishment of a Jewish state.”[87] At the 29th Meeting of the UN Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine on 24 November 1947, Dr Heykal Pasha, the Egyptian delegate, said, “if the U.N decide to amputate a part of Palestine in order to establish a Jewish state, no force on earth could prevent blood from flowing there… Moreover… no force on earth can confine it to the borders of Palestine itself… Jewish blood will necessarily be shed elsewhere in the Arab world… to place in certain and serious danger a million Jews.” Mahmud Bey Fawzi (Egypt) said: “… imposed partition was sure to result in bloodshed in Palestine and in the rest of the Arab world”.[88]
        In a speech at the General Assembly Hall at Flushing Meadow, New York, on Friday, 28 November 1947, Iraq’s Foreign Minister, Fadel Jamall, included the following statement: Partition imposed against the will of the majority of the people will jeopardize peace and harmony in the Middle East. Not only the uprising of the Arabs of Palestine is to be expected, but the masses in the Arab world cannot be restrained. The Arab-Jewish relationship in the Arab world will greatly deteriorate. There are more Jews in the Arab world outside of Palestine than there are in Palestine. In Iraq alone, we have about one hundred and fifty thousand Jews who share with Moslems and Christians all the advantages of political and economic rights. Harmony prevails among Moslems, Christians and Jews. But any injustice imposed upon the Arabs of Palestine will disturb the harmony among Jews and non-Jews in Iraq; it will breed inter-religious prejudice and hatred.[89]
        ). Please see:

        From my reading or the Partition, there was Israel, Palestine, and Jerusalem +other ‘international’ lands. The Palestinians rejected the UN plan and started the 1948 war which resulted in part or Jerusalem becoming part of Israel and what would have become Palestine being occupied by its Arab neighbors. They prevented a Palestinian state – not Israel. In 1967, Israel responded to the attack and won the balance of Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, the West Bank, the Sinai, etc. Israel would have allowed Gaza and the West Bank to become Palestine, but the Arabs refused to sign a peace treaty. The Oslo Accords didn’t create a Palestinian state. It just formalized Israel’s turning over a measure of autonomy to the Palestinian Authority.


  5. Well, speeches by Arab leaders predicting civil strife and a speech at the UN noting falls in Jewish populations does not amount to a holocaust. There has been a sharp reduction in the Jewish population of my home area, but I wouldn’t conclude there has been a holocaust! I’m not sure whether Jews were prevented from leaving or forced to leave from your posts – but of course the 750,000 Palestinians all left of their own accord, without pressure. I note you don’t mention the real holocaust that helped lead to this situation, but I suppose that doesn’t fit in with a world view that Muslims are to blame for everything.
    I think you are often defending the indefensible.For example, during the most recent Gaza conflict, Amnesty International reported that nearly 1500 Palestinian civilians were killed by the Israeli Defence Forces. Nearly 500 of these were children. Figures for Israeli citizens killed vary between 6 and 26, according to source. If that’s not a disproportionate response, I don’t know what is.
    You say any country would do this, along with the detentions without trial and religious apartheid measures in the West Bank. I think not. The nearest parallel I can think of is the troubles in Northern Ireland. The worst state atrocity there involved 13 civilians being killed by British soldiers on Bloody Sunday, which Prime Minister Cameron belatedly apologised for, rightly describing it as “unjustified and unjustifiable”. By comparison, more than 20 Palestinian civilians have been killed by israeli security forces while demonstrating against Trump’s decision to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem. Israeli atrocities are on a whole different scale, helped by massive American military and economic aid.
    I watched a BBC documentary recently about American Christian volunteers working on a Jewish farm in the Occupied Territories (sorry, footage not available internationally but you’ll have to trust I’m not making it up). They had to camp outside and eat meals outside, because as Christians, they were not allowed into any building reserved for Jews. They were volunteers and they could go home afterwards, but imagine what it’s like for Christians and Muslims who live their permanently – and this not even in Israel but on occupied land, that has been taken from them. I think you cited legitimate security concerns, but that would presuppose atheists and followers of all faiths are potential terrorists, except for Jews. How dreadful is that?
    I was astonished that you regard these views as “ultra-left talking points”. I would not consider myself ultra left. Indeed, my father is a right wing conservative, but he is in agreement on this one. I’ll leave you with one last thought. It will be the last, as I hadn’t intended to get into this exchange. Every time you have used the word “Muslim” in your posts (especially the earlier ones), delete it and insert “Jew” or “Jewish”. If it now appears anti-semitic, you should really reconsider what you have said. Perhaps you could get to know some Muslims and find out what they are really like. Anyway, that really is me done. Thank you for reading what I’ve said. You know my views, I know yours. There’s very little common ground, although you did concede the possibility of a Palestinian State alongside the Israeli one in the future. If that can be achieved in a way acceptable to both sides, it’s ok with me.


    • Thanks for the clear and respectful way that you’ve responded.

      Yes, we appear to disagree on very much, for example, if a rocket attack into Israel’s civilian areas comes from within civilian areas, then Israel has a choice to make. It either can do nothing (which often is the case), or it can respond by attacking what they identify as the specific location where the rockets came from – knowing full well that some civilians are likely to be injured or killed. Either way, it’s a Hobson’s choice for Israel.

      After 50 years of hostility since the 1967 war, there still is no treaty, and I doubt there is one possible given the deep cultural hatreds.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s