Dems Endorse Expansion of U.N. Power
AIM Column | By Cliff Kincaid | August 21, 2008
...terms like “diversity” and “diverse viewpoints” are liberal code words for using the power of the federal government to muzzle conservative talk radio and turning over broadcast properties and airtime to “progressives.”
Our media are running
stories about the planks in the new 2008 Democratic Party platform but they’ve
missed a big one―expansion of the power of the United Nations, and especially
more U.S. involvement in U.N.-authorized military operations.
In another bow to the
world organization, the platform indirectly endorses Senator Barack Obama’s
controversial pro-U.N. Global Poverty Act. “It is time to make the U.N.
Millennium Development Goals, which aim to cut extreme poverty in half by 2015,
America’s
goals as well,” the
document says. It leaves out the estimated cost―$845 billion over 13 years.
This plank is listed
under the “Invest in Our Common Humanity” title of the platform. The word
“invest” is as deceptive as the legislation. It means to spend taxpayer
dollars.
While it may seem
strange that the platform would not endorse the legislation by name, this
reflects awareness of how controversial the Global Poverty Act (S. 2433) and
its federal commitment to the U.N.’s Millennium Development Goals have become.
Increased foreign aid spending is not popular with the hard-pressed American
taxpayer. So the one piece of legislation actually introduced by Senator Barack
Obama (which passed the House and Senator Joseph Biden’s Foreign Relations committee
by voice vote without hearings) is mentioned only indirectly.
A section titled, “Revitalize Global Institutions,” is more
direct. It declares the need for “stronger international institutions” on “issues
from weapons proliferation to climate change.” While admitting that the U.N. is
in need of “reform,” the organization is said to be “indispensable” and the U.S. must
rededicate itself “to the organization and its mission.” This inevitably means
more money for the world body.
Even though the U.S. public
school system is rotting from within because of unaccountability and incompetence,
the platform calls for more spending on educational systems in other parts of
the world. It urges a $2 billion Global Education Fund that will “bring the
world together in eliminating the global education deficit with the goal of
supporting a free, quality, basic education for every child in the world.”
On another international
matter, the Democrats declare that “We will repeal the global gag rule and
reinstate funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).” This means
that Americans will be called upon to spend more on international abortion
“services” and population control. In this context, the platform urges support
for “Health Infrastructure 2020,” which is described as “a global effort to
work with developing countries to invest in the full range of infrastructure
needed to improve and protect both American and global health.” No cost is put
on this effort.
Similarly, we are not
told about how much it will cost to launch the “collective action” needed to
confront the “global challenge” of climate change. But we are told that it will
require a “Global Energy Forum that will lay the foundation for the next
generation of climate protocols.” It declares the need for a “global response
to climate change that includes binding and enforceable commitments to reducing
emissions…” This means more U.N. treaties impinging on our freedom and
sovereignty.
It may surprise some
“progressives” to learn that while Obama wants to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, he has no plan to reduce the
size of the U.S. Armed Forces. Instead, “We support plans to increase the size
of the Army by 65,000 troops and the Marines by 27,000 troops,” it says.
If these troops are not
going to be in Iraq,
where will they be going? “We believe we must also be willing to consider using
military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the
common security that underpins global stability―to support friends, participate
in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities.”
Phrases such as “beyond
self-defense” and “common security” constitute an endorsement of the U.N.
doctrine of the “Responsibility to Protect.” Since the platform declares that
U.N. “peacekeeping” operations are “overextended,” this means U.S. forces will have to be redeployed from Iraq and other areas to address civil wars and
problems in other countries that pose no direct security threat to the U.S.
Meanwhile, the platform
says the U.S. Armed Forces under President Obama will be expanded to include
open and active homosexuals, despite its obvious negative impact on morale and
recruitment. If normal heterosexuals leave the Armed Forces as a result of this
policy, Obama may be forced to reinstitute the military draft to create the
bigger military he seeks.
Thanks to conservative
talk radio and other such outlets, the shocking facts about the Democratic
Party platform will be provided to the American people. The conservative media
have been a thorn in the side of the liberal establishment ever since President
Reagan’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) began the deregulation of the
media and new voices started emerging.
But the Democrats, whose
base of support is in the old media, which are losing viewers and readers, want
more, not less, regulation.
“We will encourage diversity in the ownership
of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression
of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of
broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum,” the Democratic platform says.
While this may sound
appealing, terms like “diversity” and “diverse viewpoints” are liberal code
words for using the power of the federal government to muzzle conservative talk
radio and turning over broadcast properties and airtime to “progressives.” This
is the goal of George Soros-funded groups like the Free Press, which puts on an
annual National Conference for Media Reform. As I reported in June, at this
year’s event, the conference turned into an Obama for president rally.
Translated into ordinary
language, the term “we” in the context of the Democratic platform plank on the
media means more federal government interference.
As explained by Tim Wu, a Columbia Law School
Professor and chairman of Free Press, the U.S. Constitution is flawed because
the founders did not anticipate the problem of “the abuse of private power.”
The Bill of Rights was merely designed to protect people against government and
the founders were concerned about the exercise of “public power,” he explained
to the National Conference for Media Reform.
In direct contradiction
to the intent and precise wording of the First Amendment to the Constitution,
in terms of prohibiting Congressional abridgement of freedom of speech, this
grant of massive authority to Congress and the federal government means that
the FCC will decide what constitutes “diversity” and the “public interest” in
broadcasting. Hence, the FCC, rather than market forces and the people, will
decide who gets on the air, who can own media properties, and even who gets
Internet access.
Meanwhile, the Democratic
Congress can be counted on to increase U.S. taxpayer support for public TV
and radio.
Conservative FCC
Commissioner Robert McDowell recently warned that the Fairness Doctrine, which
allows federal bureaucrats to monitor and dictate broadcast editorial content,
may be brought back under a different name. “I think it won’t be called the
Fairness Doctrine by folks who are promoting it. I think it will be called
something else and I think it’ll be intertwined into the net neutrality
debate,” he told the Media Research Center.
The term “net neutrality,” as defined by George Soros-funded “progressive”
organizations, means that federal authorities will monitor and regulate Internet
networks, rather than letting private competitive forces operate on their own
without governmental interference.
But other powerful
“progressive” individuals and groups want the Fairness Doctrine back directly
and immediately. The public should know that Democratic control of the White
House would result in a 3-2 liberal majority in the FCC and the possible return
of the Fairness Doctrine through administrative and executive action without
any congressional approval required. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already declared she is in favor of it. That’s why she refuses to bring the Broadcaster Freedom
Act to a vote in the House. The Broadcaster Freedom Act (H.R. 2905) would
prevent the FCC from unilaterally imposing the Fairness Doctrine on
broadcasters.
The Democratic platform,
in short, calls for more and bigger government on the domestic and
international levels. This is the real story that the mainstream media won’t
tell.
Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of the AIM Report and can be reached at (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
48 Comments
Not Ron Paul, NEVER! Have you forgotten that he was thoroughly trounced in the primaries? John McCain will be the next POTUS.
You’re right - The U.N. does not do our country any good. The only reason we need to stay as a member is the veto power in the Security Council. We can’t give that up.
Doesn’t it seem logical that if we’re going to insist on engaging an internationlist, interdependent, “world economy” that there also has to be some form of “organization” to it?
And - - obviously - - the “New World Order” is being fully enabled by the “New World Economy”! Economic “globalism”, has given the New World Order the very boost it has lacked for the last 110 years!
In reality, the NWO concept has ALWAYS been “one world government” managed by internationalist financiers and big business movers and shakers for their benefit.
Just because someone looses does not mean that they were not the right person for the job. However, If there are only “the two” to choose from, then it must be McCain. The U.N.? Still sucks.
Time to pull out of the UN, kick them out of the country, confiscate all their vehicles and property and auction them off to pay the enormous fines they have run up and not paid. They are even more crooked than our government and that is saying alot. I find it amazing that Democratic voters don’t want higher taxes or more government, yet keep voting for people that represent exactly that.
I agree with slinkiecat - the veto power we have on the Security Council must be preserved, BUT since the UN is whining that their building is crumbling - it is time to move the UN back to Geneva where the League of Nations sat, and remove evry single vestige of the UN from our soil. We can sit on the Security Council there. Besides the leftist western governments of Europe would feel right at home with the leftists and corruption that permeates the UN. Though, since Switzerland is not as leftist as the rest of Western Europe - they may not WANT the UN in Geneva?
We voted to kick the ugly UN out,,not one Rep or Dem did it..when is America going to realize we are a Reublic,,where we vote and they serve us in Gov. a democracy is where we vote and they do as they please…get out the dictionaries. to vote for the lessor of two evils which is what we did last time..find out what is really going on..Ron Paul is the one to vote in. He did not say he would not support Israel. HE said..they don’t need us too. Never underesimate how powerful Israel is..they don’t tell secrets like the US and beyond..For me, It will be for Ron Paul..and v.pres will be Duncun hunter or Chuck baldwin. I will be able to stand in front of G-d one day and know I did the right thing..scripture tells us, men do not learn from history..wake up..realize the flolowing of ONE CONSTITUTIONAL MAN..Ron Paul..if you get either of the other two we have the same thing..and they sure are not friends of Israel..Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ...or of us..we will be waving bye bye to everything and our country will be like a third world ..hungry,,as all falls, from SS, JOBs. freedom, liberty and G-d will not be able to even be mentioned. the commies and their toodies are winning because of you all….............the only way to do anything and receive G-d’s blessing is do the right thing..and hold them all accountable..
>>Just because someone looses [sic] does not mean that they were not the right person for the job.
No, but it does mean they have a snowball’s chance in hell at winning the job, only drawing votes away from McCain, the lesser of two evils. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama, just as in ‘92, a vote for Perot was a vote for Clinton. Great idea: learn from past mistakes.
Actually, Bush I was a weakling dweeb, where Clinton was unthinkable. I went with Perot because he whipped out charts and explained things instead of kissing babies and making promises that he had no intention of keep, a la Clinton. My mistake…and I learned from it.
The UN is a total waste of time and money.
From the column:
>>“We will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum,” the Democratic platform says.
Is it just me or does this sound TOO much like Affirmative Action, the most wasteful failure of the latter 20th Century and nothing like it was proposed to have been? Instead of this double talk about encouraging diversity in ownership of broadcast media (translation: censoring those bright enough to see what they’re trying to pull off here), why not let those who actually succeed in the media biz own what they have created?
Capitalism works and this is a great illustration of this fact: the blatantly-biased media are scrambling to plug the money leak, laying off staffers by the tens of thousands. And polls show that a majority of Americans are realizing that the media is simply propagandizing them instead of simply reporting the news.
And when Americans realize they’re being played for suckers, they can react in ways that weren’t intended. (See: Bush and Congress try to pull a fast one re amnesty for illegal immigrants. Didn’t work, did it? Americans woke up to the fact that they were being played for suckers and raised hell.)
In Charlotte, a black businessman got control of a local TV station using Affirmative Action loopholes, then sold it at a nice profit to white businessmen. Affirmative Action at work and manipulation.
BET seems to be pretty successful. More power to ‘em! I don’t watch it, but neither do I despise their success. Free country (I suspect: not too sure these days). But perhaps some powerful group, perhaps white, should arbitrarily be placed in the top leadership positions at BET? How would the shoe feel on the OTHER foot?
John McCain could win the White House in a landslide if he would: 1) change his position on ANWR, which no longer burnishes his “maverick” reputation (the media only loves him when he’s not a viable candidate for prez); and 2) cut off all funding to the UN until reforms have been made, instead of promised. UN “reforms” are basically Lucy pulling the football away just as Charlie Brown is about to kick it: Charlie never gets a chance and ends up on his arse.
If our president and both Houses of Congress had the best interests of America at heart, the UN would be relocated to Libya or Iran: some place where brutal dictators would feel right at home, while more sincere democracies might work together to face, oh, Islamic terrorists and other problems that the UN sweeps under the rug, while bulking up their bank accounts.
We are facing economic problems at home…yet so many of our “leaders” want to throw taxpayer dollars at problems that simply don’t concern us.
We are accused of being the Policeman of the World (perhaps because we’re the only ones willing to do the heavy lifting and provide the financing), but it seems like we’re becoming the Nanny of the World: we’ll feed and educate all you backwards nations and screw the people we were elected to serve.
Great first step: put covert assassinations back on the table. The world could probably get along without Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe or Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. I’m pretty sure that Zimbabwe and Venezuela could learn to live without these sociopaths ruining their countries.
Kim, when did we “vote to kick the UN out”? I’ve never had a ballot with that item on it.
As for voting for Ron Paul, well, he is not on the ballot any more. He was defeated in the primaries by John McCain.
You do not get a separate line item to choose a VP candidate. The various parties choose their combination ticket. Chuck Baldwin has no doubt already named his VP, and both Obama and McCain will choose theirs before their respective conventions.
That said, I agree, Duncan Hunter is a superb choice, and I would love to see him standing beside John McCain on our ticket.
Voxoreason, you made several great points, and I especially found myself nodding in agreement with your last statement - Bring back covert assassination of rogue tyrants. That might stop a lot of evil ones from genocide, funding terrorism, and threatening democratic nations.
Typical liberal double-speak…say one thing, mean another.
1. “Revitalize global institutions”—We don’t like borders. We are one world, one people, one race…the human race. Liberals don’t like independent thought—even among nations.
2. “Global gag rule”—Liberals love death. And Planned Parenthood is their Gatlin Gun.
3. “Collective action”—We can hardly wait to get our hands on all that money!!! And think of all the governments that will report directly to us, I mean the UN, because of the “binding, enforceable commitments”!!
4. Provide for the common security that underpins global security—since the American people love to help other countries in trouble, maybe we can trick them by saying their military will be used only for humanitarian purposes once they’ve been transferred to us, I mean the UN. One things for sure, though, the US military is too good, too strong, too quick, too adaptable. We’ve got to get them working for us, I mean the UN, not America.
5. “clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters”—clearly the most in-your-face declaration of liberals’ intent to censor. Just as in Putin’s Russia, Myanmar, North Korea, and any other totalitarian regime of the past 100 years (especially).
Liberals proffer an ever-more socialistic platform and disguise it less and less. They do so because they are less fearful. They are less fearful because, in general, we Americans have come to love security more than we love freedom. We need leaders who can, with all affection and vigor, translate to Americans the knowledge that true and peaceful security lies in the shade of the stout and brave tree of freedom.
You’re right, JA Woods. Liberalism is a slow death to our country, not only through the economic slow-down it will cause, but also the loss of freedom caused by bigger government and higher taxes.
Every law passed is another infringement on the American way, and every tax means another day of service to the government instead of to ourselves and our families.
The past few years have shown the liberals convincing the public that we have a “right” to health care, and they are full of anecdotes with suffering people who have no insurance. They also cry about people who bought houses they couldn’t afford, and now they think the rest of us should pay for their housing.
Then there’s the class warfare issue, where any conservative candidate is called out on his investments, but the very richest Americans are usually shown as Democrats. Obama is pulling this one now on McCain, making fun of him for not knowing how many houses his wife owns.
Censorship is on the agenda of the Democrat Party. If they achieve the veto-proof majority they expect, they will, through control of the FCC, reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, which will return the AM radio business to the 1970s when it all but died out because nobody listened to it.
Should Obama become President, it will be “a small step for liberalism, and a giant leap for
globalism,” (to paraphrase the astronaut.) Obama
SPONSORED S-2433, the “Global Poverty Act” when in the Senate around 143 days…. Pelosi thought so little of it, she let it pass the House by
“voice vote” (but later allowed a stand-up vote
between an Indian tribe & a casino….so much for
HER arrogant priorities.)
This S-2433 is not only a budget-breaker; there are ‘things’..goals, protocols, etc, already in
place in the UN that the United States never ratified, but under which WE WILL BECOME COMPLIANT, SUBSERVIENT TO THE UN !!!!
Think ban on small arms/weaponry (our RIGHT)
Think a standing UN Army (in view of the above)
Think children’s education from 1st-12th grade,
then look at how much of Islam is already being taught in some of our school systems, both overtly and covertly. Do you guess under WHOSE CRITERIA such children’s education will be?
Think many, many more U.N. taxes… yep.
We can count on Israel, England (for now), and us, as far as ‘friends’ go in the UN. The Security Council is 3-2, the 2 being England and the US. It won’t get any better.
The UN has been scandal-ridden nearly from day 1. They are not fiscally accountable to its members. (LOL likely some of them enjoy that)
In one nation’s aggression upon another, they are
impotent. In a tyrant’s “ethic cleansing” (genocide), they are impotent. With terrorism, they are impotent. They haven’t accomplished any
thing notable towards resolving ANY international problems that has arisen, that I can think of.
They talk. They (supposedly) employ sanctions.
(Remember ‘food for oil,’ LOL). They do little
but further the advancementment of one-worldism
with their “Acts,” “Treaties” “Goals,” and such.
Yes. I would LOVE to see the UN move to Europe.
Then Europe would have to put up with “diplomatic immunity,” given the members. But dream on, girl, dream on!
I don’t have the answers. America has failed the “will to win” since Truman fired MacArthur.
“War” has been politicized to “conflict.” The
majority of the citizens of America lack the motivation to contact their Senators, Governors, or Representatives. They reach for the remote instead of the phone; the game-boy instead of the
fax machine; the TV instead of an e-mail. No wonder the politicians AND COURTS have neutered
this nation.
HOW CAN WE GET THE UN MOVED TO EUROPE, ASIA, OR JUPITER?
Tim, Ron Paul is the only man who embraces America. He’s the Andrew Jackson of this era.
All the rest are but Toadies to the Bilderberger/Zionist Garbage of this age.
Dear Mr. Woods, Were you ever one of those who protect “the stout and brave tree of freedom”? In other words, ever risk your life for your country? I doubt it. It sure sounds to me that you’re happy to have other people fight and even die to protect your inalienable right to express stupid ideas. But like most of the bunch that got us into the war in Iraq, did you have “other priorities” back in the good old days? (Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Libby…) Or were you too young but decided later that military service was for other people, not you? I’ll get back to some more of your ignorance in a while. I want to deal with your hopeless confusion about the political ideology, as well as your apparent inability to think clearly.
But, of course, don’t get me wrong. Like Mark Anthony says in the play about Brutus, you’re an “honorable man.”
Dear Mr. Miles, I’m really curious to learn about “Zionist garbage” Would you please provide examples? In particular, would you please explain how Zionist garbage differs from other kinds?
Dear Mr. Hansen, I thought you were a patriot. Obviously, instaed, you are only an ideologue who doesn’t care how much your mindless notions would impede US intelligence operations if your dimwit ideas were actually adopted?
You want the UN headquarters moved to Geneva. Don’t you realize that by having the UN in New York, it makes it far more easy than otherwise for us to recruit diplomats as informants for the US? Furthermore, the opportunities that NYC offers to entrap foreign diplomats in so-called “honey traps” could hardly be duplicated in Geneva. And when it comes time to defect, the FBI can easily spirit either a foreign diplomat or a UN official to a safehouse if the UN is located on American soil. Putin and his boys have gone back to the use of murder and assassination to get rid of those they consider traitors. For a Russian to be turned, he/she needs aome assurance that the FBI here or the CIA abroad can offer them protection.
These are only some of many examples by which you expose how very little you know about the real world. When you were in the navy, didn’t you do anything else besides patronizing sleazy whorehouses, getting drunk in cheap bars and falling down ladders? Life is tough. But it’s a lot harder when you’re stupid.
Jack
Mr Senile writes of you: When you were in the navy, didn’t you do anything else besides patronizing sleazy whorehouses, getting drunk in cheap bars and falling down ladders? Life is tough. But it’s a lot harder when you’re stupid.
Is ANY of this accurately descriptive of your service…or just more of BRS’ unending projections, baseless assumptions, and ad hominem attacks?
Can’t we vote this guy off the island?
Does “Free speech” cover “Free verbal diarrhea”? This may be a Constitutional issue!
Brian, I think you’re a crossdresser that should be kept away from small children (and stupid, just as you call everyone else). If you present a danger to others, measures should be taken; if you present only a danger to yourself, please just go on about your business with my best wishes!
;>)
I think Sullivan was voted off the island the first night he posted - and hopefully soon he will be off the island hopefully in a tiny and leaky small small boat in the middle of the Pacific - but AIM actually implements taking him off the island, and I suspect he is like a greased pig or an electric eel on accomplishing it.
As for my service, imagine a young man, in the early to mid 70’s, pulling into exotic ports of call on a US Aircraft Carrier? Did I drink in cheap bars? If you took every sailor off the ship that did, they would have to get a new crew as there would be nobody left to operate the boat. Did I partake of lewd women - once again a young sailor (or it could be a soldier) away from home for the first time in the midst of the American sexual revolution, you answer the question! As for falling down the ladder - didn’t happen, at least I can not ever remember it happening? I did take two bullets in the lower left leg and kneecap while being part of the evacuation of Saigon in 1975!
Now Sullivan can berate me again - as if his service was something sacred - and mine is to be laughed at - but if he was a young man in an exotic port of call, I suspect even St Brian got a bit wild at times. And MAYBE IF he is a crossdresser, then that is why the young women stayed away - but it wouldn’t keep him from drinking in cheap bars or falling down ladders. But if he had the foul mouth he has now back then, then perhaps he would be tossed out of the bars and when he fell down the ladder, you could hear it miles away?
Has the UN brought any good to the world? Liberals want to superfund it and give it more authority, especially over the US, which has been a great source of good in the world. Can there be any doubt that liberals love death and anarchy?
Dear Mr. Hansen, Ever so slowly, the sordid story of your life emerges. As I suspected, you did spend your shore leave engaging in fornication and inebriation. But how about revealing more about your empty life? What carrier did you serve on? And why was a deck ape like you involved in the evacuation of Saigon? Did you ever wonder why you were cohsidered expendable? As for the two bullets in yor leg, what were their caliber?
Dear Mr. Woods, did the UN ever bring any good into the world? Actually, quite a bit. Without going through the history of the UNO, let’s just consider how many lives it has saved through feeding the starving and healing the sick. Also, how about the resolutions that led to UN military intervention in S. Korea in 1950, in the former Belgian Congo ten years later and in the Middle East a decade or so after that. I could go on and on. But my major point is that you really have a very deficient knowledge of the history of the UN. On this subject, as well as on your previous ignorant blogs, I will continue later.
But let me make a final point. Contrary to your ignorant notions about the value of the UN for purely Amerian interests, do you have any idea of the intelligence it has provided the US? How many Soviet bloc UN diplomats defected to us through the location of the organization in New York City? You don’t have any idea, do you? How much information did the NSA gather from the telephone calls and the radio messages of such diplomats who did not defect? How many General Assembly resolutions did the CIA obtain in US favor through bribing Third World diplomats? Sometimes in the cases of really poor UN members, their diplomats were willing to sell their votes for the price of a steak dinner at the Palm. What an uninformed moron you are about the workings of the real world. Do you begin to see how much your close minded ideological blindness is damaging to the intersts of your own country?
Dear Ms/ Mrs./ Mr. voxounreason, Have you no sense of how much you are humiliating yourself? Consieder who many read your revelations of your stupidity and ignorance. And why, for the sake of heaven, are you falling into the cess poll of Mr. Hansens’ feces obsessions? Finally, please explain why you think that crossdressers molest small children? I’m serious, I would really like to know how you equate one with the other. In addition, does your unwillingnness to revala your gender suggest somethig in that regard?
Dear Master Hansen, you wrote: “Coming from 5 generations of Democrats, and being a Democrat myself until about 35, I learned about how your side thinks - it is why, like Reagan, I got the heck out and run for my life. And then I got a really good dose in YES your indoctrination camps/gulags when I went back to school (you call them colleges and universities - but they are definitely indoctrination camps), and that rot has spiraled down that now even our high schools, junior highs, and even elementary schools are just indoctrination centers for the VERY liberal left.”
This is both revealing and very sad. Did you ever consider going to another school, perhaps one like Oral Roberts University or some of the southern state universities, where conservatism was the prevaling ideology in the 1970s and 1980s? It seems not. Instead, you threw away the chance to get a good education and the valuable credential of a college degree. What has become of your life since?
I suspect, however, that your problem was not so much with the ideas you found impossible to tolerate at whatever school you attended. Rather, I imagine that you proved incapable of defending your irrational and nonsensical opinions. Just because a professor didn’t share your opinions, a well-argued and well-researched paper would have brought you a good grade. Despite your weird misconceptions of my university, I took classes with many conservative fellow students at Columbia in the 1970s who got good grades and gained the respect of both faculty and other students for the cogency and clarity of their thought. When I taught at Yale, I and my colleagues in the history department didn’t grade a student on the political opinions they expressed in the classroom or in their written work. Rather, we did so on the quality of their thought. There were also a number of highly regarded but conservative profs in the history department, such as Donald Kagan, the expert on Thucydides and father of Fred and Robert, today both leading conservatives
Furthermore, even in universities with the most liberal bent, there are usually departments like engineering, mathematics, chemistry and so forth in which most of the faculty tend to be quite far to the right. That was certainly true at both Columbia and Yale when I was there.
What college did you attend? What was your major? What courses did you take? What grades did you get? What comments were written on your papers?
Given the quality of your thought, I imagine the problems you encountered lay with your inability to reason clearly, not the attitudes of others in regard to your opinions. That seems to still be true.
In any case, you had a chance to take advantge of the G.I. Bill but wasted the opportunity, it would appear. Now, it seems, you blame everyone else except yourself for the way you threw away the chance to enjoy a richer, more prosperous, more productive, happier life. But whose fault is that?
Dear Mr. Miles, Please do lay out your Jew-hating ideas. I can only express my opinions on the matter. But I expect others may be as interested in you laying out the full extent of your anti-Semitism as I am. Don’t have the courage of your poisonous convictions? Come on, you can do it! And remember, so long as you don’t engage in legally defined hate speech, the First Amendment protects you from any consequences - in this world, anyway. Or does a cat have your tongue? What a fitting thing that would be! Who knows, maybe some Israeli cats are prowling around outside where you live? You know how to spot them, don’t you? But be careful. Mossad has some really clever agents.
All is too little and too late. We won’t be able to get the UN out of America OR America out of the UN. The worst that could happen would be for Obama to become President…he sponsored that infamous S-2433; a budget-breaker, and very likely causing loss of some of our freedoms. Certainly, it will continue to entail MUCH more
money from the US. We, a great debtor nation.
Whenever you draw an invisible line and will NOT let the US forces cross that line to get to the logistical supplies of the enemy, you are - in my opinion - aiding and abetting the enemy,at the cost of our troops lives, and I believe that is the definition of treason.
That is why MacArthur was fired. That is why
Korea and Viet Nam were never “wars.” They were just political “conflicts,” AND I IN NO WAY DISHONOR THE TROOPS WHO FOUGHT IN VIET NAM OR KOREA. They fought honorably and deserve our respect and gratitude.
It has been OUR governments (plural) in office who have NOT earned our respect, honor, or their
salaries. Especially THIS Congress, which has such a pitiful approval rating: 3-6% in my group;
independents.
Less than 8 months work for 12 months pay? Where is “taxation without representation” in THEIR calendar? Will they accept less than 8 months of our taxes? LOL
I always thought if America was lost it would be to a superior military force. I didn’t have a glimpse of a thought that we would rot from within: culturally, politically, financially, religiously. Overall, does anyone disagree that we have not plummeted in those four things?
America has pretty much (court-wise, anyhow) thumbed their nose at God; mocked Him; tried/is
trying to eliminate Him from our society/culture/ education/etc. Could ACLU be interpreted as Anti-Christian Liberal Unity? Just asking.
God doesn’t have to “wreak vengeance” on the US
Is all He has to do is turn His face from us, and we will do it to ourselves. I believe that is what is happening now. Piece by piece we are
losing the Christian-Judeo foundation upon which this nation was founded. Shatter the foundation and the edifice crumbles.
I am post-Depression, pre-WWII and I KNEW A
BETTER AMERICA. un means not; is that a clue?
Dear Ms. Richardson,
Truman removed MacArthur from command because he openly defied the Constitutional imperative that the president is the commander-in-chief. Almost every US military officer, including Eisenhower, agreed. Generals have every right to criticize the president - but only after they have retired from the military and become civilians. Ever wonder why MacArthur didn’t run for president as his supporters urged him? Because the retired general was smart enough to realize he would be trounced by a huge majority.
The US was founded by Deists, not Christians. I am referring to Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin etc. None were Christians. Still, they were heavily influenced by Judaeo-HELLENISTIC (not Christian)thought. Those of the Founders who put together the Constitution reflected Enlightenment reasoning to establish the separation of church and state. THAT is the foundation upon which this country was established. That has actually strenghtened religious freedom in the US. One major reason why the US is such a religious nation - in comparison to Europe - is that we have never had a state religion. The abuses that produced in Europe, Catholic or Protestant, resulted in religious tyranny and drove people away from religion in disgust.
But it was one thing to put such a clause into the Constitution and quite another to get Americans to observe it. Catholics were treated very badly in the US from the 1840s to the 1890s. Jews were similarly abused from the 1880s to the 1940s. Now we have increasing numbers of Moslem, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist and B’hai citizens. As Americans, they are obliged to respect the religious freedom of others. But they enjoy the same rights in return, don’t they?
Remember Jefferson’s statement in 1781: “If my neighbor worships twenty gods or none, it does me no harm. It neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket.” Your freedom to worship as you please depends directly on the the same freedom you respect in others.
You remember the good old days? Do you mean the days of racial discrimination, anti-Semitism, McCarthyism, relegation of women to second-class ciizenship, housing discrimination, legal segregation, racial quotas on immigration, the Ku Klux Klan, the John Birch Society, etc. etc. etc?
That was a “BETTER AMERICA”? Are you nuts?
Isn’t it the liberals who are complaining about the money being spent on the war? Isn’t it the liberals who say the money being spent on the war should be spent in the USA? Why then is it all right to send billions of dollars to the UN? We’re borrowing money to pay for the war, are the liberals saying it’s all right to borrow money from China only to give it to the UN? Why should our tax dollars go to the UN only to be given to the tyrants and dictators of the world! We need to keep voting people out of office until they get the message “Stay out of our pocket.”
Dear Mr. TLP,
What has the money spent on Iraq brought the US? The arguments the Bush administration used to advocate the invasion turned out to be only lies. And what were the results? Our inability to offer the Georgians support against the Russian invasion. As for the billions of dollars the US has contributed to the UN, most has gone to providing food and medical aid to the starving, sick and displaced - with enormous benefits to us in terms of support for our foreign policy. You think not? Spend some time in subSaharan Africa. More to the point, you can consider that money spent as bribes to get us votes in the General Assembly. If you were to review the consequences of such votes, both for us and our allies, you would see that such funds were well spent. Even more important, you seem to have no idea how much intelligence we acquire from both the UN bureaucracy and from the foreign diplomats assigned to the UN. Do I need to supply youwith a list of the spies and defectors? Do you have any idea how valuable such information has been to us? It seems not.
Finally, do you think we were wise not to join the League of Nations? Consider the results of tha disastrous mistake. We learned at great cost between 1931 and 1945. Fortunately, we leanred ou lesson and founded the UN in 1945. Oh, and by the way, even if we had never gained any other advantge form UN membership, consider the UN resolution in regrad to the N. Korean invasion of the South in 1950. But we gained a great deal more than that, including keeping the Soviets out of the Congo in 1960, laying the groundwork for the Egyptian-Israeli peace agreement, isolating Libya, shoving the Soviets into a diplomatic corner during the Cuban Missile Crisis, using the UN-sponsored 1975 Helsinki agreement to undermine Communism in E. Europe, leading to the collapse of Communism in E. Europe 14 years later. But I don’t want to keep on going because I need some sleep. You really need to read some history, instead of believing in right-wing fairy tales. After all, if UN membership was not in our interest, do you think that Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and the two Bushes would have kept the US in the organization? Get real!
“... As for the billions of dollars the US has contributed to the UN, most has gone to providing food and medical aid to the starving, sick and displaced ...” - BR Sullivan
I wonder what percentage of those billions went instead to the personal fortune of the many tyrannical thugs running those countries, their cronies and military and to sustain their brutal grip on power. Not only do many of those bastards siphon off most of the revenues from the exploitation of their natural resources for their own fortunes, they can count on icing for their cakes from the UN. Such a sweet and altruistic outcome!
Far worse offenders in the “keeping corrupt tyrants and their cronies in power and riches” business are the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.
Jack H: As for my service, imagine a young man, in the early to mid 70’s, pulling into exotic ports of call on a US Aircraft Carrier?
My son, home from his first tour in Iraq (he’s going back, shrapnel wounds or not…but has to wait for his collar bone to heal; tried to avoid hitting a dog in the road and was injured in the process), he told my daughter, who had asked him what he wanted to do while he was home, “F**k!”
My “little boy” now towers over me at 6’4, 200 pounds or so, and to listen to him talk, you’d never know some of the stuff he’s been through. (I understand that this reluctance to run on about experiences in the military is common among veterans; my father never went into much detail until the last year or so of his life, which ended May 16 of this year; he had been a “teen Marine” in the Pacific in WW II.)
Like others have mentioned here, I, too, missed Vietnam by getting a high draft number in ‘72. One of the JV basketball players (who roomed with a hometown friend, also a JV bb player) at UNC-Chapel Hill pulled a 1. He joined the Officers Training School the next day.
I don’t look for paragons of moral virtue in those who are willing to risk life and limb for our country: If they kill the enemy in large numbers, this is quite sufficient.
I especially honor those who risk life and limb not only for their country, but also to save brothers in arms who have been incapacitated or exposed to a live hand grenade, which a real hero jumped on top of to save his brothers.
Then, some come home to have people spit in their faces. I think returning troops should be allowed to beat the living shiet out of those who do this. I believe this despicable act could be bred out of existence once people realize that being disrespectful to our military came with a price.
One of the last things I told my father was Semper Fi. He enjoyed that…and passed away 5 days later.
God bless our military…and inspire their leaders to better efforts, as they seem to screw the pooch on a regular basis.
To JAWoods - #19:
And ... the neoconservatives didn’t bring any “death and anarchy” to Iraq over the last nearly six years?
Would it be fair to say “Can there be any doubt that conservatives love autocracy and imperialism?” - ???
Namecalling, labelling and the unilateral attribution of hot-button negative characteristics to the opposition is nothing but grade school propaganda - - and, as usual, produces nothing constructive or productive - - and invites only retribution and more of the same from the other side.
voxoreason,
In response to your statement (“I don’t look for paragons of moral virtue…If they kill enemy’s in large numbers…”); I wish the current administration held those same viewpoints. It seems that if our soldiers do their job too well, they have to worry about being prosecuted and persecuted by their politically appointed high commanders who work at the behest of the weasels in the Bush Administration.
I never understood the mentality of some civilians who would spit in the faces of our military. If anyone deserves to be spat upon, it should be Bush, Cheney and the other NeoCons who diverted our attention from getting Bin Laden and his henchmen in order to ‘nation build’ an ungrateful, corrupt Middle Eastern country.
So many of our highly-trained, courageous troops have suffered unnecessary death and permanent injury because of the treasonous, politically correct ‘rules of engagement’ our troops have been forced to follow.
Thank goodness your brave, heroic father and his fellow soldiers didn’t have that albatross around their neck during WW2, otherwise we surely would have lost that conflict.
Speaking of spitting, I’d like to do the same to LBJ and Nixon’s graves for their ‘White House’ interference concerning our troops involvement in Vietnam.
“... So many of our highly-trained, courageous troops have suffered unnecessary death and permanent injury because of the treasonous, politically correct ‘rules of engagement’ our troops have been forced to follow. ...” -pizcaj
A consequence of Just War Theory. Look that up on wikipedia.
The spitting reference vox made is likely to the war of our times—Vietnam. Many lefties claim that spitting and worse disrespectful treatment of returning Vietnam vets is urban myth. Well, they’re wrong.
“... I especially honor those who risk life and limb not only for their country, but also to save brothers in arms who have been incapacitated or exposed to a live hand grenade, which a real hero jumped on top of to save his brothers. ...” -vox
Many if not all infantry and “pointy end of the spear” types will tell you they fight and die for the guy next to them (or who has his back pressed to their own back). Fighting for country is the furthest from their minds in the thick of it. That is as it should be and that is what makes our teams such fierce fighters.
“No greater friend. No worse foe.”
pizcaj
You obviously get your news from the mainstream media.
This is without question the best way to stay totally misinformed. For example, yes, there were WMD in Iraq when we invaded. (If “Bush lied us into war,” then so did a whole slew of liberals, who ALSO believed, along with all the various intelligence agencies around the globe. The MSM disagrees. Screw the MSM: they are lying to you.) They DID send the chemical weapons to Syria, but Saddam’s Air Force chief (whatever the correct title) wrote a book in ‘06 that substantiated all this.
You’re not planning to vote for McCain, are you?
This leaves you with either Obama or not voting. The latter would be the smarter move.
Mr. Sullivan,
Like many of the programs the government has started or has become a part of it has become corrupt. The U.N. is no different. While a small fraction of the money given to the U.N. may reach those that truly need it the vast majority of the money is wasted or stolen. How can it not be, there is no accountability! May I remind you Mr. Sullivan of the Oil for Food scandle which was run by the U.N.?
Mr. Sullivan do you not see a problem with the United States Senate actually creating bill S. 2433 on behalf of the U.N. to get us to contribute .7% of our GDP until 2015? Do you not see a problem with the U.N. helping to create policy and laws in this country? The United States is still a sovereign nations and I do not wanted to become a part of the United States of the United Nations! The House has already passed a similar bill
Again, I bring up the liberal mantra that the economy is about to fail, yet it’s ok for us to send .7% of GDP, which is about $98 Billion annually, to the U.N.? Mr. Sullivan where will we get the money to send? Are you suggesting we can continue to borrow money from China only to turn around and hand it over to China? Then why doesn’t the U.N. go directly to China and get the money? Will you suggest that my taxes be increased? Or better yet are you suggesting we shrink the size of our government?
Mr. Sullivan what would we get for our generous donation? Nothing, we will contribute to Global Welfare. I’m against Social Welfare, Corporate Welfare or Global Welfare. If the U.N. really wanted to do something why doesn’t it show these countries how to build industries so they can provide for themselves? Do we really need to contribute to nations keeping them always looking for handouts?
If the United States really has a burning to spend $850 billion why doesn’t it put the money into the Social Security fund? Why doesn’t it provide better health care for our soldiers? Mr. Sullivan there are plenty other things we can do to help the poor around the world. We have yet to win the war on poverty in our own country! How do we expect to win the war on poverty on a global scale? It’s just not going to happen. It’s just more of our tax money going down the drain.
If the United States wants to give away the tax payer’s money the IRS should create a checkbox on the tax form asking to contribute to the U.N.’s Millennium Development Goals. Short of that I see no reason why I should be compelled to just give away money which we would borrow in order to give it.
John Galt,
I took your advice and looked up ‘Just War Theory’ on Wikipedia. Here’s a snippet:
‘Just War are attempts to distinguish between justifiable and unjustifiable uses of organized armed forces; they attempt to conceive of how the use of arms might be restrained, made more humane, and ultimately directed towards the aim of establishing lasting peace and justice.[1]’
Yeah, Right!!
So forcing our troops to adhere to the ‘Marquess Of Queensberry Rules’ while fighting the most barbaric, bloodthirsty enemy of modern times is the way to go. This is why our troops suffered needless casualties for this neocon ‘Mr Goodie Two Shoes’ approach to war.
Our soldiers have to walk on egg shells in their battle performance while the enemy is free to use every dirty trick in the book. Thank goodness this ‘strategery’ wasn’t used in WW2 or there would be no America today.
Can anyone in this forum picture themselves in a battle in Fallujah, being bombarded with machine-gun fire from a mosque, and not being able to fire back because the ‘Commander In Chief’ feels it would be ‘insensitive’ to fire at a religious structure and might invoke international and media criticism?
Voxoreason,
The last place I would go for my source of the news would be the left-wing ‘mainstream media’.
As far as Iraq, I was with Bush at the time of the invasion. Even with WMD’s aside, I felt that after years of Saddam’s violation of the UN mandates and not letting the UN Inspectors have full access to suspected areas of the country, that Bush was fully justified in taking out Saddam and his sons.
But that’s where it should have ended.
Our main military purpose after the deaths of 3,000 Americans was to track down and kill Bin Laden and his surrogates, not to get involved with ‘nation building’;(and politically correct, costly nation building, at that).
No amount of neocon attempts to pacify the Middle East will succeed, because it’s in the Muslim Arabs religion to stab us in the back in the long run, just as it’s in the nature of the Communist nations to do the same.
Bring back our troops from all over the globe and use them to protect our borders and to root out terrorist cells already here. Also, use our military technology to build better anti-missile defense.
In answer to your question of me voting for McCain….HELL NO.
Columnist Joseph Farah recently wrote a couple of great articles on why Conservatives shouldn’t vote for McCain on the WorldNetDaily website.
I’ll be casting my vote for Chuck Baldwin as well as any conservatives running in my district.
“... How do we expect to win the war on poverty on a global scale? ...” -TLP
By promoting Capitalism, the only economic system that produces wealth and by promoting Constitutional Republican forms of government: government which rules with the consent of the governed and exists exclusively to protect its citizens’ individual lives, liberty, and property.
pizcaj:
I have many problems with Just War Theory, particularly its altruistic and collectivist basis which refuses to recognize that a nation’s rational self-interest outweighs “the common good” or “greater good.” There is little in it with which I agree.
War is neither evil or good. I believe that once a nation is committed to war, it should be waged “all out” with the purpose of winning it as quickly and decisively as possible. Any lesser outcome will only provide the seeds of further wars.
Mr. John Galt,
I agree with you whole heartedly! Government involvement has shown time and time again that it is not the give-aways which help people. Once government gets involved it becomes a lost cause. All anyone has to do is see where Socialism and Communism has been successful! The United States handing over approximately $98 Billion each year to the U.N. is just wealth redistribution and does nothing to get countries to stand on their own.
John Galt,
Sorry,
I mistook your previous reply to me as you being supportive of Just War Theory.
Apparently, we are in agreement on this issue.
Regards
Dear Mr. TLP,
I very much doubt that you have much understanding of how the UN actually works. Certainly it involves a great deal of corruption. I doubt you have much idea of how many Third World diplomats and relatives of powerful officials bribe and scheme their way into getting a UN post in New York. Compared to what such people have at home, New York City and UN salaries seem like paradise to such bottom feeders. I know because I worked for the UN in 1976-78 and became all-too-familar with such people.
But I also know this: the intelligence we acquire from said corrupt people is well worth the money we contribute to the UN and to keeping it in NYC. It will take many years before the full story comes out. But I can assure you that such information we gained was a major factor in our victory in the Cold War and still brings us enormous - I do mean ENORMOUS - advantages. We have a national intelligence budget well in excess of $30 billion a year. For far less than that, we gain a treasure of intel from the UN every year at a small fraction of that. You’d be amazed what $500 can buy from someone from Uzbekistan or Syria. (I am not necessarily revealing actual countries with whose diplomats we have had such dealings, only making a general statement to avoid any compromises of past or ongoing intel operations.) Secondly, despite its many failures and shortcomings, the UN does quite a bit of good. It does have honest, dedicated, decent and highly effective bureaucrats and aid workers.
Have you ever been to the impoverished countries in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia or Central Asia? If you have, you would see the enormous benefits the UN has brought to the poor in those places. Does the UN have enormous defects and fall far short of its ideals? It sure does! Does it bring a great variety of even greater benefits to the US in one way and to the world in another? Yes, even more so.
But how would you know, one way or the other? My impression is that you hve never investigated the matter, have never worked inside the UNO but, instead, rely on the opinions of others, however biased or ignorant. Teh real world is far more complex than you seem to realize.
The UN is a tool for liberals and other tyrants. It’s primary purpose is now to export modern liberalism and indelibly inculcate its ideology on peoples around the world who would otherwise prefer to exercise freedom.
The UN props up leaders who are most interested in accumulating power and riches for themselves. Time after time, in country after country, through its history, the UN ends up on the wrong side of tyranny. There are rare exceptions.
Just as with liberals in our own country, liberals throughout the world use UN offices and programs (and our money) to advance their agenda which gathers power in the hands of a few, while throwing crumbs to many who need so much more.
Does the UN encourage policies which inherently encourage individuals to help others as well as themselves? Or, does the UN merely further empower government in ways that weaken the ability and willingness of individuals to help themselves and each other?
Today’s liberals and progressives and the democrat party would further transfer authority over our lives to a government that would impose all sorts of laws designed to accumulate even more power to even fewer hands. Look at the recent laws and judicial decisions coming out of California, or any other jurisdiction governed by liberals for a sampling of what’s in store should emocrats get what they want.
Well put, JAWoods
The line that said it all in your post was,...
“Does the UN encourage policies which inherently encourage individuals to help others as well as themselves?”
TLP, the other day, also stated,...“If the U.N. really wanted to do something why doesn’t it show these countries how to build industries so they can provide for themselves? Do we really need to contribute to nations keeping them always looking for handouts?”
I’m sure that Liberal and Neocon leaders in our country who support our senseless continued involvement in the UN are quite aware of the common sense in these two statements, however, they view our global economic involvement as a cynical game of 3-dimensional chess which involves little, if any, benefit for us Americans.
Thinking Americans, with common sense solutions, look at our global economic involvement as a simple game of checkers with simple, effective solutions.
Looking towards the corrupt leaders of both parties to end our UN involvement is like asking John Gotti to transform the Mafia into a law-abiding organization.
Mr. Sullivan, Semites ARE both Palistians & Hebrew Jews. Not the Kazar Ashkanazi crypto folks. Read the Moses Seixas letter to George Washington and George Washingtons reply dated August 17th 1790. Read up on ‘The Banks’ history and why Andrew Jackson vetoed it’s Charter renewal in July 1832. Do your homework on who the “Man behind the Screen” actually is and what they have been doing for the last 100+ years.
Then read The Constitution of The United States of America. Then decide if you want the next several Generations of Your Family Endentured to them.
Fred Miles: Semites ARE both Palistians & Hebrew Jews.
This is true as far as it goes.
However, in the 19th century, Germany (no friend of Jews at that time, either) had a reference to Jews (juden-something), but replaced this with the term “anti-Semite.”
This is why anti-Semite refers only to Jews and not Arabs, who are Semites as well.
John Galt
>>The spitting reference vox made is likely to the war of our times—Vietnam.
To an extent, yes. But a friend of my son’s who joined the Army at the same time came home from Iraq and was called a “baby-killer,” as were troops returning from Vietnam. (Yes, many returning troops are honored as they arrive home from Iraq, but not all of them.) The woman who accosted my son’s friend said he should be killed.
A man who overheard this hateful “greeting” approached my son’s friend and gave him a much more appropriate “welcome home.” (He also shared his thoughts about the hateful woman who addressed my son’s friend; they weren’t complimentary.)
But my son’s friend dropped by to see me, and we chatted for a while, as I called my wife so she could speak with him, too, and he explained that all he could do was stand there and take it. Personally, I think that if our troops are insulted upon their arrival back in the states, the insults should be regarded as “fighting words” so that the troops could do some impromptu dental work upon those who insult them. (“Now, try saying that again with no teeth!”)
>>Fighting for country is the furthest from their minds in the thick of it. That is as it should be and that is what makes our teams such fierce fighters.
You misinterpret my remark. If young men and women weren’t willing to fight for their country, they wouldn’t sign up in the first place. But I accept your point that in the heat of battle: I would agree that watching their buddies’ backs comes before “fighting for their country.”
I’m sure that in the heat of battle, our troops are much more concerned with coming out of it alive, as opposed to comtemplating how they are serving their country.
My son has been through this once. While he has some complaints about how this war has been conducted, he is scheduled to go back in September.
He didn’t have to do this. (His friend opted out of a second deployment.) This choice was NOT made in the heat of battle. He could have taken a pass, but consciously chose to serve his country, knowing what to expect. This decision was not made in the heat of battle.
August 21 at 1:49 pm | #1 | Link
It’s time for a third party candidate to be elected president. The U.N. is a complete waste, we should withdraw from it and kick them out of New York. Neither party offers any meaningful “CHANGE”, except whichever party takes office guaranties that things will get much worse over the next four years. We don’t need a “New World Order”, We Need A New AMERICAN ORDER! Ron Paul, anyone?