America: The Chief Subsidizer of UN Rapists and Traffickers
In early September, the world’s most ineffective collection of “low life” thugs had what they like to call “high level” meetings on disease, disabilities, and the rights of migrant workers. And, on September 13, 2011, the 66th session — drum roll, please — of the United Nation’s General Assembly formally convened. On September 22, they will get down to the real business at hand, the only thing the UN has ever really done effectively, namely, the legalization of Jew hatred. That’s the day the UN will celebrate the tenth anniversary of their Durban (“anti-Semitic, pro-racist”) conference in which they named Israel as the world’s only “racist” state. On September 23, former terrorist turned President Mahmoud Abbas will request that the UN admit a twentieth Arab Muslim (so-called “Palestinian”) state.
This global pogrom against Israel is being waged with a weapon of mass destruction, namely the Orwellian propaganda machine which has demonized the Jewish state so effectively that were it to be militarily attacked (as it has been, over and over), few nations would come to its aid (none have) and most would condemn its right to defend itself; indeed, they would label Jewish self-defense as “an act of naked aggression” for which Israel would be expected to apologize and pay Muslim-style blood money. This, too, has already happened. Were our nation to come to the aid of its ally, Israel, America would also be further demonized.
But I do not want to focus on the subjects of racism, Judeophobia, “Islamophobia,” or on the rights of “Palestinian” Arabs. Many other journalists are doing so. Actually, I do but from an entirely different point of view. I want to discuss the kind of human beings who are employed at the UN, how they treat each other on the job, but especially how they treat the vulnerable civilians who are under their protection. In other words: I want to focus on the professional ethics of the people who are voting on such weighty, global issues, and on the institutionalized crimes they commit under the auspices of the UN.
Nearly forty years ago, in his 1972 Nobel Prize acceptance speech (some honorees are actually worthy), Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said:
A quarter of a century ago, with great hopes from all mankind, the United Nations Organization was born. Alas, in an immoral world it too grew up immoral.
In 1973, Shirley Hazzard, an Australian civil servant who had worked for the UN Secretariat for a decade in New York, published a book about it. In Defeat of an Ideal: A Study of the Self-Destruction of the United Nations, Hazzard described a level of mediocrity, incompetence, petty despotism, corruption, hypocrisy, and overall impotence, which was so non-redeemable that, in her view, the otherwise lofty UN ideals were “being defeated by the manner in which the present body executes, or claims to execute them.”
And in 1990, Hazzard wrote another book, Countenance of Truth: The United Nations and the Waldheim Case, in which she indicted the UN again, explaining that the “problem” of the Austrian (and one-time Nazi) UN Secretary General Kurt Waldheim was merely “symptomatic of the (ongoing) structural defects” at the UN which include non-accountability, non-transparency, incompetence, cowardice, and exaggerated self-importance. Only in such a setting, Hazzard writes, could such a
deceitful figure be presented as a paragon, his very deficiencies exalted into talents, and his fawnings on tyrants rationalized as consummate diplomacy throughout ten of this world’s most cruel and dangerous years.
I wonder what either of these whistleblowers might have to say about the UN today.
God must love whistleblowers — I surely hope so, because no one else really does. Those whom whistleblowers expose — and that includes the bystanders and the bureaucrats — hate them. Whistleblowers ruin the party, and threaten the high life and the even higher self-regard that the scams allow. Therefore, the evildoers demean, ostracize, impoverish, ignore, crush, and, if necessary, try to kill the whistleblowers. Even when whistleblowers are willing to risk their jobs and their lives, they do not always “win” their cause. And, when a whistleblower does succeed, he or she may still end up in hiding or unemployed or murdered while evil-doers soon pick up the old scam.
In the early 1970s, Detective Frank (“police corruption”) Serpico was the torchbearer for whistleblowers. He passed that torch along to Karen (“plutonium”) Silkwood in the 1980s and to Erin(“hexavalent-chromium”) Brockovich in the 1990s. One 21st century heroic torchbearer, Kathryn (“United Nations sex traffickers”) Bolkovac, like her three predecessors, is now the subject of a film. Bolkovac also wrote a book on her experience.
By the way: Feature films and documentaries do not necessarily accomplish any more than the whistleblower does. People tend to believe that the fact a film exists somehow means that the problem has been solved.
Not so.
Kathryn Bolkovac
In 1999, Bolkovac, originally a cop from Nebraska, became a UN peacekeeper in Sarajevo, where she discovered that the UN peacekeepers, the UN- hired military contractor (DynCorp), and the local police had been trafficking underage female sex slaves into Sarajevo both for profit and for their own twisted pleasure. Their savage treatment of these frightened, mainly East European and Russian girls, which included routine torture, gang-rape, semi-starvation, overwork, primitive living and “working” conditions, is standard behavior for pimps, traffickers, and obviously for UN staff as well.
In the film version, Bolkovac tried to save some girls. This only led to their being more severely tortured, while the other girls were forced to watch — and then murdered. Bolkovac, like others, tried to hold the UN accountable for these enormous crimes. The result? She was threatened and her employment terminated. Bolkovac went public with the information — which was heroic but which changed nothing.
So far, Satan still has the last word.
Like Hazzard, I also once worked at the United Nations; I have some skin in the game. I am, therefore, quite familiar with the UN culture in which civil servants and diplomats hold onto the passports of their home-country domestic servants/slaves, and make them work sixteen hour days, seven days a week, for no money and for very little food; the culture in which the same UN personnel sexually harass and assault their female colleagues and subordinates and when reported, even sued, get off, at most, with the proverbial slap on the wrist; a culture in which UN “peacekeeping” troops rape and traffic the very girls, boys, and women they are supposed to be protecting from war-zone atrocities — for example, the use of rape as a weapon of war. Given the UN’s general level of ineffectiveness (other than in legalizing Jew hatred), the body is also remarkably effective in protecting their barbarian and un-trained employees.
For example: In 1988, Luis Maria Gomez, the Argentine assistant secretary general at the UN, was sued by his assistant, American citizen Catherine Claxon. She filed a sexual harassment complaint. As a result, Claxon was barred from a promotion and her employment was terminated. She took her case to the UN Administrative Tribunal. Although the numerous courts and tribunals acknowledged that her claim was supported by strong evidence, Claxon’s case was eventually blocked by Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar. Gomez was granted diplomatic immunity and returned to Argentina.
In 2003, Joumana Al-Mahayni, an employee working in the office of the United Nations Development Programme in Kuwait, filed a similar claim against her male boss and, of course, received similar results. Again, the UN protected her boss, Mr. Yusuf Mansur; again, there was ample evidence that he had sexually assaulted his subordinate. Nevertheless, and predictably, Ms. Al-Mahayni’s employment was terminated. Many years later, she received a settlement of $10,000; she was never reimbursed for her legal fees or given a severance package. Mr. Mansur resigned and avoided litigation. The UN did not make any follow-up charges.
In 2007, the American Civil Liberties Union charged a UN diplomat from Kuwait, Major Waleed Al Saleh, and his wife with abusing their three female domestic servants from India. The ACLU stated that
the women were forced to work every day from 6:30 or 7:00 a.m. until late in the night, sometimes as late as 1:30 a.m…the women…never received any of the money.…They were subjected to threats and verbal and physical abuse, including one particularly violent incident in which Sabbithi (one of the servants) was knocked unconscious after being thrown against a counter by Al Saleh. The women were often not allowed time to eat or to use the bathroom and were frequently deprived of food. Two of them were allowed one hour off a month to attend church. The workers had their passports taken away and were isolated from contact with the external world.
Ultimately the case was dismissed on the grounds of diplomatic immunity.
Was Bolkovac’s experience unique? Were UN peacekeepers particularly awful only in Sarajevo? On the contrary. UN peacekeepers were also accused of “sexual misconduct” not only in Kosovo/Serbia/Bosnia in the 1990s, they were similarly accused in Sierra Leone (2002), Liberia (2003-2004), the Congo (2004), Haiti (2005-to the present day), and in the Sudan (2005-to the present).
How does the UN defend their dastardly peacekeepers? They argue that the troops often come from and serve in countries which have “poor records” in terms of “gender based violence.” This is offered as a culturally relativist explanation or excuse for that old canard, “boys will be boys?” In Bolkovac’s case, the troops came from 45 different countries, and many of them could not use computers, write reports, or drive cars.
In addition, in terms of redress, the legal loopholes are gigantic — herds of elephants can easily spend their long lives grazing there.
Neither the UN nor the countries in which UN employees actually commit the crimes can legally punish these men. Only their own home countries may do so — but why would they? The countries in which the UN operates are not responsible for the actions of foreign employees. One Haitian feminist group has accused UN peacekeepers of “ bringing their bad habits with them.” The group is referring to an “increase in prostitution.”
Yes, there are ways the UN can feed already traumatized girls and women other than forcing them to provide sex services to UN peacekeeping troops as their only or best way of survival.
In her excellent report for Refugees International, “Must Boys Be Boys?” Sarah Martin describes a culture of fear and intimidation among UN peacekeepers in the Congo (2004) which effectively silenced staff members who wanted to “report sexual misconduct by colleagues because they fear(ed) being stigmatized and punished as ‘whistle-blowers.’” UN peacekeepers had sex with Congolese children and women, including Congolese adult female UN colleagues, simply because the practice was already pandemic. They did not view their role as stopping such violence or as refraining from joining it.
As the UN peacekeepers ribaldly frolicked in the Congo, the UN orgy was also on in Liberia. An internal UN document was exposed in the mainstream media. In Liberia, UN peacekeeping troops had sex with
girls as young as 12 years of age (who) are engaged in prostitution, forced into sex acts and sometimes photographed by UN peacekeepers in exchange for $10 or food or other commodities.
Might the rape of a male child or a young man by a UN peacekeeper make the front pages and lead to an effective prosecution?
Well — no. In July of 2011, an 18-year-old Haitian male rape victim accused a UN peacekeeper of “sexually assaulting” him. The rape was videotaped. A physician confirmed physical evidence of the rape — the evidence was clear even five weeks later. The UN found the man guilty, not of “sexual misconduct,” but of allowing a civilian to enter the UN compound. The UN dismissed this as “the actions of only a few,” and claimed that the UN “does its utmost to prevent such abuses from occurring” by “training troops to sensitize them to respect human rights.”
The Wilsonian-influenced ideals of the UN are not realistic or realizable. In turn, the UN is predicated on the myth — nay, the lie — that UN diplomats and civil servants are morally upright, fair, decent, rational — and, not the vicious tyrants, bullies, thugs, liars, egomaniacs, cowards, and grifters that they truly are. Nor does the UN have a transparent system in place that would hold their mightily flawed personnel accountable for the crimes they commit.
I am told we live in a post-feminist age. Thus, the information is in about what rape is and what rape does. We know that repeated public gang-rape and repeated rape is no longer just a spoil of war but is now a weapon of war. We know that prostitution is not a “victimless” crime, that the prostituted child or woman are the victims; they must become alcoholics and drug addicts in order to deaden their torment, they are given foul diseases by their “customers” who are sometimes their murderers because they infect them with AIDS; both their working lives and how long they actually live are significantly shorter than those who are not prostituted. The UN (ironically enough) has estimated that over 32 million people are enslaved around the world and that the majority (80% or more) are sex slaves. We now know that sex trafficking is estimated as a $32 billion global business, that girls and women are kidnapped, sold by their parents, or tricked into it and rarely escape alive.
If it is clear that the United Nations allows its peacekeeping troops to commit major human rights atrocities, why would we allow such an institution to render decisions that are meant to affect the entire world? Why would we abide by such decisions? More important: Why should the United States fund an international criminal operation? The United States pays the lion’s share of the Secretariat costs at the United Nations. Don’t worry, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has assured stressed American taxpayers that the two-year headquarters budget (2010-11) will only amount to a meager $4.92 billion.
According to the UN peacekeeping website, the budget for the fiscal year 1 July 2011-30 June 2012 is approximately seven billion dollars. The United States is responsible for 27 percent of this cost, or about two billion. This is far more than what Japan (1 billion), the UK (591 million), China (285 million), Spain (230 million), or Korea (164 million) pays for peacekeepers. Interestingly, under President Barack Obama’s administration, the United States overpaid its share of the UN peacekeeping budget. In fact, our overpayment of 287 million dollars is more than what most of the world’s supporters — including China — pay for “peacekeeping.”
Why is the United States funding rapists, criminals, pimps, brothels, and sex traffickers? Why are we funding orgies? Why are we funding the most heinous betrayal of the world’s most vulnerable civilians in war zones? Why are we overpaying for UN peacekeeping?
Here is one thing we can do immediately. As of 2004, women comprised less than 6% of the total UN peacekeeping operations personnel. I would send many of the “boys” home and hire more well-trained, career military women and police officers like Bolkovac and, dare I say it, yes I dare: Until such time that developing countries develop effective policies about “gender violence,” the UN peacekeeper troops should be comprised of “peacekeepers,” both male and female, from developed countries.
Whether developed Western nations are actually “anti-gender violence” or not and, if so, whether they should continue to assume the “White Man’s Burden,” is the subject of other pieces.
Image: Oleg Golovnev / Shutterstock.com
Wow. I had no idea it was this bad. The UN – Unmitigated Nightmare.
All of this is easy to fix.
Simply withdraw from the United Nations.
We never should have been in it in the first place.
@Dave Surls:”withdraw from the UN”
No, not yet! We need the USA on the security council to veto all the stupid stuff that comes along. The USA will be needed there for a long long time.
I agree from observation and reports that most if not all UN people are complicit in immoral and anti-human activities, when not directly responsible. The Representatives of nations with appalling human rights records are precisely chosen as a reflection of that nature.
But this article focuses far too tightly on one aspect and whilst I can have great sympathy with the victims of the atrocities and ‘investigations’ alluded to, the complete absence of any reference to atrocity and mistreatment of men simply adds to the onslaught of feminism agitprop.
The very idea that women should replace men in peacekeeping roles overlooks the issue of women’s refusal, even in ‘advanced’ nations to step up and become competent in military roles. America has 43 female Generals, not one of which has ever had a combat role.
The UN should be closed down and a third attempt be made to provide a ‘Human Government’ based on sound moral values and experience. Fat chance of that happening though.
Mr. Fortas, I have to disagree. Phyllis Chesler isn’t some emotionally arrested Salon columnist screeching at frat boys whilst showing us her panty line: Dr. Chesler is of the era when feminists actually believed in equality and gender-neutral laws and acted accordingly. That’s why she talks of rape of boys, too.
I hope this important article isn’t just dismissed by those who greet any discussion of this topic with equally emotional and subjective anger: the behavior of UN troops is important because the UN increasingly derives its authority from its “human rights” and “social justice” lies. To reveal the depth of that lie — in their boardrooms and battlefields — is central.
Like “Pelaut,” many years in politics taught me that where “social justice” goes, so goes oppression of women and concomitant weakening of families and society, abetted up by people like former UN official Andrew Young who use their “rights” credentials as cover for the whole racket. Sex exploitation by UN troops is the canary in the coal mine of many other ills. The problem is the people who support the institution because they can’t see this, and the solution is challenging them with articles like this one, which strategically meets the liars on their own turf.
A third attempt? How many attempts will it take before you and others understand that the entire idea of a “world government” is wrong and doomed to fail from the get-go?
The “One World Government” elitist are all frustrated Trekkies who had been scorned by one too many members of the opposite sex. They all believe in the Socialist dream of a Federation of Planets ruled by a central power, planned by a Central Power, and psychologically defined by a Central Power.
I’ve always looked upon Star Trek and the One World Government people as the same. The only difference is that the social order of STar Trek is a social order that started in Branson, MO.
Dave Surfs: Not only withdraw from the UN, but evict it from our shores. Tell it to find better digs, say, in Zimbabwe, or Kenya, or even Saudi Arabia, some country that would better reflect its moral stature. Also, abandon the whole concept of diplomatic immunity for UN personnel, regardless of rank. The UN was a bad idea from the beginning, a venal, pious knock-off of Wilson’s League of Nations, which was impotent. The UN is now nothing but a club of dictatorships, authoritarian regimes, and killers — and they all depend on the moral sanction of the U.S. to exist, while sucking us dry.
Exactly.
And with the UN no longer feeding at the US grabbermint teat, it’d soon fade into insignificance.
Might I suggest Tehran? Or perhaps Pyongyang.
It doesn’t matter where they go, as long as that place is “not here.”
Ten European countries, the USA, Canada, Japan and South Korea are responsible for over 80% of the UN income. The whole of Africa contributes less than 0.75%. Why are these 14 countries not using their economic clout to force the UN to get its house in order? They should freeze all funding until this is done!
No offense meant here but the U.N. makes the Vatican look good.
Oh, please, grow up.
A poor attempt at humor.
No, no, no, not only withdraw and evict but take the opportunity to arrest those who need to be arrested and screw diplomatic immunity.
Starting with Ahmadinnerjacket, who had no respect for OUR diplomatic immunity when he helped to take US hostages.
Having by chance worked next to the UN’s Geneva and NYC headquarters, and having by chance met many of their operatives in the field during my four decades international career, I can certify the following UN rate of exchange for powdered milk:
1 quart can, BJ by mother
1 gallon can, everything with mother and her girl-child together.
And all the variations in between.
Many are disgusting pigs. Most are just pigs. All are criminally immoral.
The UN dream of a world ruled by the laws of man, and not G-d given laws are the reason it is of it’s Father. The Father of lies. That which Lucis Trust is named after.
The same father of all lies that Obama’s good buddy and terrorist friend dedicated his book Rules for Radicals to: Lucifer, the first community organizer.
Corruption and self-aggrandizement are definitely the practice rather than the exception among the managing elite at the United Nations. However over the three years since I published my first novel based on incidents of that corruption I have come to realize that within the ranks of the 125,000 employees of the organization globally there are those who abhor the corruption. However, as in government and commerce everywhere these folk are essentially powerless. Further, when they attempt to expose the issues they are treated worse than ‘being punished’ they are simply ignored.
I have received hundreds of e-mails from UN staff globally after they read the novels. Here are just two that I think tell the story of their feelings, see what you think.
IRAQ ~ “I was a UN staff member in Iraq from 1998 until the termination of the “oil-for-food” programme in 2003. Paul Volker‟s inquiry and revealing report shocked those of us who worked hard in the field, at great risk, to ensure the implementation of Security Council resolution 986 (1995). I hope your novels will, one day be a TV mini-series.”
THE CONGO ~ “Corruption is not only in Iraq, your next mystery should center on Africa”
The so-called “educated elites” from both parties see the UN as a benevelent peacekeeping body, much like the Star Trek United Federation of Planets. But in our current reality, it is as if the borg have assimilated the UFP which can do nothing better than demonize Earth and Vulcan.
The better sci-fi analogy to the UN, as I tell my kids, is that of the Star Wars Mos Eisley spaceport: “a wretched hive of scum and villainy”.
Thank you for the information.
Why not de-fund the whole thing?
Get the U.S. out of the U.N. and the U.N. out of the U.S.!
Much better things could be done with the property: i.e. condos.
I think I’ve said this before: the UN is a symbol of humanity’s highest aspirations, one for which there currently no viable substitute. I think that for many people (especially high-minded internationalists), abandoning the UN-as-it-really is would be tantamount to abandoning the principles it symbolizes. Kicking the UN out of the United States would be like kicking out peace, cooperation, and international harmony. Presumably, with at least the *idea* of the UN everyone will lapse back into selfish, nation-state-centered behavior and ultimately war.
That’s rubbish, of course. You can still celebrate Christmas without believing in Santa Claus. You can still have international peace and cooperation without believing in the UN. And when has the UN ever stopped a war between countries that really wanted to go at it?
What not many people want to recognize is that “humanity’s highest aspirations” are another word for the road to Hell.
More here.
Not sure I’d put it quite that severely, but it is true that humanity seems most likely to take the wrong road when it believes it’s heading toward Utopia.
There are so many reason why to get rid of the United Nations. Not the least of which is that many people actually believe it can protect them. But, instead of protecting them, it allows other people to rape, torture, and kill them. Rwanda is only one of many examples. The horror of living in sub-saharan Africa is only increased by the UN, NOT decreased. One has just to look at the atrocities committed by Nigerian “peacekeeping” troops to see that. Nope, this is an idea who’s time has long since passed and we should pull out of it as soon as possible. The UN has turned into a debating society for some of the most depraved tyrants in the world and we should not be subsidizing it. And the few humanitarian missions it does do can easily be done by private organizations and private charities. Get rid of it, now.
Let’s get all the candidates on record about the UN before we have no sovereignty at all.
There is one more excellent book about UN : “The UN Gang” by Pedro Sanjuan – former US ambassador to the UN.
The UN is so thoroughly corrupt, so profoundly EVIL, it cannot be redeemed. UN diplomats, peace-keepers and others who commit horrendous crimes are not prosecuted. The UN is the most dangerous woman-hater, child-hater, anti-human rights organization on earth. It is unforgivable that Americans and others are forced to finance this demonic organization.
Abolish the UN now and stop the suffering of millions.
The U.N. is corrupt,biased,antisemitic and human rights violators .We have never need them and are ignorant for financing their criminal acts.They respect no religion ,country or government they exist to weale financial gains for themselves and their political parties.
Leave the U.N. NOW.
Phyllis it is always an re-awakening to hear your voice again. I wish you were here more often.
Ever since high school, a long time ago for me, I have been of the opinion the United Nations (UN) is a waste of time & money. More than that, their actions seem to work counter to what most would say are worthy goals. America is not always right. However, her positions almost always respect the other guy & it always costs us to deal with the other guys. Fact is, we are more right or right more often than most of the Un actors who have been controlling the agenda.
The original UN founding principles were lost a long time ago. Lets face it, utopia is a fantasy. The possibility of utopia in our lifetimes or in this human existence, are more than remote. The power of the UN General Assembly has facilitated this inept & corrupt organizations activities. The GA is comprised of many thug, dictatorial, corrupt governments. They are out for themselves & they use the UN to attack America to get money. They use the UN to discredit Israel. As a coordinated gang seeking money, they band together to push through many destructive policies. Add to this the suspiciously powerful Non Governmental Organizations (NGO), whose power over policy & regulations is far too great, and what we have is an outfit out to steal as much as they can get & to destroy those they hate. Our Security Council position is the only thing that safeguard’s America. Otherwise the GA would walk all over us & demand we pay for it.
A one world order, one world government or even one world governance, would give far too much power to this corrupt, inept organization & the liars & thieves who now control it. From Agenda 21, to the Law of the Sea Treaty, to so called peace-keeping operations, and so much more, the UN is visible proof that if we depend on an international organization for fair treatment, we will get screwed. Climate Change may or may not be real. You decide. But the solutions the UN pushes, are simply bogus. They are tools to extract more money & to give the UN more & more power over the governing of America. They must control America & destroy that pesky constitution if they want to realize their goal of a one world government the UN (meaning the corrupt cabal running the General Assembly), desperately wants. Most Democrats support many of the ideals, if not the exact goals of one world UN government. It’s a scam tyrants use to control human beings & bet your last buck that disarmament of the average citizen is the issue they pursue since it’s the key to controlling the American public.
A loosely associated group of democracies would do us better!
I too say, its time we reduced the influences of the UN on American policy & we reduced the amount of money they extract from us. If that means the UN goes away &/or we stop all money, so be it. We can still negotiate on our own & I am positive we will get better results.
I would love John Bolton to do a book about the UN. This one is terrific, even though nothing will be done, as is always the case. But a book by a Bolton may get the full attention of our political elite as well as the general public.
In the documentary, Cry of the Snow Lion, Ani Pachen, the renown Tibetan Buddhist human rights activist, said in protest of the UN in 1995, “It is my understanding that the UN is supposed to look after the welfare of the world. The UN stands for helping defenseless nations. Why don’t they help us?”
Phyllis:
You’re probably too young to remember, but some old folks were around when Jessie Helms was a lonely voice in the United States Senate. He left no stone unturned in trying to fight the link between United States money and one of the corrupt instutitions in enabled, the United Nation. There are many more. The United Nations is not an orphan.
Good try with you post, I hope it is widely read and understood but unfortunately, too many pigs around the world feed from the trough today just as they did some sixty plus years ago when this monster was created and they don’t want to hear what your say.
The beast has survived over the years because dimocrats and republicans alike get a share of the swill. In the United Sates it should be identified as criminal government, governing against the will of the people that makes possible this kind of thing. The socialists/communists/criminal politicians will tell you if you ask them that we must give the U.N some time to make it work properly. That it’s the last best hope for man on earth.
Sixty five years is too short a period to build a road all the way to Utopia regardless of where you start. Bill Clinton George W. Bush and Barack Obama have given all of us little people assurance that with enough hope, and a little more change, the job will be completed even though they haven’t finished the highway from Texas to the Canadian border yet. And you can probably say without being in error that the same message will be out there, if there is still an America, ten years from now, Road to Utopia not withstanding.
“Toute nation a le gouvernement qu’elle mérite” or “Every nation gets the government it deserves”, wrote the French diplomat Joseph de Maistre in 1811. The United States, a country definitely and unfortunately, in decline, where 50% of its population pay no taxes and many expect to live from the government’s dole and food stamps, being provided “bread and circuses” like in Roman times, gets Barack Obama. As Robert Heinlein once said, “Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves bananas, they’ll never climb another tree.”
Thus this “great world” gets, as the government it deserves, the United Nation.
For on Barack, you needed not be a rocket scientist to know what was coming. A little common sense and a little bit of research would have shown those hoping for “change” for the sake of change, the dangers of this anti-American ideologue.
Please read recent book by Dinesh D’Souza “The Roots of Obama’s Rage” (foreword by Newt Gingrich):
http://www.amazon.com/Roots-Obamas-Rage-Dinesh-DSouza/dp/B0057D8RL4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1316724757&sr=8-1
Shirley Hazzard’s writing, as found between the photo of Solzenhitsyen and Rachel Weisz is just as applicable today as a description of the Pres. Obama, his White House staff, czars, advisors, and field operatives.
Nuff said!
Yes, the U.N. is truly the many-headed Wild Beast. Not representative of World Government, but division of world into greedy individuals’ control. Each of these members display the traits of their master, “the ruler of the world” who designs and manipulates every one to participate in false religion, greedy commerce and politics.
It has an important job to do, which will ultimately lead us to the freedom from Nationalism we need; for now we endure.
For all of the very legitimate concern surrounding the existence of and participation in the United Nations, you’d think conservatives would rally around a Presidential candidate who has publicly declared his intent to remove the US from that organization.
The UN and the Left stand for the same thing, really: a bunch of lofty ideals backed by nothing more than a gargantuan load of hypocrisy–with a capital H.
The President’s Worn-Out Clothes
. . . Not that it will get any more attention from Obama’s MSM than any of his many previous gaffes and unrehearsed revelations of fallibility and stupidity but The Anointed One really lost his ointment when he was caught with his pants, that is, teleprompters, down in front of an audience at D.C.’s Benjamin Banneker High School.
He confessed not only that he was “not always the very best student” but that ethics “would not have made it on the list” of his favorite subjects. He elaborated by saying, “I did not love every class I took. I wasn’t always paying attention.”
Most school kids don’t pay an awful lot of attention to their teachers but at that point Obama dropped his Obamabomb by fessing up to what has been obvious thoughout his career: “I remember when I was in 8th grade I had to take a class called ethics. Now, ethics is about right and wrong, but if you’d ask me what my favorite subject was back in 8th grade, it was basketball. I don’t think ethics would have made it on the list.”
That admission was the equivalent of Ted Kennedy conceding he was an immoral rake and Jimmy Carter agreeing he was inept. Why bother mentioning what is self-evident? The man who announced a string of “ethics rules” after his election has led an administration that has breached more rules of ethics in just the last year than Richard Nixon could ever have dreamed of.
It was nice of Obama to reveal that his ethical shortcomings date back to his childhood. Now it’s time to get out of his imperial clothes and get out of the White House. (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5614.)