The UN’s Business Is Business

Discussion in 'Global Issues' started by Flanders, Aug 3, 2014.

  1. Flanders

    Flanders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48

    The day Bill Clinton said that about not killing bin Laden he needed a liar fix the same way a drug addict needs a fix. He hasn’t stopped lying since then. The Clintons would be broke if he had to pay a pusher every time he needed a fix. Happily for both Clintons, lies are free; so they can supply their own fixes. It would not be a pretty picture if Bubba went cold turkey and just stopped lying.

    To be fair, the media will never drive a Democrat out of office for lying. That is why the Democrat party is the party of liars. They lie knowing they will never be held accountable —— then they laugh at the fools who defend the lies. Setting the record straight is the best the public can expect. Michael Scheuer does just that in this video:



    First, Scheuer resurrecting Sandy Burglar for a brief moment probably means nothing to younger Americans, but his theft was a big story for a few days. To this day the public does not know what he stole. Ann Coulter did a humorous and informative column at the time:

    When Berger got caught the mainstream press decided that his larceny had to be covered for the sake of credibility, but dropped very quickly. I assumed Berger’s flirtation with sneak thievery did not meet the Washington Post’s criterion for third-rate burglaries à la Watergate.

    At the time I suggested that the FBI check out any pumpkin patches in the vicinity of Berger’s home. The Soviet Union wasn’t involved as in the Alger Hiss case; so I was puzzled as to why the Clintons would sanction such a stupid thing? The media was spreading around mountains of legacy horse manure but I never bought it.

    NOTE: Alger Hiss was the only big name Democrat who ever went to jail for lying. Democrats will never make that mistake again as Eric Holder proves time after time. So you could say that Hiss is the tarnished gold standard for the party of liars.

    Why Berger? was the question I asked myself. My answer: Berger was knowledgeable enough, loyal enough, and high enough to use, but not so high he couldn’t be sacrificed if things went sour which they did. After all, the Clintons couldn’t very well send in Madeleine Albright to do a sneak job for such a shallow reason as saving the Clinton legacy. Berger fit the gig to perfection. If he wasn’t such a clutz he would have a top government job today.

    Whitewashing Clinton Administration fiascos so then-Senator Clinton could move on up had some validity at the time. There was no firing squad involved unless Communist China is mentioned in the missing literature; the Clinton White House was tight with Peking. We’ll never know for sure —— precisely because the documents are gone forever. (I’ll bet that Lois Lerner wishes it was hard copies and not computer records.)

    The missing documents turned out to be a blessing in disguise for Clinton detractors because speculating about what was in the papers Berger “lost” continues to this day among policy wonks.

    My take has always been that there was something in the missing papers that would damage the UN. You have to remember what the Clintons stand for on this one. In my view, the following excerpt from Phyllis Schlafly’s column of July 5, 2004 best explains what the Clintons were hiding:


    Until Barack Taqiyya came along, former President Clinton was the most anti-American person to ever live in the White House. Trivializing Clinton because he enjoyed an intern nibbling on his joint like an ear of corn does him a favor. Nobody is afraid of a fool. Clinton is a lot of things but he is not a fool. Americans should of feared him when he was speaking against his own country in the former Soviet Union during the Vietnam War.

    You can be sure that anyone who is in the Clinton inner circle is just as devoted to an omnipotent UN as are the Clintons. The UN is their universe; their future; their hopes; their dreams of a brave new world with them in charge. That’s why I have to believe that the UN was threatened enough by a few documents for Berger to risk losing his reputation, and possibly doing some jail time, just to remove those documents.

    It also occurred to me that any number of legitimate documents damaging Clinton loyalists can now be inserted in the record. What is Berger going to do about it? Call them forgeries! Who would believe him? or believe anybody from the Clinton White House, no matter what they say now?

    By the way, Kerry’s never-ending insistence on submitting to the UN is a continuation of the Clinton policy for an America controlled by the UN.

    Back to Michael Scheuer

    In the video Mr. Michael Scheuer mentioned inflaming a billion Muslims in relation to Clinton not killing bin Laden. I believe that that was Clinton policy at the time, but not for the altruism the Butcher of Waco would have us believe. The United Nations is always the reason. The United Nations is the reason this Administration will sell out Israel in a heartbeat.

    I can best explain my interpretation by pointing out the United Nations is nothing more than a business. Member states do not own the business. They are customers of the of the people who own the United Nations. They should be viewed as customers. Put it this way:

    There are 49 Muslim countries out of a total number of 192 member states in the United Nations. If you owned a business that had 49 customers who all sold the same product, and 1 customer the 49 wanted to get rid of who would you placate?

    Finally, if every Muslim country walks out of the United Nations because of Israel’s continued existence the business goes bankrupt.


    I'll have the Sandy Berger and a side of lies
    Ann Coulter
    August 5, 2004

    I was under the naive impression that Clinton administration scandals would end once the Clinton administration ended. Even I, someone who has not exactly had her eyes closed to Clinton-era buffoonery, did not imagine that the most corrupt administration in the history of the country would find a way to keep having scandals while out of office.

    But poor old Sandy Berger ends up in hot water long after everyone's gone home. Someday we'll be reading about Clinton officials causing incidents in nursing homes. (Which Clinton administration official do you imagine that might involve?)

    The undisputed facts are these: Clinton's national security adviser removed documents with the highest possible security classification from the National Archives, took them home with him, and disposed of some of the documents. (Still hotly contested is whether Berger also stuffed top-secret documents in his socks.)

    The New York Times' response was to hysterically accuse the Bush administration of corruption. In a front-page story the week the story broke, the Times accused the Bush administration of leaking the news of the Berger investigation for cynical political reasons – based on the Times' careful accretion of no facts whatsoever.

    Meanwhile, the front-page story on the scandal itself – well, actually, that didn't make the front page. That story was demurely reported on page A-16 of the Times.

    The Times' defense brief for Berger consisted of the information that Berger's friends say Berger would never do anything to harm his country. It's always good to hear Democrats assure us that one of them isn't a traitor. With the Democrats, you need constant assurances we're not dealing with another Alger Hiss. David Gergen, the Tariq Aziz for the Democrats, says the incident is "more innocent than it looks." Well, it sure couldn't be any less innocent than it looks.

    These people think if Dick Cheney uses a word with the letter "H," it's a secret code from the pope proving a conspiracy with Halliburton. But they can't see what all the fuss is about when a former national security adviser comes under criminal investigation and a search warrant is executed on his office and home after he pilfers top-secret government documents. Or at least it's not nearly as consequential as the question of who leaked the story.

    The Adam Nagourney of CBS News, Dan Rather, introduced the Mr. Sticky Fingers scandal this way:

    Sandy Berger, who was national security adviser under President Clinton, stepped aside today as an adviser to Sen. John Kerry. CBS' John Roberts reports this was triggered by a carefully orchestrated leak about Berger, and the timing of it appears to be no coincidence.

    The conspiracy nuts' story on Republicans leaking the Berger investigation has been a little short on details, inasmuch as it is based on no evidence, no witnesses, no sources – not even a plausible theory. As former Moynihan aide Lawrence O'Donnell pointed out, the Bush administration's interests were not served by the leak of the Berger investigation this early in the campaign. As the Democrats have taught us, the best time to release damaging information about your opponent – say, a 30-year-old DUI – is about 72 hours before the election.

    Tending to support the theory that the Kerry campaign leaked the story is the fact that the Bush White House has known about Berger for months; Kerry was told of the investigation only the week the story was leaked.

    Berger's relationship to the Kerry campaign has undergone a massive transformation since news of the Great Hanes Robbery broke. One month ago, the Times was calling Berger one of "Mr. Kerry's top foreign policy advisers." Last week the Times described Berger as "an informal, unpaid adviser to Sen. John Kerry's campaign." By next week he'll be "some guy who heckled Teresa in Milwaukee."

    At least they aren't calling Berger a "stalker."

    The people who should be on their knees thanking God that W is president are the National Archives employees who caught Sandy Burglar. If Clinton were still president, instead of a serious criminal investigation, we'd get six months of attacks on the poor National Archives employees as trailer trash, sluts, gold-diggers, etc., etc. (Of course, if Clinton were still president, some National Archives employees might well be on their knees, but for a different reason.)

    Maybe the Kerry campaign could borrow from another Clinton-era scandal – the ransacking of the FBI files – and claim that, like Craig Livingston, no one knows who hired Berger to work on the Kerry campaign.

    Given the Democratic scandals, their presidential candidates might consider the following litmus-test question before hiring their campaign staff: "Have you ever put anything into your shorts, or taken anything out of your shorts, that could negatively affect this campaign?"

    http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2004-08-04.html

    XXXXX

    To celebrate independence, we must have sovereignty
    Phyllis Schlafly
    July 5, 2004

    The hand-over of power to Iraq by the victorious American forces has stimulated public discussion about a word that seems to have fallen in disfavor in the last few years: sovereignty. It is the ability of one government to act without being subject to the legal control of another government, country or international organization, restrained only by moral principles.

    Sovereignty was transferred to Iraq on June 28, but when the question came up at a U.S. Senate hearing as to whether Iraq can the order U.S. troops to leave, the official answer was: not yet. Iraq won't become truly sovereign until it can do that, which won't happen until elections establish a permanent government.

    The U.S. Constitution is based on the premise that we are a sovereign nation and we need not obey any power unless authorized in the Constitution. The Europeans, on the other hand, are rapidly abandoning their national sovereignty in favor of an international bureaucracy called the European Union.

    European Union representatives are using "unilateralism" as a smear word to show their disdain for America's stubborn adherence to sovereignty. They assert the ridiculous proposition that U.S. actions cannot be legitimate without United Nations approval.

    The enemies of sovereignty are squeamish about the term world government. They like the softer slogan global governance, which harbors undefined concepts such as human rights, sustainable development and international justice.

    Unhappily, it's not only non-Americans who are trying to replace U.S. sovereignty with global governance. Former President William Jefferson Clinton told the United Nations he wanted to put the United States into a "web" of treaties to set the ground rules for "the emerging international system."

    Clinton's chief foreign policy adviser was notorious for his Time magazine article of July 20, 1992, "The Birth of the Global Nation." Talbott opined that "national sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all," and he predicted, "Nationhood as we know it will be obsolete, all states will recognize a single, global authority."

    After then-President Clinton failed to get congressional authorization for his war on Yugoslavia, Madeleine Albright, his secretary of state, rationalized it by demanding that Yugoslavia surrender its sovereignty. She said: "Great nations who understand the importance of sovereignty at various times cede various portions of it in order to achieve some better good for their country."

    Clinton signed the International Criminal Court treaty, which would have locked us into a global judicial order. He urged us to accept the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which would have set up a global committee to monitor the way parents raise their children.

    Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore were big fans of the Kyoto Protocol to the Convention on Climate Change, which would have set up a global tribunal to control our energy use. Clinton and first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton demanded the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which would have created a global commission of feminist "experts" to regulate gender issues in our laws, customs, education and wages. Finally, the Convention on the Law of the Sea would have created an international seabed authority to control and distribute the mineral riches under the seas. Each of these Clinton-supported treaties would have grabbed a big slice of our sovereignty, but fortunately they were never ratified.

    The World Trade Organization, which Clinton did get us to join, is a good example of how trade agreements can morph into global control. The organization is not "free trade" but a global bureaucracy and quasi-judicial system that manages world trade and has ruled against the United States a dozen times.

    Likewise, the North American Free Trade Agreement was sold to the people as free trade among the three major North American countries. It spawned an international tribunal that has repeatedly overruled U.S. laws and courts, most recently to allow the immediate entry of thousands of Mexican trucks in violation of U.S. environmental law.

    Some people are trying to expand the three-nation NAFTA into the 30-nation Free Trade Area of the Americas, which is an attempt to force the United States into a Western Hemisphere bureaucracy modeled on the European Union. President George W. Bush signed the Declaration of Quebec City on April 22, 2001, which was a "commitment to hemispheric integration" larded with favorite United Nations double talk such as "interdependent," "greater economic integration," and "sustainable development."

    A new book, "The Case for Sovereignty," by Cornell University professor Jeremy A. Rabkin convincingly explains why the maintenance of U.S. sovereignty, rather than yielding authority to various international institutions, is essential not only for the security of the United States but is beneficial to world peace. He shows that sovereignty is compatible with international trade but not with international regulation of trade.

    Our Declaration of Independence is, in essence, a declaration of U.S. sovereignty. Freedom in the United States depends on it and on avoiding European mistakes. U.S. citizens must never accept any governing authority higher than the U.S. Constitution.

    http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2004/july04/04-07-07.html
     
  2. Flanders

    Flanders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I do not know Liberman’s motives, but I love his suggestion:

    I love it if it happens because the United Nations will get caught taking part in Muslims killing Israelis as opposed to making clucking sounds about peace every time Israelis fight back. Anything that makes the United Nations look bad is good for Americans. Somebody might even ask Ban Ki-moon to stop Hamas rockets from getting to Hamas. Can you just see the UN squirming out of that one!

    Barack Taqiyya and John Kerry will agree to anything that empowers the United Nations. Americans will not be happy when they realize they will end up paying the lion’s share of every action the UN takes in the war between Israelis and Palestinians. American taxpayers already pick up a big part of the aid Palestinians receive. Those payments will increase tenfold when the UN presents its service charge.

    Here’s the kicker. The Muslim world would love to control everything the United Nations does in the Israeli-Palestinian unpleasantness. Handing the UN —— AN ORGANIZATION—— control over real territory would be the first step in wiping out Israel —— sanctioned by International law. I’m not saying that Foreign Minister Liberman fails to see what Muslims can accomplish through the United Nations. I am saying he better have impeccable motives for making the suggestion because International law is United Nations law. I think Liberman might be trying to show the UN’s charity hustlers for the slime-balls they are. I hope that is the case.

    Frankly, giving your enemies at the UN any kind of authority is a dangerous game; more so when you don’t know if American quislings are planning to sell you out. Right now, any control Islam exercises in the UN is limited to determining the meaning of human rights to suit Muslims, and making fools of those UN-loving American traitors who live in fear that every Muslim country will walk out of their precious United Nations.


    Liberman Calls to Hand Gaza Over to UN
    Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman says 'several options' are on the table for Gaza - including leaving it to the international community.
    By Tova Dvorin
    First Publish: 8/4/2014, 11:21 AM

    Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman (Yisrael Beytenu) made headlines Monday, after he suggested Israel is considering turning Gaza over to the UN.

    "The operation is not over," he said, referring to a seven-hour unilateral humanitarian ceasefire and reports the IDF is slowly withdrawing from Gaza. "We are continuing to destroy terror tunnels and to regroup in the IDF."

    "We need to make decisions regarding the continued operation," he continued. "We stand at the moment with several clear options: an agreement, defeating Hamas, or limbo - something unclear where we only respond to fire. The third option simply isn’t relevant."

    Regarding an "agreement," Liberman raised the possibility of transferring Gaza to UN control, but noted that there is a need for agreement between Israel and the Palestinians beforehand.

    Unsurprisingly, the idea garnered a fierce response from leftist MKs, who insist that the only solution is a two-state solution - even if an agreement would be forged before a UN deal that would accomplish the same goals.

    "The idea of turning Gaza over to the UN doesn't have legs, doesn't have arms, and doesn't have a chance," MK Nahman Shai (Labor) stated. "It belongs to another world."

    "The Israeli government, along with Minister Liberman, will accept the two-state solution and it must aim for its actualization," he continued. "The international community supports it and are willing to help in its fulfillment."

    "Every other proposal lacks a chance, and is designed to torpedo the two-state solution," he added.

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/183698#.U99rv0LD9V8
     
  3. Flanders

    Flanders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Forget legacy. Nine out of ten presidents are more remembered for a quote or two than they are remembered for anything they might have done. If Taqiyya the Liar is remembered at all it will be for the abundance of idiot comments he made that rival this one:

    2014-08-05-UYHEL.jpg
     

Share This Page