Rice Cakes Double Speaks The Small d

[Flanders]

Obama calls for 'democracy with a small d'
Posted By Aaron Klein On 09/19/2012 @ 1:03 am

Obama calls for ‘democracy with a small d’​

The jury is still out on Rex Tillerson, but most —— NOT ALL —— secretaries of state since the end of World War Two were monumental disasters because the presidents who appointed them were disasters.

NOTE: Not one of Tillerson’s most recent predecessors was more loyal to this country’s sovereignty than they were to the United Nations:

John Kerry 68

Hillary Clinton 67

Colin Powell 66

Condoleezza Rice 65

Madeleine Albright 64

Warren Christopher 63

Lawrence Eagleburger 62

Every one of the above would abolish our Constitution and replace it with democracy. Every one of them would use the U.S. military to promote democracy in foreign civil wars when there is no military threat to this country, but as far as I know Rice Cakes is the only one who wrote a book that places democracy over individual liberties. Listen to the video and you will hear Rice Cakes wrap her view of democracy in a lot of misdirection.

​

http://prodimage.images-bn.com/pimages/9781455540181_p0_v4_s192x300.jpg

Rice’s explanatory subtitle takes the prize for subliminal horse manure. Even if you have no intention of reading her book you get the democracy message just by glancing at the book rack wherever it is sold:

Stories from the Long Road to Freedom​

Democracy never put anyone on the road to freedom. If Rice Cakes and her kind are so in love with freedom they would advocate limited government not democracy:

Democracy is always going towards something worse; never towards liberty. Flanders​

XXXXX​

Finally, whenever Democrats engage in nation-building the rhetoric always begins with a promise of democracy. If you take a close look at their efforts you will see that they actually began nation-building (democracy) in this country in the early 20th century. Early Socialist might have had a case if they were talking about replacing a totalitarian government with democracy. America’s Founders knew better. They replaced a monarchy with a clearly enumerated limited government.

Admittedly, democracy looks good to everybody living in a totalitarian dictatorship —— not so good to people who enjoy individual liberties. That political reality is a major stumbling block for our own dirty little Communists like Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. They have to complete the task of overthrowing freedom in their own country, while Communists elsewhere take all the best of it when they promise freedom after democracy replaces whatever form of foreign government enslaves them.

p.s. Communist regimes are not burdened with promises of democracy after they give their people a taste of it.​

Another Soldier For democracy Chimes In

Finally, Rice Cakes was mentored by Albright’s father. Need I say more?

 

[Marion Morrison]

I doubt Colin Powell was a globalist. Was he?

 

[depotoo]

I have hopes for Tillerson.
Powell, yeah I believe he became indoctrinated.

I doubt Colin Powell was a globalist. Was he?

 

[PoliticalChic]

'Rice is great if you're really hungry and want to eat two thousand of something.'
Mitch Hedberg

 

[Flanders]

I doubt Colin Powell was a globalist. Was he?

To Marion Morrison: He is my opinion. I doubted Powell’s first loyalty years before I came to the US Message Board.

Another report, “Smart Power 2.0: America’s Global Strategy” promotes foreign assistance such as investments in global health, so-called sustainable agriculture, and development programs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Global Leadership Coalition includes an advisory board that reads like a who’s who of former State Department officials, including former secretaries of state Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell and James Baker.​

Hagel pushes wealth redistribution to Third World
Serves on globalist groups urging massive increases in U.S. funding
Published: 01/19/2013 at 8:44 PM
by AARON KLEIN

Hagel pushes wealth redistribution to Third World​

Here are several messages I posted about Powell on this board:

A few Americans correctly identified the United Nations as the more dangerous enemy. My point is: Senator McCarthy was right. Indeed, Communists were infiltrating every branch of the armed services. Such men were fairly easy to identify as the years passed. Identifying military men who were not Communists, but whose first loyalty was to the UN, was not so easy. In the decades since the Army-McCarthy hearings Democrats & RINO advanced the careers of officers they could “trust.”

Understandably, in 1954 the United Nations was too young for Senator McCarthy to separate Communist true believers from UN-loyalists. Even today, most Americans cannot see the danger involved when our military serves the United Nations.

I’ve always believed that Colin Powell was the first UN-loyalist to make it all the way to the top. He is certainly the most successful “security risk” Senator McCarthy warned about. Today, there is General Dempsey and Admiral Locklear, and only the good Lord knows how many others occupy the upper ranks of every armed service. To no one’s surprise the MSM praises UN-loyalists to high heaven. After all, they are not like Benedict Arnold; so who would dare challenge the loyalty of a man wearing a chest full of ribbons?​

The military shaft

XXXXX​

Finally, no less of a “Republican” who endorsed the dirt bag in the White House, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, bragged about the Millennium Summit Account when he sweetened the pot with Marshall Plan thinking:

If fully funded by Congress, MCA would provide the largest increase in U.S. development assistance since the Marshall Plan. By 2006 it would represent an increase of 50 percent over our core development assistance funding level in 2002. From 2006 onward, we would invest $5 billion per year in the MCA. Our funding for existing development assistance programs, which now comes to more than $10 billion annually, will continue to rise.​

The Millennium Challenge Account: "Aid for the Enterprising"
Secretary Colin L. Powell
Op-Ed
Washington Post
June 10, 2003

The Millennium Challenge Account: "Aid for the Enterprising"​

In plain English the amount of money the American taxpayer pays is handed over to UN control.

If I’m interpreting Powell & Company correctly the US is buying a leadership role, with all of the responsibilities that that role encompasses, but the UN is still in the driver’s seat. Or should I say that the UN is a backseat driver? It seems to me that that is what the UN crowd has been angling toward all along.

There is one undeniable fact about Colin Powell: No matter how you interpret his comments he is consistently in favor of a stronger UN. He said as much when he was secretary of state. I have never heard him say that he stands for America’s unconditional independence, or that he stands for private sector individual liberties.

Powell is no different than every other totalitarian that ever fed at the public trough. His core belief is that the product of all private sector labor is owned by the government and should be distributed by the government as the government sees fit. That totalitarian view was bad enough when Socialists were implementing it domestically through the tax code, it is going to be a lot worse globally. I can only wonder if Powell has any idea of the number of additional hours every working American will have to work for the UN every week to pay to implement another baby Marshall Plan?​

Do Not Sing Happy Birthday

XXXXX​

A few years back I was really confused when UN employees/officials were being identified as international civil servants. Those people serving their homelands at the UN are civil servants for the country they represent. They cannot be defined as international civil servants.

Why is it important to prick this particular balloon? International law and international civil servant are global government inventions; neither one exists. Look at how non-existent “international law” is slowly gaining acceptance and you’ll begin to see the danger. International civil servants are being put on the same road to acceptance as is international law. Neither exists, yet the repeated, unchallenged, use of the term “international law” gave most Americans a vague notion that it is real.​

XXXXX​

The term international civil servant first caught my attention in 2003. That sent me to my dictionaries. This is what I found in my computer dictionary:​

civil servant (noun)

A person employed in the civil service.

civil service (noun)
Abbr. CS

1. Those branches of public service that are not legislative, judicial, or military and in which employment is usually based on competitive examination.

2. The entire body of persons employed by the civil branches of a government.​

This is what I found in my dependable one hundred dollar Random House Unabridged Dictionary:​

civil servant,

a civil-service employee. [1790-1800]

civil service,

1. those branches of public service concerned with all government functions outside the armed services.

2. the body of persons employed in these branches.

3. a system or method of appointing government employees on the basis of competitive examinations, rather than by political patronage. [1775-85]​

No matter which dictionary you check, a civil servant has to work for a government to be defined as a civil servant. Did someone establish an international government and hire civil servants while I wasn’t watching? And where were the competitive exams given? And what is the abbreviation for the term “international civil service?” Logically it should be ICS, but that can easily be reworked by skeptics to mean International Communists Socialists.

Colin Powell was my next encounter with international civil servant. He also referred to UN sharpshooters as international civil servants. Because Powell used the phrase, I considered the possibility that a person could be working at the UN while being a civil servant for a specific country. Happily, the phrase made no sense for obvious reasons.

Let's use the United States as an example and say our international civil servant is a man. The question then becomes: Which entity is that international civil servant loyal to? Some might say he is loyal to both the UN and the US, but then I ran into the matter of divided loyalties; serving two masters, and that kind of stuff. Would you trust an employee who espouses loyalty to a competitor? As a matter of fact, quite a few American internationalists who support the UN do not say things that encourage trust in their loyalty to America.

And if the man in my example is paid by the American government, he can't really be an international civil servant no matter what his UN duties entail. He is an American civil servant paid by American tax dollars. That is not to say that every “American” assigned to the United Nations is a loyal American. I certainly had my doubts about Suzy Five Shows. (Samantha Power makes Suzy look like Molly Pitcher.) I’m simply pointing out that if my example is paid by the UN or one of its agencies he is working for an organization and cannot be defined as a civil servant —— international or otherwise.

What if the UN administered civil service exams? I suppose that would be okay so long as Exxon, General Motors, or the Boy Scouts of America gave exams and was allowed to call the people they hired civil servants.​

XXXXX​

Bottom line: There is a vast difference between legitimate civil servants and hustlers who do what they do for money and nothing else.​

Ebola & Thalidomide

Finally, the truth is that Colin Powell was angry because he felt betrayed by Bush the Younger over that WMD speech he, Powell, gave to the UN General Assembly.



I believe that Powell gave his boy, Richard Armitage, instructions to out Valerie Plame to punish Bush & Chaney because he, Powell, looked like a liar in the United Nations. Note that Powell never mentioned yellow cake in the WMD speech which is what the Plame Affair was all about.

Armitage’s Leak
By Robert D. Novak
Thursday, September 14, 2006

Robert D. Novak - Armitage's Leak​

Bottom line: Powell loves the United Nations as much as does any Democrat traitor. Bush the Younger committed the ultimate sin when he invaded Iraq unilaterally without the UN’s final approval. In addition, Powell was bitter because he did not return to his glory days of Desert Storm —— only this time with him as secretary of state forming another UN coalition to deal with Iraq.

The flaw in Powell’s thinking was that America won the first Gulf War militarily, but lost the peace before the first shot was fired because Powell and Bush the Elder gave the UN veto power over America’s military. Had Bush the Elder gone on to Baghdad in Desert Storm there would have been no Iraq War 12 years later.

I have hopes for Tillerson.

To depotoo: Me too.

NOTE: I will reserve judgement until after his view of the United Nations becomes much clearer. Right now it is hard to tell where he stands on the all-important issues of sovereignty, and withdrawing from the UN.

 

[Flanders]

She is making the rounds:

​

Oh-so-compassionate Rice Cakes never tells us how democracy can stop governments from slaughtering their own people? They cannot is the answer.

If I interviewed Rice I would ask her if she thinks population controls is another form of government slaughter? The fact is that global government is all about ruling classes acquiring the authority to kill the weak, the unwanted, and the undesirable. In short: The same people who control national governments will run a one world government administered by the United Nations. The only difference between the butchers is that the global government butchers will do their killing humanely.

When Rice is finished with her talking points her I would ask her if she objects to a world full of limited governments?

America’s Founders knew better. They replaced a monarchy with a clearly enumerated limited government.

NOTE: Rice and her kind are attempting to build a democracy step ladder where the highest rung is a totalitarian global government.

Finally, Rice Cakes has been feeding at the public trough throughout her life. After she rose to the top of the parasite hierarchy she bounced back and forth between government jobs and the academy. Her questionable public service was open to scrutiny, while nobody knows how many young adults she swayed with her democracy bullshit in the dark chambers of higher education.

 

[Flanders]

Admiral Locklear, and only the good Lord knows how many others occupy the upper ranks of every armed service.

. . . Bloomberg reports that retired flag officers, including the former commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, Admiral Sam J. Locklear, are urging SecDef Mattis and SecState Tillerson to continue U.S. support for combating global climate change.

The ex-officers are the latest to call for the U.S. to uphold its environmental commitments as President Donald Trump's senior advisers were preparing to meet Tuesday to debate whether to exit the Paris accord. Tillerson and Mattis are among those pushing the president to stick with the agreement, brokered in 2015 by almost 200 nations.​

May 11, 2017
Ex-military flag officers back Mattis to fight...(wait for it)...climate change
By John Smith

Blog: Ex-military flag officers back Mattis to fight...(wait for it)...climate change​

Now-retired-Admiral Locklear pushing the climate change fraud reaffirmed his loyalty to the United Nations:

There is never a good time to deny the United States Navy maximum capability to defend American interests, but now is a particularly bad time. Iran’s determination to acquire nuclear weapons and China’s continuing escalation of its military buildup will have significant implications for key trade routes like the Strait of Hormuz (through which 20% of all globally traded oil passes) and the South China Sea (through which 50% of goods transported between continents by ship passes). We will need our Navy to deter or challenge Iran and China if necessary, to keep those waterways stable and thereby fend off further damage to the global economy. With the Navy already taking a serious hit to its abilities thanks to the Obama administration’s FY 2013 defense budget proposal, the last thing we need is a mechanism that compounds the damage to that force’s effectiveness. But that is what we would be getting with ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (aka Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST), a topic that 66 Members of the House of Representatives, led by Rep. Jeff Flake (Arizona-6th District) and Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio-4th District), recently sought to address.

The Navy has long favored U.S. ratification of LOST, arguing primarily that accession to LOST would enhance the Navy’s navigational rights and freedoms, and most recently as argued by Admiral Samuel Locklear, President Obama’s nominee to lead the U.S. Pacific Command, that joining LOST would strengthen America’s “credibility” in solving maritime disputes and promoting rule of law on the world’s oceans. Both these assertions are questionable given the harsh realities of how LOST is likely to work in practice and how adversary nations — whether parties to the treaty or not — are likely to go about advancing their own strategic ambitions, irrespective of what LOST may have to say about it.

LOST creates major opportunities for other nations to interfere with the Navy’s mobility through the use of mandatory dispute resolution mechanisms — the options here, according to Article 287 of the treaty, include the International Court of Justice, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, an arbitration panel, or a special arbitration panel. Countries with political or strategic agendas against the United States would have substantial incentive to haul the U.S. before one of these bodies, even if the chances of actually winning the dispute were slim. Politically, any number of countries would be more than happy to score propaganda points using the imagery of confronting the U.S. before a “judicial” body of any kind; strategically, as part of the dispute resolution process, the U.S. could find itself having to turn over sensitive information that could benefit the accusing nation, even if the latter ultimately loses the dispute at hand.

XXXXX​

Adm. Locklear’s recent testimony that American membership in LOST will help promote oceanic rule-of-law, and that our non-membership lessens our credibility to help solve maritime disputes, necessarily begs the question of whose behavior we will be affecting with our enhanced credibility on such matters should we accede to LOST. It is difficult to believe that China and Iran, currently posing highly consequential maritime challenges through their military posturing in critical trade zones, will be moved by the United States becoming a party to the treaty. China has already demonstrated repeatedly its willingness to manipulate LOST’s lofty yet ambiguous text to justify outlandish claims to the entire South China Sea — claims that, as some analysts have pointed out, the United States could wind up inadvertently legitimating through its own accession to the treaty.​

LOST Trade Routes
By Ben Lerner on 3.5.12 @ 6:07AM
Should the U.S. Navy be on patrol for the UN's Law of the Sea Treaty?

LOST Trade Routes​