Fighting For The United Nations?

[Book of Jeremiah]

Thank you for the information on Hillarys thesis on Marx. I would still like to read it. - Jeri

To Jeri: You might try this link:

Hillary Rodham Clinton's Wellesley College Senior Thesis (1969)

Also this article is good background:

How the Clintons hid Hillary's thesis - politics - Decision '08 - Hillary Clinton News | NBC News

Thank you for the links. I can't believe you found it! - Jeri

 

[Flopper]

The Korean War becomes the forgotten war mainly because Democrats want to forget Harry Truman going to Korea in the first place.

Korea became the forgotten war for two reasons. First, according to the US government, we were not at war. Korea was a police action, a statement hated by most Americans. Secondly, in less than a decade the Viet Nam war was stealing the headline and America was preoccupied with two wars, one at home and one 8000 miles away. By the time the Vietnam war ended, America had no interest in any war, certainly not a police action sandwiched between the the two most painful wars since the Civil War.

 

[Flanders]

Thanks, Flanders. Years ago I remember your description on a political board of what a global government would need. You mentioned a main bank, military, taxes ( thank you IMF & VAT! ) laws, a judicial branch. Do you remember that? You were targeting international law, specifically. I cannot remember most of it but it was brilliant. I would like to see you write again about that. I think it would be very informative. - Jeri

To Jeri: Thanks for remembering. I’m never sure if anybody remembers the things I say in a message.

I’ve posted many articles about the UN’s drive for global government and the institutions such a government requires. I’ve tried to point out the approaches the UN uses. Basically, I elaborate on one approach in each message about the UN. You remembered a few.

The UN’s main obstacle is that it can’t be a government until every militarily powerful nation accepts a global government administered by the UN. Smaller nations don’t matter because powerful governments will force compliance. America is powerful enough to defend its sovereignty. That’s another reason America’s enemies are pushing for a global government.

Unfortunately, America has always had traitors in high places who would surrender America’s independence in a heartbeat. Tragically, some global government advocates are misguided; some have a vested interest in betraying their country; most are blinded by their sick belief in socialism. Here’s a sampling of the latter:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=heegk07026I]Walter Cronkite receives "Global Governance Award" from WFA - YouTube[/ame]​

Cronkite’s full speech called for surrendering “some” of America’s sovereignty. That makes Clinton’s praise very informative. Should she get the nomination in 2016, I pray that enough Americans want their country to retain ALL of its independence. Enough votes to defeat her will have to come from the heart because the media sure as hell will cover up her global government agenda.

These are the main requirements for a global government with my observations in capsule form:

1. A military.

Free nations maintain armies for defense of nation; hence, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 must be wiped out by a UN army acting as a police force defending the government as “soldiers” do in every dictatorship.

2. A judicial system.

Convincing the public that International law exists is paramount. In recent years, I usually topped off my comments by quoting Robert Bork (1927 - 2012):

International law is not law but politics, ... there is no such law, and the pretense that it exists is a harmful fantasy.

3. The authority to tax.

The power to tax follows a judicial system in importance. The foundation for the UN’s judicial system, the World Court and various tribunals, is paid for out of UN dues and assessments.

The UN works tirelessly to acquire permanent taxing authority through UN treaties; especially environmental treaties. United Nations treaties represent the UN’s best chance of acquiring the authority to tax rather than relying on national governments who can pull their funding at any time.

The Tobin Tax on financial transaction was proposed in 1972. Since then taxation by another name was hidden in every UN treaty. Then the big one came along. The UN found the environment; ergo, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Kyoto Protocol).

When thinking of UN taxes note that environmental taxation will be more oppressive than the tax on income. Also note that the EPA is an unofficial UN agency imposing taxes (fines) on industry and individuals although the money collected does not go directly to the UN —— at least not yet.

4. A central bank controlled by the UN.

A universal currency is a New World Order goal on par with taxing authority. The IMF and the World Bank are UN agencies. The UN printing its own currency is the final step in giving the UN a central bank exactly like our Federal Reserve System.

Incidentally, the UN has its own postage stamps. They are honored as though they were printed by a government. The US actually prints the stamps for the UN, but I doubt if postal employees around the world know that.

5. Territory

National governments cannot be separated from their territories —— the territory comes first, a government evolves within territorial boundaries. The United Nations, that is the Socialists who control the organization known as the United Nations, had no territory of their own so they first claimed ownership of the oceans and the atmosphere. The UN has increased its claim of ownership to include trees, fresh water, and animals. Making ownership stick through treaties and “International law” is the environmental movement in a nutshell.

6. Diplomatic immunity.

Diplomatic immunity belongs to governments. That makes it essential for UN officials and employees. The UN is an organization, but the image of government is conveyed through diplomatic immunity.

In the same vain, UN ships are not registered in a country as are every other ocean-going vessel. That amounts to the equivalent of maritime diplomatic immunity in that UN vessels are above the laws governing other ships. First off, the UN cannot be sued, nor can the officers on UN ships be held accountable for anything. More importantly, who will prosecute the UN people responsible for this:

UN ship 'carried child prostitutes'

UN ship 'carried child prostitutes' | 100777.com

Let me close on a happy note. At least one US Senator is pointing out that UN was designed to be debating society not a global government:

WASHINGTON – The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT, “will only be ratified if the Senate votes to, which will not happen so long as I am breathing in the U.S. Senate,” Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, told WND.

Lee describes the treaty as “extending far beyond the basic purposes for which the U.N. was created,” adding that the sole purpose of the U.N. is to be a “forum to discuss and resolve international problems.”

Senator vows to kill U.N. arms treaty
Ratification 'will not happen so long as I am breathing in the U.S. Senate'
Published: 13 hours ago
TAYLOR ROSE

Senator vows to kill U.N. arms treaty

 

[whitehall]

The "rest of the story" as the late Paul Harvey used to say is that Truman didn't have congressional authorization for his adventure in Korea. He committed combat troops on an executive order. Imagine if a republican ever did such a thing. The second thing is that the Korean War was so incredibly mishandled that a victory was turned into a defeat. Americans beat the NK invaders back in less than a year and even captured the NK capital but the gigantic ego of the aging general combined with the timid personality of the president caused Americans to walk into the biggest ambush in history and caused the war to last three years and anywhere from 35,000 to 50,000 American lives.

 

[Flanders]

The "rest of the story" as the late Paul Harvey used to say is that Truman didn't have congressional authorization for his adventure in Korea. He committed combat troops on an executive order. Imagine if a republican ever did such a thing. The second thing is that the Korean War was so incredibly mishandled that a victory was turned into a defeat. Americans beat the NK invaders back in less than a year and even captured the NK capital but the gigantic ego of the aging general combined with the timid personality of the president caused Americans to walk into the biggest ambush in history and caused the war to last three years and anywhere from 35,000 to 50,000 American lives.

To whitehall: Truman did what he had to do to stop the spread of communism.

General MacArthur and Truman agreed that communism had to be stopped. MacArthur wanted total victory. Truman settled for Peace Without Victory. The results of Truman’s bargain with the Devil were inevitable.

Bottom line: Truman was right in stopping the spread of communism, but wrong in doing it through the UN.
Let me clarify Peace Without Victory. With the exception of WWII, Woodrow Wilson’s address to Congress on January 22, 1917 has been dictating America’s self-defense policies ever since. No other presidential speech since then has had more influence on America’s policies. Specifically, this excerpt:

They imply, first of all, that it must be a peace without victory. It is not pleasant to say this. I beg that I may be permitted to put my own interpretation upon it and that it may be understood that no other interpretation was in my thought. I am seeking only to face realities and to face them without soft concealments. Victory would mean peace forced upon the loser, a victor's terms imposed upon the vanquished. It would be accepted in humiliation, under duress, at an intolerable sacrifice, and would leave a sting, a resentment, a bitter memory upon which terms of peace would rest, not permanently, but only as upon quicksand. Only a peace between equals can last, only a peace the very principle of which is equality and a common participation in a common benefit. The right state of mind, the right feeling between nations, is as necessary for a lasting peace as is the just settlement of vexed questions of territory or of racial and national allegiance.

Only fools and traitors would treat a defeated enemy who threatened to kill you as an equal. The defeated enemies in WWII were not treated as equals and the rest of the world was the better for it.

More to the pont: Wilson’s Peace Without Victory evolved from a false premise —— war is the ultimate evil —— end war and you’re in Shangri-la. That idiocy came from a man who took America to war when it was not threatened. In fact, the 20th proved that totalitarian government is mankind’s greatest evil by far. If you want proof compare the number of people killed in all of the wars fought in the past 500 years to the number of people totalitarian governments slaughtered in the last century.

Should you analyze Wilson’s entire address you will find the foundation for much of today’s touchy-feely, collectivist, garbage —— including abandoning America’s sovereignty. You can clearly see the seed for the UN’s Law of the Sea Treaty.

PBS - American Experience: Woodrow Wilson | Film & More

 

[Flopper]

The "rest of the story" as the late Paul Harvey used to say is that Truman didn't have congressional authorization for his adventure in Korea. He committed combat troops on an executive order. Imagine if a republican ever did such a thing. The second thing is that the Korean War was so incredibly mishandled that a victory was turned into a defeat. Americans beat the NK invaders back in less than a year and even captured the NK capital but the gigantic ego of the aging general combined with the timid personality of the president caused Americans to walk into the biggest ambush in history and caused the war to last three years and anywhere from 35,000 to 50,000 American lives.

It wasn't till 1973, that The War Powers Resolution was passed that required the president to notify congress within 48 hours of committing troops. What Truman did was legal and appropriate at the time. BTW, the War Powers Resolution was disregarded by President Reagan in 1981 by sending military forces to El Salvador and later the Contras in Nicaragua and by President Clinton in 1999.

Within 24 hours North Korean troops were well into South Korea. Had the president gone to congress before acting, South Korea would have been totally in the hands of the North Koreans. Also, a declaration of war against North Korean would have been tantamount to a declaration of war against China and Russia. I think Truman made the right decision.

I agree the war was mismanaged. However, I don't see Truman as being timid. He made the decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan, knowing that it would cost the lives of a hundred to two hundred thousands civilians. He ordered the take over of the steel mills and coal mines in response to strikes which brought both business leaders and union condemnation, yet he held his ground until the Supreme Court stopped him. Then he fired MacArthur, probably the most revered living American war hero. Truman was lot a things, but being timid was not one of them.

 

[Flanders]

How would you like to see young Americans fighting for this guy’s beliefs:

A United Nations official known for blaming the U.S. for unrest in the Middle East has angered critics again by blaming the Boston Marathon bombings on “American global domination.”

"The American global domination project is bound to generate all kinds of resistance in the post-colonial world," Richard Falk, the UN Human Rights Council's Palestine monitor, wrote in an article for Foreign Policy Journal titled, “A Commentary on the Marathon Murders."

UN official blames Boston Marathon bombings on American 'domination'
Published April 23, 2013
FoxNews.com

UN official blames Boston Marathon bombings on American 'domination' | Fox News

Falk has been a parasite all of adult life living on tax dollars. First in higher education, then the United Nations. He was a professor at Ohio State, then spent thirty years teaching NON-EXISTENT INTERNATIONAL LAW at Princeton. Now he works for the United Nations.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

In an effort to make sense out of events on the Korean peninsula, I tried to organize the long line of Democrat hypocrisy crisscrossing nuclear weapons and North Korea. I started at the beginning of the Cold War.

American Communists justified treason with one sentence: If everybody has atomic bombs nobody will use them.

President Truman stops communism’s advance in Korea. The Left does not object because the UN sanctions the war. (Soviet Communists fail to veto the UN Police Action.)

The Korean War becomes the forgotten war mainly because Democrats want to forget Harry Truman going to Korea in the first place.

The Soviet Union and Communist China provide military and financial support to North Korea.

An armistice divides Korea between the Communist North and the free people in the South. Note satellite photo of the Korean peninsula today. The South is lit up; the north is dark:

Communist China gets nuclear bomb in 1964.

America stops Communists in Vietnam. American Communists object with demonstrations and violence because the United Nations DOES NOT sanction Vietnam. America is defeated.

The American Left revs up their years of agitating until Communist China is seated in the UN in 1971. Communist China also gets a permanent seat on the Security Council.

Cold War ends. Communist China inherits communism’s leadership role after the Soviet Union implodes.

Clintons take office soon after the Cold War ends. Clinton helps North Korea’s nuclear program:

How does Bill Clinton do it? I’m always amazed every time I see a news report on the Iran and North Korea nuclear weapons programs and there is never a mention of Clinton’s involvement in allowing the two rogue nations build their nuclear reactors in the first place. Even Jimmy Carter gets his due for allowing the rise of the Islamists in Iran, so why does Clinton get a free pass?

Reminder: Bill Clinton allowed Iran and North Korea to build nuclear reactors in the first place

Answer: Hillary Clinton gets the free pass.

Hussein & Company ratify New START Treaty with Russia. China and North Korea not affected by New START.

Kim Jong-un rattles the saber. Here’s where it gets interesting.

First off, everybody is getting the bomb. That’s what Democrats wanted all along.

Next, once again America’s military will be fighting for the United Nations if a shooting war breaks out:

. . . the South Koreans remain in command on the peninsula under normal armistice circumstances, but General Thurman, as the commander of American and United Nations forces, would assume operational control if war broke out.

U.S. Designs a Korea Response Proportional to the Provocation
By DAVID E. SANGER and THOM SHANKER
Published: April 7, 2013

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/w...lan-to-counter-north.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

In plain English, Americans will do the dying while the UN pulls the strings.

Bottom line: The first Korean War was also the first Peace Without Victory war Americans fought; Vietnam, Desert Storm, and the Iraq War followed. (Remember how hard top Democrats tried to cut & run from Iraq before total victory could be accomplished.)

A second Korean War will be another Peace Without Victory war. Kim Jong-un knows this as well as I know it. He is gambling that another truce is the worst he can expect. China is his whole card irrespective of the fantasies you hear on TV.

Vietnam War traitor confirmed by 96 US Senators as secretary of state. The problem:

Kerry betrayed his country after he returned from Vietnam. See this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/269032-lurching-toward-treason.html

Kerry’s dilemma. The enemies are the same —— the players are different. Kerry now has to choose between working for the United Nations in order to stop Communist aggression on the Korean Peninsula, the very thing he opposed in Vietnam, or resign. There is no way he can work for America’s best interests.

Note that the real business Kerry does will be done behind closed doors not at press conferences. Being a member of the biggest pack of liars in America’s history, there is little chance the public will ever learn about another betrayal. Hell, the public is still in the dark about Benghazi.

Ultimately, America loses if Kim Jong-un is stopped by the United Nations diplomatically, or militarily.

America loses if Kim Jong-un defeats South Korea.

The only way America can win is to fight and defeat communism irrespective of the United Nations and the Peace Without Victory crowd. Considering Hussein’s political leanings Kerry’s position is obvious.

Finally, the lie:

Kerry: 'U.S. will defend its allies'

Kerry will defend the UN’s authority. No Democrat, least of all John Kerry, will fight against communism. There is zero chance Hussein & Company would defend South Korea if the UN was not in danger of losing the little credibility it has left.

As an added bonus the US military will be fighting for the UN, not for this country. That’s important in planting the idea of fighting for the UN in the heads of those Americans who were born after the first Korean War ended. In addition, the US military fighting for the UN’s global agenda has been a hidden goal for Democrats going back to 1945.

Bingo! That is precisely what we have been doing all summer long in the middle east, Flanders! The Arab Spring? Fighting the UN's war! Not even a vote from Congress was needed! How did that happen?

When exactly did USA lose her sovereignty? Her Constitution? Laws of the Land? We've got a president reading off of a teleprompter - someone is writing the script and it certainly isn't him! STILL. I say there is no such thing as International law! We need to say farewell to the UN and walk away.

- Jeri

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Thanks, Flanders. Years ago I remember your description on a political board of what a global government would need. You mentioned a main bank, military, taxes ( thank you IMF & VAT! ) laws, a judicial branch. Do you remember that? You were targeting international law, specifically. I cannot remember most of it but it was brilliant. I would like to see you write again about that. I think it would be very informative. - Jeri

To Jeri: Thanks for remembering. I’m never sure if anybody remembers the things I say in a message.

I’ve posted many articles about the UN’s drive for global government and the institutions such a government requires. I’ve tried to point out the approaches the UN uses. Basically, I elaborate on one approach in each message about the UN. You remembered a few.

The UN’s main obstacle is that it can’t be a government until every militarily powerful nation accepts a global government administered by the UN. Smaller nations don’t matter because powerful governments will force compliance. America is powerful enough to defend its sovereignty. That’s another reason America’s enemies are pushing for a global government.

Unfortunately, America has always had traitors in high places who would surrender America’s independence in a heartbeat. Tragically, some global government advocates are misguided; some have a vested interest in betraying their country; most are blinded by their sick belief in socialism. Here’s a sampling of the latter:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=heegk07026I]Walter Cronkite receives "Global Governance Award" from WFA - YouTube[/ame]​

Cronkite’s full speech called for surrendering “some” of America’s sovereignty. That makes Clinton’s praise very informative. Should she get the nomination in 2016, I pray that enough Americans want their country to retain ALL of its independence. Enough votes to defeat her will have to come from the heart because the media sure as hell will cover up her global government agenda.

These are the main requirements for a global government with my observations in capsule form:

1. A military.

Free nations maintain armies for defense of nation; hence, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 must be wiped out by a UN army acting as a police force defending the government as “soldiers” do in every dictatorship.

2. A judicial system.

Convincing the public that International law exists is paramount. In recent years, I usually topped off my comments by quoting Robert Bork (1927 - 2012):

International law is not law but politics, ... there is no such law, and the pretense that it exists is a harmful fantasy.

3. The authority to tax.

The power to tax follows a judicial system in importance. The foundation for the UN’s judicial system, the World Court and various tribunals, is paid for out of UN dues and assessments.

The UN works tirelessly to acquire permanent taxing authority through UN treaties; especially environmental treaties. United Nations treaties represent the UN’s best chance of acquiring the authority to tax rather than relying on national governments who can pull their funding at any time.

The Tobin Tax on financial transaction was proposed in 1972. Since then taxation by another name was hidden in every UN treaty. Then the big one came along. The UN found the environment; ergo, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Kyoto Protocol).

When thinking of UN taxes note that environmental taxation will be more oppressive than the tax on income. Also note that the EPA is an unofficial UN agency imposing taxes (fines) on industry and individuals although the money collected does not go directly to the UN —— at least not yet.

4. A central bank controlled by the UN.

A universal currency is a New World Order goal on par with taxing authority. The IMF and the World Bank are UN agencies. The UN printing its own currency is the final step in giving the UN a central bank exactly like our Federal Reserve System.

Incidentally, the UN has its own postage stamps. They are honored as though they were printed by a government. The US actually prints the stamps for the UN, but I doubt if postal employees around the world know that.

5. Territory

National governments cannot be separated from their territories —— the territory comes first, a government evolves within territorial boundaries. The United Nations, that is the Socialists who control the organization known as the United Nations, had no territory of their own so they first claimed ownership of the oceans and the atmosphere. The UN has increased its claim of ownership to include trees, fresh water, and animals. Making ownership stick through treaties and “International law” is the environmental movement in a nutshell.

6. Diplomatic immunity.

Diplomatic immunity belongs to governments. That makes it essential for UN officials and employees. The UN is an organization, but the image of government is conveyed through diplomatic immunity.

In the same vain, UN ships are not registered in a country as are every other ocean-going vessel. That amounts to the equivalent of maritime diplomatic immunity in that UN vessels are above the laws governing other ships. First off, the UN cannot be sued, nor can the officers on UN ships be held accountable for anything. More importantly, who will prosecute the UN people responsible for this:

UN ship 'carried child prostitutes'

UN ship 'carried child prostitutes' | 100777.com

Let me close on a happy note. At least one US Senator is pointing out that UN was designed to be debating society not a global government:

WASHINGTON – The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT, “will only be ratified if the Senate votes to, which will not happen so long as I am breathing in the U.S. Senate,” Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, told WND.

Lee describes the treaty as “extending far beyond the basic purposes for which the U.N. was created,” adding that the sole purpose of the U.N. is to be a “forum to discuss and resolve international problems.”

Senator vows to kill U.N. arms treaty
Ratification 'will not happen so long as I am breathing in the U.S. Senate'
Published: 13 hours ago
TAYLOR ROSE

Senator vows to kill U.N. arms treaty

Thank you so much, Flanders! I remembered some of what you had taught but not all of it. It was almost a decade ago so its been awhile but I clearly caught the truth of your message - that there was no such thing as international law! They have been using that buzz word for so long they have many people believing it is a reality! It isn't! NOT YET ANYHOW! May God save us from such a day.

I just ran into someone on the palestine board who also believes in international law. I think he was shocked to see me say there is no such thing! ha! ha! I am grateful for your great posts over the years. We need people such as yourself who have the information we need to learn about! Thank you, Flanders. - Jeri

 

[Flanders]

Thank you so much, Flanders! I remembered some of what you had taught but not all of it. It was almost a decade ago so its been awhile but I clearly caught the truth of your message - that there was no such thing as international law! They have been using that buzz word for so long they have many people believing it is a reality! It isn't! NOT YET ANYHOW! May God save us from such a day.

I just ran into someone on the palestine board who also believes in international law. I think he was shocked to see me say there is no such thing! ha! ha! I am grateful for your great posts over the years. We need people such as yourself who have the information we need to learn about! Thank you, Flanders. - Jeri

To Jeri: Thanks for saying so. It’s been a pleasure.

Here’s a bit more on International law:

John Bolton, the man Senate Democrats would not confirm as US Ambassador to the UN had this to say about International law in 1999:

"It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so -- because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States."

I’m certain that political junkies remember the John Bolton flap. Democrats led by Biden and disgraced former senator Chris Dodd torpedoed his appointment as US ambassador to the UN because he supposedly treated subordinates badly. President Bush gave him the job in a recess appointment. (RINO Chuck Hagel was far worse to his staff in the Senate, but Democrats had no trouble confirming that half-wit for secretary of defense.)

For all of the Democrat talk about John Bolton’s prickly personalty it was Senator Sarbanes (now retired) who stated the true reason Democrats opposed Bolton so vehemently:

"To send someone as our ambassador to the United Nations who does not demonstrate a basic respect for the institution and its legal foundations is a disservice to our national interests," said Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.).

"This has nothing to do with whether you're going to carry out reforms at the U.N. or more closely monitor its activities. This represents very basic questions about one's mind-set about the United States, about the United Nations and about international law," Sarbanes added.

Now to the overcrowded bottom line:

Democrats will never allow themselves to be maneuvered into openly defending their anti-sovereignty agenda; so in confirmation hearings they must always revert to the personal attack. In Bolton’s case the attack was so petty I thought Democrats had sworn a blood oath vowing to stop anyone from going to the UN who might offend that sorry assortment of charity hustlers, thugs, crooks, and dictators.