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.
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.
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.
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.
