United Nations military vehicles are only being transported —— for now:
http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/06/UN-vehicle-virginia-FB-600.jpg
Question: Is every United Nations member state paying their share of building and transporting UN vehicles? Answer: Doubtful.
I also wonder if those U.N. vehicles will be shipped on United Nations vessels? If so, why are they allowed in American ports?
Steamship companies fly a house flag on their ships. House flags are loosely referred to as company flags. U.N. ships are entitled to fly a house flag. Many corporations and organizations fly flags depicting their logo.
Ocean-going vessels are registered in countries. The United Nations owns ships but they are not registered; so I would like to know if those ships, and their crews, have diplomatic immunity? Should the United Nations ever register their ships which country’s flag a UN-owned ship would fly?
Frankly, I would not allow UN ships to enter American waters until the UN registers them in one country or another. Every other oceangoing commercial vessel must be registered; so I see no reason to make an exception for the U.N.
Cheryl Chumley’s piece reminded me of my misspent youth.
Many years ago I went to sea as a merchant seaman. In those days there was an agency whose logo depicted two hands clasped in a handshake. That logo appeared on the packing cartons, etc., that American taxpayers sent to poorer countries. My memory is faulty on a few details concerning the program, so forgive me. I am not even sure what the name of that agency was or is. The relevant fact is this: I am talking about the twilight years of break/bulk cargo ships. Containerships were in their earliest infancy back then —— only a few major seaports were equipped to handle such ships. Most trans-ocean cargo traveled on break/bulk freighters.
In several ports in the Orient, and on different ships, I witnessed the local natives covering the handshake logo with a U.N. logo. As soon as the cargo in question was off the ship and in dockside cargo sheds, the locals, equipped with pots of glue and stacks of U.N. labels, went to work making the switch. Not all cargo being delivered was “handshake” cargo; so I’m not talking about a ship full of U.N. boxes; however, the percentage was substantial in many cases.
My point is that the American people seldom got credit for any charitable efforts made on behalf of others. In fact, the American flag was being burned and our embassies stoned in many parts of the world during those years. To the intellectual effete in every country Americans were “The Ugly Americans” back then. To this day American Communists brush aside every form of attack on Americans as “justified” including the attacks on 9-11-2001.
Here is the best part of my sea story. Many longshoremen, shopkeepers, dancing girls, etc., in different ports around the world told me that needy people never saw any of the things that Americans sent over no matter whose label was on the box. After learning the truth, I tried to figure out why the charity hustlers even bothered to switch labels. I concluded that the switch was an integral part of the scam. Possibly it was counting the same goods twice or something of the sort. Whatever the reason, those goods and medicines were sent to warehouses and eventually sold to the people who could afford to pay.
I suspect that the same conditions prevail today; more so with containerized cargo. Containers full of goods come off a ship and eventually go onto a truck —— the truck delivers the load to a wealthy U.N. supporter’s warehouse. No one sees a thing. There are very few old seamen left to talk about a little U.N. larceny decades later. Nowadays, Americans see a U.N. propaganda film in which an out of work actor or actress hands out medicine or food with more than a touch of noblesse oblige. I would not doubt it if the food and medicine is confiscated after the cameras stop rolling.
In the same vain, not long before the November 2000 election, the United Nations held its Millennium Summit which drew the usual suspects. A hundred or so protesters who were demonstrating outside U.N. headquarters in Manhattan were protesting for a stronger U.N. Nobody was demonstrating to get rid of the U.N. Those protestors all said the same thing when you get right down to it: The U.N. isn’t doing enough to solve the problems of the world; so let’s make it stronger.
What a foul stratagem those demonstrators preached. Hillary Clinton, then engaged in her run for the U.S. Senate, would have been out there leading the troops except that her agenda would have been too obvious —— unlimited U.N. funding guaranteed by binding legislation. She has not changed one bit since then. Think Brexit —— and H.R. 75 —— on election day this November.
Text of H.R. 75 (113th): American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2013 (Introduced version) - GovTrack.us
Then-Secretary-General Goofy Annan
Goofy used the Millennium Summit to throw in a non sequitur ——world leaders. They were challenged to “give” billions of people a better life in the 21st century. He’s wasn’t talking about billions of dollars —— he was talking hundreds of trillions of dollars because that is what it would take to give billions of people meaningful charity. Just one bowl of soup a day for two billion people at a dollar a pop amounted to $730 billion dollars a year. The American taxpayer’s tab would be 22% of whatever the U.N. spends if American Communists get it their way. That’s 160 billion 600 million dollars a year for starters —— and that’s without counting the cost of the soup bowls.
Also, there are six billion people in the world; so assuming that Goofy meant only two billion people should be put on global welfare, that figure amounts to one third of the world’s population. The Goofer used the plural of billion. He could have meant three or four billion people, but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt on that one and go with two billion.
In any event, it’s all moot because no matter how much money the old Goofer wanted, it sure as hell will not go to the poor in Third World countries. Any country that gives money to the U.N. could save a few bucks in administrative costs simply by depositing the dough in numbered Swiss bank accounts. That’s where most of it will end up anyway.
Coincidence? The Ol’ Goofer’s foundation is headquartered in Switzerland.
NOTE: Years before Americans learned about the Clinton Foundation, President Bill Clinton made Goofy Annan U.N. Secretary General.
I know that many will argue that U.N. methods, right or wrong, are creating the foundation for capitalism. That’s pure nonsense —— the U.N. is a totalitarian oriented organization and that’s not going to change. In addition, the poorest of countries have a wealthy ruling class in place with or without the U.N. The only thing U.N. interference accomplishes is hand the existing ruling class more economic clout which they always use to put their own people down even further. No person of influence in any Third World country is going to give the poorest members in their society a toothpick, an aspirin, or an education. Turning the poorest nations into Communist countries supported by American tax dollars filtered through the U.N. is not going to change the way things really work.
The goal of the United States should be to create private enterprise under a limited form of government without the use of force, or going through the U.N. to do it. Plans for a U.N. army will not bring the people of any nation to property Rights and the individual liberties necessary to keep their freedoms. How could it? Democrats are trying to destroy private property in their own country and replace it with Socialism/Communism.
Finally, Hillary Clinton & Company do not need any prompting to strengthen the United Nations. They already believe the U.N. needs more tax dollars when the one thing it needs is an eviction notice.
These trucks are made in America and need to be transported for shipment to U.S. seaports.
U.N. military vehicles on Virginia interstate
Posted By Cheryl Chumley On 06/26/2016 @ 10:01 pm
U.N. military vehicles on Virginia interstate
Posted By Cheryl Chumley On 06/26/2016 @ 10:01 pm
U.N. military vehicles on Virginia interstate
Question: Is every United Nations member state paying their share of building and transporting UN vehicles? Answer: Doubtful.
I also wonder if those U.N. vehicles will be shipped on United Nations vessels? If so, why are they allowed in American ports?
Steamship companies fly a house flag on their ships. House flags are loosely referred to as company flags. U.N. ships are entitled to fly a house flag. Many corporations and organizations fly flags depicting their logo.
Ocean-going vessels are registered in countries. The United Nations owns ships but they are not registered; so I would like to know if those ships, and their crews, have diplomatic immunity? Should the United Nations ever register their ships which country’s flag a UN-owned ship would fly?
Frankly, I would not allow UN ships to enter American waters until the UN registers them in one country or another. Every other oceangoing commercial vessel must be registered; so I see no reason to make an exception for the U.N.
Cheryl Chumley’s piece reminded me of my misspent youth.
Many years ago I went to sea as a merchant seaman. In those days there was an agency whose logo depicted two hands clasped in a handshake. That logo appeared on the packing cartons, etc., that American taxpayers sent to poorer countries. My memory is faulty on a few details concerning the program, so forgive me. I am not even sure what the name of that agency was or is. The relevant fact is this: I am talking about the twilight years of break/bulk cargo ships. Containerships were in their earliest infancy back then —— only a few major seaports were equipped to handle such ships. Most trans-ocean cargo traveled on break/bulk freighters.
In several ports in the Orient, and on different ships, I witnessed the local natives covering the handshake logo with a U.N. logo. As soon as the cargo in question was off the ship and in dockside cargo sheds, the locals, equipped with pots of glue and stacks of U.N. labels, went to work making the switch. Not all cargo being delivered was “handshake” cargo; so I’m not talking about a ship full of U.N. boxes; however, the percentage was substantial in many cases.
My point is that the American people seldom got credit for any charitable efforts made on behalf of others. In fact, the American flag was being burned and our embassies stoned in many parts of the world during those years. To the intellectual effete in every country Americans were “The Ugly Americans” back then. To this day American Communists brush aside every form of attack on Americans as “justified” including the attacks on 9-11-2001.
Here is the best part of my sea story. Many longshoremen, shopkeepers, dancing girls, etc., in different ports around the world told me that needy people never saw any of the things that Americans sent over no matter whose label was on the box. After learning the truth, I tried to figure out why the charity hustlers even bothered to switch labels. I concluded that the switch was an integral part of the scam. Possibly it was counting the same goods twice or something of the sort. Whatever the reason, those goods and medicines were sent to warehouses and eventually sold to the people who could afford to pay.
I suspect that the same conditions prevail today; more so with containerized cargo. Containers full of goods come off a ship and eventually go onto a truck —— the truck delivers the load to a wealthy U.N. supporter’s warehouse. No one sees a thing. There are very few old seamen left to talk about a little U.N. larceny decades later. Nowadays, Americans see a U.N. propaganda film in which an out of work actor or actress hands out medicine or food with more than a touch of noblesse oblige. I would not doubt it if the food and medicine is confiscated after the cameras stop rolling.
In the same vain, not long before the November 2000 election, the United Nations held its Millennium Summit which drew the usual suspects. A hundred or so protesters who were demonstrating outside U.N. headquarters in Manhattan were protesting for a stronger U.N. Nobody was demonstrating to get rid of the U.N. Those protestors all said the same thing when you get right down to it: The U.N. isn’t doing enough to solve the problems of the world; so let’s make it stronger.
What a foul stratagem those demonstrators preached. Hillary Clinton, then engaged in her run for the U.S. Senate, would have been out there leading the troops except that her agenda would have been too obvious —— unlimited U.N. funding guaranteed by binding legislation. She has not changed one bit since then. Think Brexit —— and H.R. 75 —— on election day this November.
Text of H.R. 75 (113th): American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2013 (Introduced version) - GovTrack.us
Then-Secretary-General Goofy Annan
Goofy used the Millennium Summit to throw in a non sequitur ——world leaders. They were challenged to “give” billions of people a better life in the 21st century. He’s wasn’t talking about billions of dollars —— he was talking hundreds of trillions of dollars because that is what it would take to give billions of people meaningful charity. Just one bowl of soup a day for two billion people at a dollar a pop amounted to $730 billion dollars a year. The American taxpayer’s tab would be 22% of whatever the U.N. spends if American Communists get it their way. That’s 160 billion 600 million dollars a year for starters —— and that’s without counting the cost of the soup bowls.
Also, there are six billion people in the world; so assuming that Goofy meant only two billion people should be put on global welfare, that figure amounts to one third of the world’s population. The Goofer used the plural of billion. He could have meant three or four billion people, but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt on that one and go with two billion.
In any event, it’s all moot because no matter how much money the old Goofer wanted, it sure as hell will not go to the poor in Third World countries. Any country that gives money to the U.N. could save a few bucks in administrative costs simply by depositing the dough in numbered Swiss bank accounts. That’s where most of it will end up anyway.
Coincidence? The Ol’ Goofer’s foundation is headquartered in Switzerland.
NOTE: Years before Americans learned about the Clinton Foundation, President Bill Clinton made Goofy Annan U.N. Secretary General.
Kofi Annan, Son Expected To Be Hit on Oil-for-Food Scandal
By Kathleen Rhodes | July 7, 2008 | 8:16 PM EDT
Kofi Annan, Son Expected To Be Hit on Oil-for-Food Scandal
By Kathleen Rhodes | July 7, 2008 | 8:16 PM EDT
Kofi Annan, Son Expected To Be Hit on Oil-for-Food Scandal
I know that many will argue that U.N. methods, right or wrong, are creating the foundation for capitalism. That’s pure nonsense —— the U.N. is a totalitarian oriented organization and that’s not going to change. In addition, the poorest of countries have a wealthy ruling class in place with or without the U.N. The only thing U.N. interference accomplishes is hand the existing ruling class more economic clout which they always use to put their own people down even further. No person of influence in any Third World country is going to give the poorest members in their society a toothpick, an aspirin, or an education. Turning the poorest nations into Communist countries supported by American tax dollars filtered through the U.N. is not going to change the way things really work.
The goal of the United States should be to create private enterprise under a limited form of government without the use of force, or going through the U.N. to do it. Plans for a U.N. army will not bring the people of any nation to property Rights and the individual liberties necessary to keep their freedoms. How could it? Democrats are trying to destroy private property in their own country and replace it with Socialism/Communism.
Finally, Hillary Clinton & Company do not need any prompting to strengthen the United Nations. They already believe the U.N. needs more tax dollars when the one thing it needs is an eviction notice.
