Wednesday, March 23, 2011
The UN on steroids? Hell no!
Do I think that conservatives would object to the formation of a strong international government with its own military force?
Yes, indeed, many conservatives would rise in opposition to this idea for a number of reasons:
1) Few if any safeguards or “limited powers” can ultimately prevent such an international army from violating the sovereignty of any nation that has reaped the displeasure of the UN or any other international body. Of the 190-odd nations in the UN, a considerable majority are not favorable to the US, and any security committee composed of many hostile nations , such as could arise in the UN Security Council, can and do block actions the US would favor, or initiate actions the US would consider to be immoral.
2) There would be no disinterested higher authority a violated nation could appeal to for timely justice.
3) This amounts to relinquishing considerable sovereignty of the US to an international body that we neither can control nor be assured of decisions favorable to the US, or to the moral standards of free and democratic nations.
4) Many of the nations of the world today, and for the foreseeable future, are immoral or amoral to begin with (communist, totalitarian, etc.), have a government that has no common ethical basis with the free world, or else have an economic or vengeful interest in a certain outcome, and their judgement or vote to use force would be highly suspect, if not immoral in itself.
5) We have seen the problems of the UN and its SC up front and personal. To give such a collection of rascals the power to declare and execute war or “policing actions” on anyone using their own forces is an abomination. Korea was dubbed a “policing action”, for instance, by the UN.
6) This One World kind of scheme will continue to have the fatal flaw of some or even a majority of foxes guarding the hen house, and the fatal flaw of irreconcilable moral convictions, until democracy and ethics are normalized sufficiently in the governments and the peoples of just about all nations. That will take forever to realize, which explodes the Utopian concept of One World-ism. In my opinion, federations of nations are possible, but a single, all powerful world government is either a chimera or a nightmare.
7) The idea that participation in the UN or similar organization aids the introduction of that nation into greater democracy and freedom is simply not proven.
Meanwhile, we should do our very best together with the free and democratic nations that are our friends and allies to keep things going in a constructive direction towards more freedom and liberty worldwide.
Labels: Government, UN, Worldview
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Steering Us into Chaos
A few thoughts on where the left is taking us.
Some key themes the left seems to be carrying forward are:
1) Castigating conservatives with false accusations in a constant drumbeat of slogans;
2) Castigating Constitutionalists and rightists with the meme that the Constitution is out of date, an idea that I challenge most heartedly;
3) Castigating conservative radio talk show hosts for being...themselves! and,
4) At least implicitly, riding the "man is the measure of all things" meme, or in other words, atheistic Secular Humanism, materialism and moral relativism. But, I suppose they have to believe in "something" in order to understand anything, even if that something is dead wrong.
It is amazing to me that anyone can believe in some form of benign-but-authoritative world government, a major SH and leftist tenet that includes equal and democratic shares of power for immoral or amoral governments, ruling parties and national elites. There is no common cultural, religious, political, social, economic, military or philosophical basis for such a lash up, and it would most certainly ruin the sovereignty of our nation and our way of life. So why entertain this corrosive idea?
This idea, in turn, suggests that one must have a higher allegiance than to our nation---that is, to all of unwashed mankind and their leaderships (and not to God, of course!). This is perhaps the root of the belief in open borders for the US and amnesty for illegal immigrants, which is an impending disaster if Obama has his way.
The last two world government attempts, namely The League of Nations and the United Nations, have been failures in the large--a statement that has been well-illustrated elsewhere. Promoting more of the same is sheer folly! The over 200 governments around the world, their power elites, and a majority of their people are simply too intellectually, economically, culturally, politically and morally primitive or insular, or both, to play their expected altruistic roles in democratic or republican world governance at this juncture. The UN record provides all the proof needed for this assertion. For the backward nations to learn by doing in the UN is also rediculous when so many lives are at stake worldwide.
We do need mechanisms for controlling aggression, world domination movements (think Islam), genocide, piracy, open seas violations, wanton exploitation of resources, theft, and commerce, to name a few international law needs. Most of these needs can and should be accomplished by enforceable and monitored treaties between relevant nations for now. They can be backed up by the military power of the US and allied democratic Western nations, where the notions of democratic governance and justice are culturally and politically dominant. We should not concern ourselves with events in the interior of sovereign nations, or else there is no meaning to sovereignty. If asked to help by a legitimate government, however, that is a different thing, and such requests should be carefully considered.
Labels: Illegals, Immigration, Obama, Secular Humanism, UN, Worldview
Sunday, May 25, 2008
World Government--NO!
Why I Am Against World Government
1. Foreign Control: I do not accept that there would be substantial foreign control of our laws, our way of life, and how we are governed.
2. Bureaucratic Nightmare: Our own government is already far too complex for men to understand. Adding a significant layer on top of this complexity would ensure that the average citizen would be submerged, never to be seen again. The added cost of this layer would be substantial, for little return in concrete benefits. It is not the US that would benefit, but the poorer nations. This is simply another scheme for forced redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor.
3. Financial Corruption on a Super Scale: The UN currently wants all nations to contribute 0.7% of the gross national product of each member to the annual fund. For the US, with a GNP of 13 trillion dollars, that would mean over 910 billion dollars donated to UN care. Does anyone think that this kind of money could be handled by the UN with no corruption? I don't, and we have the OFF program as Example One to prove the point.
4. A Stacked Deck Against the US: Currently, the UN is stacked against us by a large margin, and if their legislation could be forced on us, you can be sure that it would be to our detriment. Any future so-called World Government would evolve into the same situation, where we are outvoted at every turn. This is not in our interests at all.
5. Amorality/Immorality: Many of the 200-odd nations in the world appear to have no moral guidance at all, and permit behaviors that we in the West cannot abide. At any one time there are an average of 30 wars or major insurrections going on around this stellar group of nations, and many others are in some form of dictatorship. Genocides are common, and foreigners are often treated as targets for their anger, resulting in mutilations and death for the hapless visitors. Such nations are not acceptable partners.
6. An Opportunity for Redirection: Once power has been transferred to a central world government, there will be opportunities for unscrupulous nations and individuals to seize control of the apparatus and redirect things their way. This is especially true once the central government obtains its own strong armed forces not beholden to any nation. The tax bill will become gargantuan.
7. Kangaroo Courts: As has been demonstrated by the Belgian ICC, international courts can go to extremes quickly. Our President, his staff and key generals were about to be arrested and tried under ICC rules for acts of war. This shows the errant power an international court system can appropriate for itself and apply to our people. Thank you, no.
8. Readiness Factor: For all of the above reasons, it is easily concluded that the world is not yet ready for a democratic government having its own enforcement capability and its own taxation authority. The world of nations is far too immature, conflicted, self-centered, amoral, and corrupt.
Labels: Democratic, Government, UN, Worldview
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Rants and Rants
Madness in the World
For some time, I have been mulling a special problem. It goes like this: my blog posts have focused on subjects that anger me, or bring out the contrariness in me. This means that I am always in the attack mode, or complaint mode. At times, I get carried away into worse—hate mode!
Now, it isn't the people I hate so much as the ideas they have somehow gotten fixed in their heads. It isn't the small, irritating things either. I get upset at ideas that could develop into a movement or a cause that hurts me, my family, my city and my country. Many of these hurtful ideas are pursued for reasons of power-grabbing, influence, or making a lot of money, or all three.
Today's example is Global Warming aka Climate Change, which is a lot of hot air. Everyone is a weatherman, you know, so the entire population can get involved in commenting how much hotter it has been, and how storms seem to have gotten worse, and hurricanes more frequent—none of which is actually true. The ice is melting at the poles and threatens to raise the oceans by feet, they say, while the sane scientific community calmly reports that yes, some ice is melting, but far more has been created. No one pays attention to these reports when TV show pictures of huge chunks of ice falling into the sea from one point, and does not show pictures of the vast new ice fields around the corner. This whole idea is supported wildly by Un'ers, because it argues for a World dictatorship to solve the (non-existent) CO2 problem.
Yesterday, it was the Liberal mindset, and the grave damage liberals may do to our way of life, because in their arrogance they believe that their ideas are best for all of us. You know, abortion, which has resulted in over 50 million deaths; or gay marriage, that would disrupt the millennium-old Biblical tradition of man marrying woman, just to name a few of their curve ball ideas.
The other day, it was the concept of giving the UN 0.7% of our GNP yearly, which, if the past is any indication, means the US taxpayer will create several thousand millionaires, and probably a few billionaires in the bargain, in such places as Zimbabwe and Botswana, the Marshall Islands, and Tahiti. I just cannot understand why some politicians think the UN is an honorable institution, or why we should kick in our money knowing that it will be misused, thus continuing the fraud. The UN should be downplayed and starved. We can put our charities to work ourselves.
For the longest time, my ire has been up because of Islam. No one seems to understand what they are about, which is to conquer the world for Allah. If anyone takes the trouble to study Islam, the first reaction they have is: “Damn! These people are a bloodthirsty bunch of warriors!” After they figure out that all of the sweetness and light of the early Koran has been subsequently abrogated (canceled) by the clerics and Muhammad himself, they begin to realize that we have a fearsome enemy on our hands. What's more, over 6 million of them are already inside the US, and every one of them is a potential insurgent. Then too, one only has to read the newspapers to discover that Muslims are busy around the world killing, maiming, and trying to establish Sharia Law. This Islam thing is not a minor little problem for us, yet a large number of people are against the GWOT. Go figure!
Yes, this is a rant. That is my problem: how to turn my rants into useful screeds. I am convinced that my ideas about these issues are correct, but it is virtually impossible to prove them to be so. All I can do is is to continue to add my words to the pot, and hope that they have some small effect.
Labels: Abortion, Global Warming, Liberalism, Muslims, UN
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Say Bye Bye to the UN
Who says we need the UN?
The world's nations are not democratic, by and large-- at least half have some form of dictatorship, or total control by way of adding religion to government. This means that at the government level we have antithetical, amoral or immoral voices working against the common good within the UN much of the time, and constantly focused on how to capture more money-- from the US--legally, or not.
To give up any part of our sovereignty to such a gang is playing the fool. To fund this mess is also foolish, in my opinion. Corruption in the UN has become an art form, it seems.
Of what good was the UN to us in the case of Iraq? Tell me what good it has served in the GWOT. Of what good has it been in the case of Iran and its thrust for nuclear weapons? Of what good would it be if China decided to invade Taiwan, or Russia went into one of its former nations? My take is that it would be zero. Huge discussions, votes and sanctions in the UN Security Council would not change the facts on the ground, even if they had a quorum on the issue.
We delude ourselves that UN approval of our actions conveys legitimacy, when the members themselves are not actually legitimate, in the sense of being rational, relatively altruistic players, and democratic in their very nature.
We delude ourselves that having such a forum prevents war. It didn't prevent the Korean War; it didn't prevent the Vietnam War, and it didn't prevent the first or second Gulf Wars. The UN most certainly does not prevent a nuclear war, if it comes to a major conflict between two nuclear powers. The power to halt such a conflict, by diplomacy and threats of retaliation, comes from each major nation acting in its own interest and banding together at the time. Normal diplomatic channels serve this end quite well, and they are not cluttered with tens and hundreds of pipsqueak diplomats from amoral nations that want a say, or want a delay for their own benefit.
The UN is a failure, and its participants are at fault, including the US, for giving their trust to gangsters and thieves for, among all the other problems, handling massive sums of money that simply disappear without adequate accounting.
The UN wants to extend its control over the US, if my reading of their proposed gun control measures and their LOST treaty are any indication.
I vote NO!