....................COLIN POWELL...............................George W. Bush
https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/kensmind/1278588/1697789/1697789_600.jpg
https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/kensmind/1278588/1697789/1697789_600.jpg
Trump picked up a few million votes when he bitch-slapped Powell and Bush the Younger:
Donald Trump blasted Colin Powell as 'overrated' and a 'stiff' on Sunday after the former national security adviser and secretary of State said he would not be supporting the president's reelection in November. 'Colin Powell, a real stiff who was very responsible for getting us into the disastrous Middle East Wars, just announced he will be voting for another stiff, Sleepy Joe Biden,' Trump charged in a Sunday morning tweet. 'Didn't Powell say that Iraq had 'weapons of mass destruction?' They didn't, but off we went to WAR!' Earlier in the morning, Powell joined the list of high-profile Republicans, including George W. Bush
Trump calls Colin Powell 'overrated stiff' for snubbing re-election
By Katelyn Caralle, U.s. Political Reporter and James Gordon For Dailymail.com
Published: 10:49 EDT, 7 June 2020 | Updated: 12:16 EDT, 7 June 2020
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ns-wont-support-president-way-vote-Trump.html
Trump nailed it when he said Powell is “overrated.” I am probably bias because I never had any use for Powell. Powell is another military man who got it in his head that he is a political genius on par with President Eisenhower and a few other famous military leaders. In truth, Powell knows doodly-squat about governing a free people.
There is no shortage of complaints about Powell. Let me begin my observations when he was secretary of state. He gets the honor of calling United Nations parasites International civil servant. Powell made no sense to me for obvious reasons.
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.
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 a global government and hire International civil servants while I was not watching? And where were the competitive exams given?
Print journalists and talking heads are well aware that International law is newspeak for Socialist law. It is probably too late to undo decades of propaganda spent on legitimizing International law, but there is still a chance to shoot down “International civil servant” every time a U.N.-lover runs it up the flagpole.
Use Americans as an example and ask —— which entity is our International civil servant loyal to? Some might say they are loyal to both the U.N. and the U.S., but then you ran into the matter of divided loyalties; serving two masters and so on. Would you trust an employee who espouses loyalty to a competitor? As a matter of fact, quite a few American Internationalists who support the U.N. never say a word that encourages trust in loyalty to their own country.
If the Americans in my example are paid by the American government they cannot be International civil servant regardless of their U.N. duties. They are American civil servant paid by American tax dollars.
QUESTION: What if the U.N. administered civil service exams? ANSWER: That would be okay so long as corporations give the exams —— and are legally entitled to claim the people they hire are civil servants.
Incidentally, when Bush the Younger made Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice secretaries of state he gave every U.N. ‘civil servant’ in the world decades of marital bliss.
Just to be clear. I am simply pointing out that regardless of their job description in my examples they toil for the U.N., or one of its agencies. In short: They are working for an organization and cannot be defined as civil servants —— International or otherwise.
NOTE: There is a lot about the U.N. that has been lurking in the shadows for too long. Things like diplomatic immunity, and U.N. ships that fly no national flag, The U.N. even has its own postage stamps. Do you know of another organization in the world that gets away with that crap?
I always believed that Colin Powell was the first U.N. loyalist to make it all the way to the top. He was certainly the most successful ‘security risk’ Senator McCarthy warned about. Only the good Lord knows how many others occupy the upper ranks of every armed service. To no one’s surprise the MSM praises U.N. loyalists to high heaven. After all, they are not Major General Benedict Arnold; so who would dare challenge the loyalty of a man wearing a chest full of ribbons?
Colin Powell, a professed Republican, endorsed Obama for president. If that endorsement was not racially motivated it will do until a better one comes along.
After Powell announced his support for self-appointed spiritual leader, Barack Obama, somebody forgot to tell Powell to go to the Vatican because Americans elect presidents not moral leaders.
Guys like Powell can never govern a free people until they can answer this question to everyone’s satisfaction: Why your morality and not mine?
Powell’s love for the United Nations is on par with every Democrat traitor’s devotion to global government. Bush the Younger committed the ultimate sin when he invaded Iraq unilaterally without getting the U.N.’s final approval. The commander in chief’s decision made Powell bitter because he did not return to his U.N.-coalition glory days of Desert Storm —— only in Iraq when then-Secretary of State Powell failed to broker another United Nations coalition to deal with Iraq.
The flaw in Powell’s thinking was that U.S. won the first Gulf War militarily, but lost the peace before the first shot was fired when Powell and Bush the Elder gave the U.N. veto power over total victory. Had Bush the Elder gone on to Baghdad in Desert Storm there would have been no Iraq War 12 years later.
There is one undeniable fact about Colin Powell: No matter how you interpret his comments he was consistently in favor of a stronger U.N. He said as much when he was secretary of state. I never heard him say that he stands for America’s unconditional independence, or that he stands for private sector individual liberties.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...he-Wants-To-Serve-Again&p=2963868#post2963868
Finally, 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 government parasites as they see fit. That totalitarian view was bad enough when Socialists were implementing it domestically through the tax code. Baby Marshall Plans is making it a lot worse globally.
I doubt if Powell & Company ever considered the number of additional hours every working American toils less for themselves every week, and more for the U.N. every week in order to implement more Baby Marshall Plans.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...onym-For-Charity-Hustle&p=2820970#post2820970
XXXXX
Do not read this article without wearing a gas mask. The stench of garbage in these two excerpts is enough to make you sick. Reading the full article without protection might kill you:
The charge from President Bill Clinton in the summer of 1995 was urgent and strong: find a way to take the new national service program, AmeriCorps, off the partisan political battlefield. Make it, like the Peace Corps, a nonpartisan source of pride for all Americans.
XXXXX
General Colin Powell accepted the chairmanship of the summit and of the ensuing nationwide campaign called “America’s Promise-The Alliance for Youth.”
The Politics of Service: How a Nation Got behind AmeriCorps
Harris Wofford
Sunday, September 1, 2002
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-politics-of-service-how-a-nation-got-behind-americorps/
I could post a lot more about Colin Powell that I dislike, but I will call it quits for today.
p.s. I knew that government officials could be impeached after they leave office, but I never knew this until this morning:
But no one quite knows, and debate continues over, whether such codified prohibitions on free expression apply to retired generals receiving military pensions. Yet, given the spate of recent “contemptuous words against the President” leveled from retired generals, it seems that few worry about regulation AR 27-10 of the code: “Retired members of a regular component of the Armed Forces who are entitled to pay are subject to the UCMJ. (See Art. 2(a)(4), UCMJ.) They may be tried by courts-martial for offenses committed while in a retired status.”
Not-So-Retiring Retired Military Leaders
By Victor Davis Hanson
June 7, 2020 8:58 PM
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/not-so-retiring-retired-military-leaders/
