Let’s Not Hear It For The United Nations

[Flanders]

Trump’s United Nation’s policy would drive the king batty:

Secretary Pompeo is executing a Trumpian foreign policy that supports American interests and favors freedom. He’s the best secretary of state we have had since George Shultz. Yesterday morning he spoke at a meeting of the United Nations Security Council on events in Venezuela. The State Department has posted video of his remarks (I have embedded the video below via C-SPAN) as well as the text posted here.

“Now, it is time for every other nation to pick a side. Either you stand with the forces of freedom, or you’re in league with Maduro and his mayhem,” Pompeo told the Security Council. He asked countries to recognize the National Assembly as Venezuela’s leader.

Pompeo called out China, Russia, Syria, Iran and Cuba — especially Cuba — by name for their nefarious role in Venezuela. The Wall Street Journal has more here (and here via Outline). Former Reagan administration Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams is on the case is our new special enjoy for Venezuela. Bravo.


​

Posted on January 27, 2019 by Scott Johnson in Trump Foreign Policy, United Nations, Venezuela
(Let’s hear it for) Pompeo at the UN

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/01/lets-hear-it-for-pompeo-at-the-un.php
​

Nobody should go to the U.N. for anything except U.S. Ambassadors to the United Nations whose primary duty was set in stone by Jeanne Kirkpatrick:

If this body feels that the United States no longer serves the purposes of the United Nations, then maybe it is time that the United Nations find a new home. I for one will be happy to stand on the pier and wave goodbye as you all sail off into the sunset. Jeanne Kirkpatrick —— Ronald Reagan’s US Ambassador to the United Nations
​

Every high-ranking federal official that speaks to the U.N. gives that anti-U.S. organization legitimacy.

Trump/Pompao sticking their noses in Venezuela’s internal affairs is none of their business. Apparently, global busybodies never learn.

Democrats always want their country defeated. Not knowing the difference between harmless dictators and the unfriendly kind is worse. Democrat Party defeatist foreign policy is not new. Support for avowed Communist Mohammad Mosaddegh (1882–1967) was one of their first attempts. The Soviet Union was on Mosaddegh’s side in those years. At the time Democrats did not yet have their hands on this country’s intelligence agencies. So not too much harm was done before the Shah of Iran overthrew Mosaddegh. The Shah was a friendly dictator who came to power by booting out Mosaddegh in 1953. Half-a-brain Jimmy Carter replaced the Shah in 1979 with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The Middle-East has been slowly slipping away since ‘79.

Today, the State Department’s failed attempt to overthrow Syria’s Assad for somebody violently anti-U.S. succeeded in giving Assad a Russian military bodyguard. Let us all pray that Venezuela’s Maduro does not get some muscle from Communist China.

When it comes to dictators the American Left raises hypocrisy to new heights. Liberals have a long history of defining human Rights by the amount of tax dollars the U.N. can distribute. Of course Democrats always condemned dictators like Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, etc. None of the dictators Democrats declared unfit to govern posed a military threat to this country.

Democrats in Congress always voice their heartfelt concerns for the people living under stay-at-home dictators. Revolutions fought against a stay-at-home dictator offering no threat to the United States is like mother’s milk to American Socialists/Communists. Elected Democrats always support touchy-feely revolutions while opposing wars fought against Communist expansion that were clearly fought to protect the United States as in Korea and Vietnam.

For as long as I can remember, liberals screamed about foreign aid going to support dictators, while they advocated support for every kind for Communist dictatorship. North Vietnam, North Korea, Communist China, the defunct Soviet Union, and Cuba exporting Communism throughout Latin America provide the best known examples of governments the Left supports. The Shah of Iran, and the Iran-Contra Affair, show the results of the Left’s true agenda? And let’s not forget Libya AFTER Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi voluntarily gave up his nuclear capabilities! The details in this article should turn your stomach:

Obama's Libya Debacle
By Alan J. Kuperman
March/April, 2015

http://cf.linnbenton.edu/artcom/social_science/clarkd/upload/Obama's Libya Debacle.pdf
​

The U.S. must oppose expansionist type dictators because they are, or very soon will be, a serious military threat to the American people. Americans should support stay-at-home dictators until Democrats single them out as easy pickings for military adventurism. Once that happens it is to this country’s advantage to support the local dictator. This is as it should be.

The U.S. has not been an expansionist nation for more than a hundred years. That one fact was the foundation for the trust the American people used to get from most foreign governments and peoples. Everyone knew that Americans had no desire to invade and occupy a foreign country.

The U.S. won two World Wars and a few baby wars in the last century, but did not gain one inch of territory. The Philippines acquired in the Spanish-American War did not get independence through violent revolution. Independence was given peacefully after WWII ended, and Puerto Rico can have independence anytime the people want it.

Their democracy movement (nation building) identifies American Socialists/Communists as the only expansionists in the U.S. As Socialists increase their political power here at home through lies and propaganda trust in this country diminishes everywhere.

Throughout the Cold War Soviet Union Communists trusted American Socialists/Communists to do the right thing by Communism if they could —— they often could as in anti-Vietnam War demonstrations. Trusting a sworn enemy has not been misplaced to this day even though the Soviet Union went belly up 19 years ago.

 

[Flanders]

Until recently filthy Democrats spit on the flag. Nowadays they all wrap themselves in the flag while they declare how much they love the very country they were betraying throughout most of my adult life.

Then-Senator Hillary Clinton screeched her patriotism in 2003.

By the time Hillary followed a known-traitor, John Kerry, as Obama’s secretary of state her Right to debate had morphed into her Right to commit treason.

Nobody talks —— Everybody walks —— did wonders for loyalty to Hillary when the crimes are unpunishable.

John Kerry and Bill Clinton should have been tried and convicted of treason before they were elected to federal offices. Sad to say, it was too late after Kerry went to Congress and Clinton went to the White House. Basically, the mild punishment (3 & 1/2 years) Alger Hiss served defined the escape clause parameters for the unpunishable crime John Kerry, and Bill Clinton got away with.

Hillary & Company is guilty of exploiting the unwritten criteria for the unpunishable crimes. Hillary might pay the price for the Steele Dossier because that is a straightforward crime, while she always knew she was too big to prosecute for espionage and/or treason. In short: Those two crimes are too big to prosecute if you are a federal government official.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...nt-From-A-Federal-Judge&p=2778843#post2778843

 

[lisasanders1964]

Trump’s United Nation’s policy would drive the king batty:

Secretary Pompeo is executing a Trumpian foreign policy that supports American interests and favors freedom. He’s the best secretary of state we have had since George Shultz. Yesterday morning he spoke at a meeting of the United Nations Security Council on events in Venezuela. The State Department has posted video of his remarks (I have embedded the video below via C-SPAN) as well as the text posted here.

“Now, it is time for every other nation to pick a side. Either you stand with the forces of freedom, or you’re in league with Maduro and his mayhem,” Pompeo told the Security Council. He asked countries to recognize the National Assembly as Venezuela’s leader.

Pompeo called out China, Russia, Syria, Iran and Cuba — especially Cuba — by name for their nefarious role in Venezuela. The Wall Street Journal has more here (and here via Outline). Former Reagan administration Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams is on the case is our new special enjoy for Venezuela. Bravo.


​

Posted on January 27, 2019 by Scott Johnson in Trump Foreign Policy, United Nations, Venezuela
(Let’s hear it for) Pompeo at the UN

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/01/lets-hear-it-for-pompeo-at-the-un.php
​

Nobody should go to the U.N. for anything except U.S. Ambassadors to the United Nations whose primary duty was set in stone by Jeanne Kirkpatrick:

If this body feels that the United States no longer serves the purposes of the United Nations, then maybe it is time that the United Nations find a new home. I for one will be happy to stand on the pier and wave goodbye as you all sail off into the sunset. Jeanne Kirkpatrick —— Ronald Reagan’s US Ambassador to the United Nations
​

Every high-ranking federal official that speaks to the U.N. gives that anti-U.S. organization legitimacy.

Trump/Pompao sticking their noses in Venezuela’s internal affairs is none of their business. Apparently, global busybodies never learn.

Democrats always want their country defeated. Not knowing the difference between harmless dictators and the unfriendly kind is worse. Democrat Party defeatist foreign policy is not new. Support for avowed Communist Mohammad Mosaddegh (1882–1967) was one of their first attempts. The Soviet Union was on Mosaddegh’s side in those years. At the time Democrats did not yet have their hands on this country’s intelligence agencies. So not too much harm was done before the Shah of Iran overthrew Mosaddegh. The Shah was a friendly dictator who came to power by booting out Mosaddegh in 1953. Half-a-brain Jimmy Carter replaced the Shah in 1979 with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The Middle-East has been slowly slipping away since ‘79.

Today, the State Department’s failed attempt to overthrow Syria’s Assad for somebody violently anti-U.S. succeeded in giving Assad a Russian military bodyguard. Let us all pray that Venezuela’s Maduro does not get some muscle from Communist China.

When it comes to dictators the American Left raises hypocrisy to new heights. Liberals have a long history of defining human Rights by the amount of tax dollars the U.N. can distribute. Of course Democrats always condemned dictators like Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, etc. None of the dictators Democrats declared unfit to govern posed a military threat to this country.

Democrats in Congress always voice their heartfelt concerns for the people living under stay-at-home dictators. Revolutions fought against a stay-at-home dictator offering no threat to the United States is like mother’s milk to American Socialists/Communists. Elected Democrats always support touchy-feely revolutions while opposing wars fought against Communist expansion that were clearly fought to protect the United States as in Korea and Vietnam.

For as long as I can remember, liberals screamed about foreign aid going to support dictators, while they advocated support for every kind for Communist dictatorship. North Vietnam, North Korea, Communist China, the defunct Soviet Union, and Cuba exporting Communism throughout Latin America provide the best known examples of governments the Left supports. The Shah of Iran, and the Iran-Contra Affair, show the results of the Left’s true agenda? And let’s not forget Libya AFTER Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi voluntarily gave up his nuclear capabilities! The details in this article should turn your stomach:

Obama's Libya Debacle
By Alan J. Kuperman
March/April, 2015

http://cf.linnbenton.edu/artcom/social_science/clarkd/upload/Obama's Libya Debacle.pdf
​

The U.S. must oppose expansionist type dictators because they are, or very soon will be, a serious military threat to the American people. Americans should support stay-at-home dictators until Democrats single them out as easy pickings for military adventurism. Once that happens it is to this country’s advantage to support the local dictator. This is as it should be.

The U.S. has not been an expansionist nation for more than a hundred years. That one fact was the foundation for the trust the American people used to get from most foreign governments and peoples. Everyone knew that Americans had no desire to invade and occupy a foreign country.

The U.S. won two World Wars and a few baby wars in the last century, but did not gain one inch of territory. The Philippines acquired in the Spanish-American War did not get independence through violent revolution. Independence was given peacefully after WWII ended, and Puerto Rico can have independence anytime the people want it.

Their democracy movement (nation building) identifies American Socialists/Communists as the only expansionists in the U.S. As Socialists increase their political power here at home through lies and propaganda trust in this country diminishes everywhere.

Throughout the Cold War Soviet Union Communists trusted American Socialists/Communists to do the right thing by Communism if they could —— they often could as in anti-Vietnam War demonstrations. Trusting a sworn enemy has not been misplaced to this day even though the Soviet Union went belly up 19 years ago.

Pompeo called out one of America's allies , Russia? Putin's gonna call the orange dotard and express his disapproval. Pompeo will be sacked very soon. Disrespecting the mother land is a sackable offence in the trump circus.

 

[lisasanders1964]

Until recently filthy Democrats spit on the flag. Nowadays they all wrap themselves in the flag while they declare how much they love the very country they were betraying throughout most of my adult life.

Then-Senator Hillary Clinton screeched her patriotism in 2003.

By the time Hillary followed a known-traitor, John Kerry, as Obama’s secretary of state her Right to debate had morphed into her Right to commit treason.

Nobody talks —— Everybody walks —— did wonders for loyalty to Hillary when the crimes are unpunishable.

John Kerry and Bill Clinton should have been tried and convicted of treason before they were elected to federal offices. Sad to say, it was too late after Kerry went to Congress and Clinton went to the White House. Basically, the mild punishment (3 & 1/2 years) Alger Hiss served defined the escape clause parameters for the unpunishable crime John Kerry, and Bill Clinton got away with.

Hillary & Company is guilty of exploiting the unwritten criteria for the unpunishable crimes. Hillary might pay the price for the Steele Dossier because that is a straightforward crime, while she always knew she was too big to prosecute for espionage and/or treason. In short: Those two crimes are too big to prosecute if you are a federal government official.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...nt-From-A-Federal-Judge&p=2778843#post2778843

Is this one of truthdetectors many duplicate accounts? I've noticed he hasn't been posting very much so he is obviously using a duplicate account. The Russians always create duplicate accounts to push their far right russian propaganda.

 

[Flanders]

Is this one of truthdetectors many duplicate accounts? I've noticed he hasn't been posting very much so he is obviously using a duplicate account. The Russians always create duplicate accounts to push their far right russian propaganda.

​

To lisasanders1964: I cannot understand your complaint. The same screen name heads all of my messages.

For the record. I posted The King and I video, and the Hillary video, separately because this board only allows one YOUTUBE video per message. If that is too difficult for you to grasp read both messages as one topic.

 

[canceled.2021.3]

He called out Russia?

That can’t be right. Libtards on JPP say Trump is an agent of Russia

 

[Flanders]

He called out Russia?

That can’t be right. Libtards on JPP say Trump is an agent of Russia

To MEGA: True.

But he should not have done at the United Nations.

Every high-ranking federal official that speaks to the U.N. gives that anti-U.S. organization legitimacy.

 

[Flanders]

Maybe this is why crooks and parasites do not want independence:

​

President Trump has been opposed to writing new unrestricted checks to Puerto Rico, due to corruption concerns that San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz and other local politicians may have squandered a significant amount of $91 billion disaster funding the island already received following 2017 Hurricane Maria . . .


​

May 11, 2019
House passes $19 billion disaster-aid package over Trump’s veto threat
By Chriss Street

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...asteraid_package_over_trumps_veto_threat.html
​

. . . Puerto Rico can have independence anytime the people want it.

It would be a lot cheaper to insist on Puerto Rico's independence, not to mention closing an illegal alien loophole:

1950 - 1954
Today’s mass migrations began slowly when illegal aliens passed themselves off as Puerto Ricans.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...ump-Picked-A-Good-Fight&p=3018279#post3018279

 

[Flanders]

UPDATE
​

When it comes to dictators the American Left raises hypocrisy to new heights. Liberals have a long history of defining human Rights by the amount of tax dollars the U.N. can distribute. Of course Democrats always condemned dictators like Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, etc. None of the dictators Democrats declared unfit to govern posed a military threat to this country.

XXXXX

​

The U.S. must oppose expansionist type dictators because they are, or very soon will be, a serious military threat to the American people. Americans should support stay-at-home dictators until Democrats single them out as easy pickings for military adventurism. Once that happens it is to this country’s advantage to support the local dictator. This is as it should be.

Tragically, Jimmy Peanuts removed the Shah of Iran. Happily, Pinochet stayed in power and defeated Chile’s Communists who were supported by Democrats in Congress.

Almost nobody is more reviled by the international intelligentsia and media than the late Augusto Pinochet, the late 20th -century Chilean dictator. He holds a prominent position in the political left’s “rogues’ gallery” comprised of those who stood in opposition to their goals.

His supposed “crimes” included conducting a military coup to illegitimately grab control of the Chilean government from a popularly elected president, rounding up and torturing huge numbers of innocent citizens (killing as many as 80,000 in the process) and corruptly stealing vast sums of money while ruling as a dictator.

But many of those claims are either false or exaggerated -- most credible estimates of those killed are below 5,000 -- or they must be viewed in context. More important, if we raise the examination of Pinochet from the bitter soil of leftist ressentiment to the question of human flourishing, he appears as one of recent history’s shining lights.
​

NOTE: Democrats killed at least 3,000 Americans in Vietnam by prolonging the war.

Context can be crucial when judging a historical event, and that is certainly true of the Chilean coup of 1973. Chile at that time had a complex political environment, with six major parties and many other splinters and factions inside and outside the major parties, according to the late Princeton political scientist and Latin America expert Paul Sigmund. Two of the six were generally conservative; they united into one “National” party in the late 1960s. Two “centrist’ parties were actually socialist but favored incremental movement toward a collective society rather than revolution.

On the left were two Marxist parties, the Communists and Socialists. The Socialists, despite their less extreme name, were at least as radical as the Communists. Both parties had some members who favored working within the existing constitutional framework and some who wanted violent revolution. Salvador Allende, the president who was deposed by the military junta that elevated Pinochet to power, was a founder of the Socialist party who favored transformation largely through constitutional means.

Preceding Allende as president was Eduardo Frei, a member of the centrist Christian Democratic Party. The theme of his administration was “A Revolution in Liberty,” which was to be a gradual but “fundamental transformation of Chilean political and economic structures.” During his term of office, from 1964 to 1970, Frei began nationalizing the all-important copper industry and redistributing land. He taxed the rich, initiated price controls, relaxed literacy requirements for voting, and expanded public housing. His platform was, in fact, very similar to the policies of his Marxist successor Allende; Frei’s moderation laid the groundwork for Allende’s excesses.

Frei was personally popular with voters, but Chilean presidents were limited to one six-year term. His party was blamed for high inflation (roughly 40 percent per year) that was hurting the economy, and Allende was elected with a narrow plurality of 36.2 percent of the vote in 1970. Still, Allende perceived his election as a mandate to further socialism. He aggressively nationalized industry and encouraged forced expropriation of both farms and factories by peasants and workers. Sigmund described how Allende deliberately used a combination of price controls and minimum wages to drive businesses into bankruptcy and then tried to expropriate them for “underperforming.”

The government took over food distribution; it also started to overhaul primary and secondary schools -- both public and private -- to “create a new socialist society” with “social justice” its aim, Sigmund wrote. Money flowed -- $343 million in foreign reserves left by Frei were rapidly depleted, the money supply was expanded, and Chile borrowed extensively overseas even though it failed to repay international loans.

The results of such policies were predictable. There was a burst of prosperity in the first year -- and then chaos ensued. The expropriated farms did not produce much food, as they replaced large operations growing commercial crops with small-scale subsistence farming. Chile had to import food, borrowing huge sums of money to do so. Investment in future industrial production slowed to a crawl. Inflation hit 353 percent in 1973 (and continued to rise to 505 percent in 1974).

The Allende years featured considerable political violence, with roughly 35 political assassinations occurring in two-and-a-half years. Allende “pardoned” Marxist radicals “who had been imprisoned for terrorism and bank robberies,” according to Sigmund. There was government suppression of radio stations and other media. Strikes by private truckers -- fearful of plans to start a government-owned trucking company -- paralyzed distribution networks. The entire country seemed to be stockpiling weapons; shipments of arms from Cuba were discovered -- it was later revealed that the Allende administration aided the training of left-wing militias.

Chile was appeared to be hurtling toward a bitter, emotionally charged civil war. So, in September of 1973, to prevent a violent upheaval with the potential to kill hundreds of thousands of Chileans, the military stepped in.

The coup was not the act of an individual power-mad opportunist, as Pinochet is sometimes depicted. The heads of all three branches of the military, plus the caribineros (national police), participated in the takeover. The junta had shown considerable restraint, holding back for roughly a year in the hope that a constitutional solution could be found. Pinochet, as head of the most powerful branch, the army, emerged as the ultimate authority.

Among the junta’s initial acts was the elimination of Marxist political parties. To restore the market economy, they relied on the advice of a group of economists from Catholic University in Santiago who had studied at the University of Chicago where free market guru Milton Friedman dominated the economics department.

Even so, the economy did not immediately spring back. It took several years to get inflation down to its historical (but still very high) levels. Income also did not rise immediately, since Pinochet had to institute austerity measures first. Allende had created artificially low unemployment rates through government featherbedding; among other measures, the junta had to eliminate many unnecessary government jobs to allow market forces to operate.

But eventually, in the mid-1980s, the Chilean economy took off. Today, Chile is the most prosperous country in Latin America, with a per capita income of $15,111 in 2018 (it was only fifth-best in 1970). Inflation for 2018 was a paltry 2.56 percent. Chile ranks 15th worldwide in the Heritage Foundation’s 2020 “Index of Economic Freedom”; the next closest country in Latin America is Colombia in 45th place. It also ranked first in Latin America in the Cato Institute’s “Human Freedom Index,” last published in 2017. And it is just edged out by Costa Rica for having Latin America’s longest life span: 79.57 years to 79.52 years.

Those statistics -- not the numbers but the human flourishing they represent -- are Pinochet’s real legacy. Would most Venezuelans today -- who live in a failing totalitarian state with a popularly elected Marxist government -- prefer that a military junta had wrested control from Hugo Chavez and eliminated a few thousand of the most hardcore Marxists? They would likely jump at the opportunity. Pinochet took over an equally nightmarish state that was racing toward either bloody civil war or totalitarian communism (or both), made hard decisions to correct the problems, nurtured the government for 17 years, and voluntarily relinquished power in 1990 when the nation’s practices and institutions were strengthened so that it could flourish democratically.

For that, the international left has damned him for all time.

The Chilean coup of 1973 offers hard lessons that many will not accept because these lessons do not appeal to superficial norms of fairness and tolerance. For one, electoral politics do not always equate to human flourishing but can instead bring repression. For another, a nation must deal harshly with those who would deny liberty to the rest.

Every high-ranking federal official that speaks to the U.N. gives that anti-U.S. organization legitimacy.

Trump/Pompao sticking their noses in Venezuela’s internal affairs is none of their business. Apparently, global busybodies never learn.

Democrats always want their own country defeated. Not knowing the difference between harmless dictators and the unfriendly kind is worse. Democrat Party defeatist foreign policy is not new. Support for avowed Communist Mohammad Mosaddegh (1882–1967) was one of their first attempts. The Soviet Union was on Mosaddegh’s side in those years. At the time Democrats did not yet have their hands on this country’s intelligence agencies. So not too much harm was done before the Shah of Iran overthrew Mosaddegh. The Shah was a friendly dictator who came to power by booting out Mosaddegh in 1953. Half-a-brain Jimmy Carter replaced the Shah in 1979 with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The Middle-East has been slowly slipping away since ‘79.

Today, the State Department’s failed attempt to overthrow Syria’s Assad for somebody violently anti-U.S. succeeded in giving Assad a Russian military bodyguard. Let us all pray that Venezuela’s Maduro does not get some muscle from Communist China.
​

December 17, 2020
Rethinking Pinochet: In Praise of Strength
By Jay Schalin

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/12/rethinking_pinochet_in_praise_of_strength.html
​

p.s. You might want to watch this Leftist propaganda piece if you can find it on Youtube:

The DA's office prosecutes a Chilean colonel for the murder of a New Yorker working with the Communists during the Pinochet military coup. But has the office overstepped its jurisdiction?
​

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0629484/