Friday, November 19, 2004
Thank God for Rough Men
Rough Men
“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
George Orwell
Mr. Orwell was wise and prescient in many ways and truer words than those above were never written.
The liberal media has it’s panties in a collective bunch over the actions of a brave young marine who did just such violence – on their behalf I might add – to an enemy combatant, to great his credit. Here is a young man who deserves a medal being called a war criminal instead. The Liberals are really in their element and it’s 1971 all over again. At least, they obviously wish it were. These people are so nostalgic for the good old days of the anti-war 70’s that they just can’t stop trying to relive them.
Is it just me, or is there some obvious glee peaking out from behind their feigned horror? You can see it in their faces and hear it in their voices – they believe they have found a new stick they can use to beat the American military and life is good again. After all, nobody cares about Abu Ghraib anymore and an actual shooting is so much scarier than panties on the head. At least it is for those who have never been closer to a firearm than their TV set. (I would guess that they have all had panties on their head at one time or another.)
Fortunately for the sake of their own sanity (if there is such a think as a sane liberal) there is no need in Liberal Land for any intellectual or moral consistency. Wasn’t it only a few weeks ago that these same people were arguing with equal intensity that actions much less heroic than this were worthy of a medal? And how dare any one who had not faced combat even think to question the heroic actions of a true fighting man!
How were those Medal-Worthy actions less heroic than the current case? Let me count the ways:
1) In Vietnam, it was clear that the enemy was unarmed. In Iraq, it was not.
2) In Vietnam, it was obvious that the unit was in no further danger from this enemy soldier. In Iraq, it was not clear at all.
3) In Iraq, members of the same unit had been killed in nearly identical circumstances, not so in Vietnam
4) In Vietnam, the fleeing, unarmed teenager was shot in the back. In Iraq, the potentially deceitful enemy was acting just like other enemy soldiers who had killed American Marines only days before.
I could go on but I think the point is made.
In a way I am actually glad that the intelligent, sensitive and nuanced Blue Staters have decided to beat this drum – especially since we have such clear and unambiguous evidence of the brave Marine’s actions. And this time the film is real, not reenacted. How could any red-blooded American actually be glad about the latest Liberal smear attack on our military? Simple, the more these guys let the American people see who they really are, the less relevant they will become. By the way, isn’t it nice to see what they really mean when they say they support our troops? What they really mean is they support all troops who are anti-war Democrats.
In true Liberal fashion, they spent all of about 15 seconds feeling about why they lost the election. I almost wrote “thinking about why they lost” but caught myself. Liberals don’t think, they feel. Anyway, once they had found their convenient excuse for why the loss was not their fault it took only a couple of days before they were back to doing exactly the kind of things that make most Americans sick to our stomachs. Incidentally, in case you haven’t heard, they lost because a bunch of stupid, illiterate, (gasp) God-fearing dolts were tricked into voting for George W. Bush. Those devious Republican dirty tricksters did it again! This is what passes for soul searching and reflection in Liberal Land.
But I digress. My purpose in writing this Blog was to honor the actions of one brave Marine. Full disclosure, I have never served in the military. I am, however, an intelligent and reasonable man. I am, therefore, able to visualize the situation in its full context and project what I, as a reasonable man, would do in like circumstances. Knowing that the enemy in Fallujah made it a practice of waving the white flag only to open fire and of acting dead only to fire on, or blow up Americans, and knowing that only days before this Marine's friend and comrade had been killed in just such a way, I would have blown the guy’s head off. In fact, I think our Marine showed admirable restraint in only firing a couple of shots. It must be the training.
I have a lot of faith in our military, even in this PC world, so I know that the marine in question will be found innocent. It is a shame that he will not get his medal for his quick thinking under tremendous stress. No doubt this will cause paroxysms of angst and outrage among our Liberal friends. I look forward to the oceans or words that are sure to be flood from the Mareen Dowds of the Blue State Press decrying the injustice to the enemy soldier and what this means to American stature in the world community.
Keep it up guys, I like winning elections.
“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
George Orwell
Mr. Orwell was wise and prescient in many ways and truer words than those above were never written.
The liberal media has it’s panties in a collective bunch over the actions of a brave young marine who did just such violence – on their behalf I might add – to an enemy combatant, to great his credit. Here is a young man who deserves a medal being called a war criminal instead. The Liberals are really in their element and it’s 1971 all over again. At least, they obviously wish it were. These people are so nostalgic for the good old days of the anti-war 70’s that they just can’t stop trying to relive them.
Is it just me, or is there some obvious glee peaking out from behind their feigned horror? You can see it in their faces and hear it in their voices – they believe they have found a new stick they can use to beat the American military and life is good again. After all, nobody cares about Abu Ghraib anymore and an actual shooting is so much scarier than panties on the head. At least it is for those who have never been closer to a firearm than their TV set. (I would guess that they have all had panties on their head at one time or another.)
Fortunately for the sake of their own sanity (if there is such a think as a sane liberal) there is no need in Liberal Land for any intellectual or moral consistency. Wasn’t it only a few weeks ago that these same people were arguing with equal intensity that actions much less heroic than this were worthy of a medal? And how dare any one who had not faced combat even think to question the heroic actions of a true fighting man!
How were those Medal-Worthy actions less heroic than the current case? Let me count the ways:
1) In Vietnam, it was clear that the enemy was unarmed. In Iraq, it was not.
2) In Vietnam, it was obvious that the unit was in no further danger from this enemy soldier. In Iraq, it was not clear at all.
3) In Iraq, members of the same unit had been killed in nearly identical circumstances, not so in Vietnam
4) In Vietnam, the fleeing, unarmed teenager was shot in the back. In Iraq, the potentially deceitful enemy was acting just like other enemy soldiers who had killed American Marines only days before.
I could go on but I think the point is made.
In a way I am actually glad that the intelligent, sensitive and nuanced Blue Staters have decided to beat this drum – especially since we have such clear and unambiguous evidence of the brave Marine’s actions. And this time the film is real, not reenacted. How could any red-blooded American actually be glad about the latest Liberal smear attack on our military? Simple, the more these guys let the American people see who they really are, the less relevant they will become. By the way, isn’t it nice to see what they really mean when they say they support our troops? What they really mean is they support all troops who are anti-war Democrats.
In true Liberal fashion, they spent all of about 15 seconds feeling about why they lost the election. I almost wrote “thinking about why they lost” but caught myself. Liberals don’t think, they feel. Anyway, once they had found their convenient excuse for why the loss was not their fault it took only a couple of days before they were back to doing exactly the kind of things that make most Americans sick to our stomachs. Incidentally, in case you haven’t heard, they lost because a bunch of stupid, illiterate, (gasp) God-fearing dolts were tricked into voting for George W. Bush. Those devious Republican dirty tricksters did it again! This is what passes for soul searching and reflection in Liberal Land.
But I digress. My purpose in writing this Blog was to honor the actions of one brave Marine. Full disclosure, I have never served in the military. I am, however, an intelligent and reasonable man. I am, therefore, able to visualize the situation in its full context and project what I, as a reasonable man, would do in like circumstances. Knowing that the enemy in Fallujah made it a practice of waving the white flag only to open fire and of acting dead only to fire on, or blow up Americans, and knowing that only days before this Marine's friend and comrade had been killed in just such a way, I would have blown the guy’s head off. In fact, I think our Marine showed admirable restraint in only firing a couple of shots. It must be the training.
I have a lot of faith in our military, even in this PC world, so I know that the marine in question will be found innocent. It is a shame that he will not get his medal for his quick thinking under tremendous stress. No doubt this will cause paroxysms of angst and outrage among our Liberal friends. I look forward to the oceans or words that are sure to be flood from the Mareen Dowds of the Blue State Press decrying the injustice to the enemy soldier and what this means to American stature in the world community.
Keep it up guys, I like winning elections.
Saturday, September 11, 2004
The End of the Old Media; the triumph of the web
In the beginning there were ABC, NBC, CBS the New York Times and the Washington Post. They set the agenda, the terms of the debate and, ultimately, they and they alone determined what was truth and what was fiction, what was newsworthy and what was rumor. The world changed on September 9, 2004. On that day, CBS’s leading news program, 60 Minutes, aired a story based on “newly discovered memos” which supported claims that George W. Bush’s performance in the Texas Air National Guard had been less than stellar. There was only one problem. The documents were forged.
It was truly a wonder to behold. Within minutes of release of the documents on the internet, average people, not trained investigative journalists, began to call the documents into serious question. Starting with a posting on Freerepublic.com the analysis was soon picked up by bloggers like powerline.com and Littlegreenfootballs.com. The questions began grow and the analysis became more refined. Experts in military jargon and style of the time questioned the language; many people questioned the obvious “word processed” look of the documents. Within hours it was clear to anyone reading the analysis that 60 minutes had bought into a forgery, lock stock and barrel.
What was most exciting to me was that you could actually watch it happen in real time. A post by one blogger would trigger further analysis by another. Meanwhile, yet another “average Joe” was calling a local expert on circa 1970’s typewriters. Forensic document analysts were contacted and opined that the memos looked forged. By the end of the following day, even some of the major networks were reporting on the forgeries. CBS’s 60 minutes was toast. With all of its highly-paid, trained staff and millions of dollars in resources, CBS had been undone by a "bunch of guys sitting a home in their pajamas." The old media was dead whether they knew it or not. Henceforth, it would be the millions of guys in their pajamas who would be the final judges of truth and fiction.
True, like any seismic event of this magnitude, the event had been presaged by numerous tremors. Those who write the final obituary of the old media may well point back to the rise of Rush Limbaugh and talk radio as the beginning, others may point to the Drudge Report’s breaking of the Monica Lewinski story as the first warning sign. The reality is, these were all warning signs, but it all began much, much earlier. The triumph of the web we all saw on 9/9/04 marked the day that the Silent Majority was finally able to be kept silent no longer. It marked the day that the Old Media lost its power to keep us marginalized and quiet.
And how fitting it is that the ultimate triumph of the Silent Majority would be over forged memos allegedly written in the 1970’s brought forth as part of a losing campaign by a man who’s claim to fame are that he is a Vietnam War Hero even though he was best known as a Vietnam War Protester, John F. Kerry. For those who don’t remember, the term the Silent Majority was coined by Richard Nixon and used most famously in a speech he delivered on November 3, 1969 at the very peak of the anti-war demonstrations. The subject of the speech was, in fact the Vietnam War. A link to the speech can be found here
In that speech, Nixon laid out the status of the war, the status of peace negotiations and his plan for ending the war. In many ways the speech has eerie resonance to the current battle front of the war on terror, Iraq. It is clear to me that President Bush and his team have learned the lessons of Vietnam and are prepared not to repeat them.
It is equally clear that Kerry and his fellow travelers believe that since they were successful in their efforts to defeat the U.S. in Vietnam, the same approach will work a second again. There is a major difference today. The Silent Majority is silent no longer. This war, like that one, will be won by guys in pajamas only this time, we're the ones in our pajamas and, most importantly, we all remember what happened exactly three years ago today.
Chris Rebillot
September 11, 2004
It was truly a wonder to behold. Within minutes of release of the documents on the internet, average people, not trained investigative journalists, began to call the documents into serious question. Starting with a posting on Freerepublic.com the analysis was soon picked up by bloggers like powerline.com and Littlegreenfootballs.com. The questions began grow and the analysis became more refined. Experts in military jargon and style of the time questioned the language; many people questioned the obvious “word processed” look of the documents. Within hours it was clear to anyone reading the analysis that 60 minutes had bought into a forgery, lock stock and barrel.
What was most exciting to me was that you could actually watch it happen in real time. A post by one blogger would trigger further analysis by another. Meanwhile, yet another “average Joe” was calling a local expert on circa 1970’s typewriters. Forensic document analysts were contacted and opined that the memos looked forged. By the end of the following day, even some of the major networks were reporting on the forgeries. CBS’s 60 minutes was toast. With all of its highly-paid, trained staff and millions of dollars in resources, CBS had been undone by a "bunch of guys sitting a home in their pajamas." The old media was dead whether they knew it or not. Henceforth, it would be the millions of guys in their pajamas who would be the final judges of truth and fiction.
True, like any seismic event of this magnitude, the event had been presaged by numerous tremors. Those who write the final obituary of the old media may well point back to the rise of Rush Limbaugh and talk radio as the beginning, others may point to the Drudge Report’s breaking of the Monica Lewinski story as the first warning sign. The reality is, these were all warning signs, but it all began much, much earlier. The triumph of the web we all saw on 9/9/04 marked the day that the Silent Majority was finally able to be kept silent no longer. It marked the day that the Old Media lost its power to keep us marginalized and quiet.
And how fitting it is that the ultimate triumph of the Silent Majority would be over forged memos allegedly written in the 1970’s brought forth as part of a losing campaign by a man who’s claim to fame are that he is a Vietnam War Hero even though he was best known as a Vietnam War Protester, John F. Kerry. For those who don’t remember, the term the Silent Majority was coined by Richard Nixon and used most famously in a speech he delivered on November 3, 1969 at the very peak of the anti-war demonstrations. The subject of the speech was, in fact the Vietnam War. A link to the speech can be found here
In that speech, Nixon laid out the status of the war, the status of peace negotiations and his plan for ending the war. In many ways the speech has eerie resonance to the current battle front of the war on terror, Iraq. It is clear to me that President Bush and his team have learned the lessons of Vietnam and are prepared not to repeat them.
It is equally clear that Kerry and his fellow travelers believe that since they were successful in their efforts to defeat the U.S. in Vietnam, the same approach will work a second again. There is a major difference today. The Silent Majority is silent no longer. This war, like that one, will be won by guys in pajamas only this time, we're the ones in our pajamas and, most importantly, we all remember what happened exactly three years ago today.
Chris Rebillot
September 11, 2004
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
Abu Ghraib, the awful truth.
There are more and more details coming to light of the terrible acts performed by young Americans. We have all seen the pictures and heard about some of the despicable acts done to terrorist prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison. Congressional hearings have been held and the media has held a non-stop, 30-day session of American self-loathing. It is clear that, in the history of man, no one anywhere has done anything as terrible as the acts performed on the terrorists being held in Abu Ghraib prison.
Here are the acts most have already heard about:
One man was forced to stand on a box with a bag over his head and wires attached to him. At no time was a current actually passed through these wires, but that’s not the point.
Shocking!
Other men were forced to stand naked in front of female guards.
Unspeakable!
Other men were forced to wear women’s underwear, sometimes on their heads.
Despicable!
Arab men, used to Arab modesty, were forced to strip naked and form human pyramids.
Even the Nazis at their worst would not have done this.
Some male and female twenty something-year-old soldiers had sex with each other, forcing the prisoners to listen.
No wonder there were congressional hearings!
And some cruel, unfeeling right-wing talk show hosts have had the audacity to claim this is nothing more than “fraternity hazing.” Unthinkable!
But this is only the beginning. Here are some acts performed by our brave American young men that you have not yet been reported.
Five men were forced to dig 6-foot “graves” and lay down in them. At this point handfuls of sand were thrown top of them. One of the graves collapsed causing the man in it to inhale sand and die of asphyxiation.
Numerous men were repeatedly shocked with an electrical device. Actually shocked, not just threatened.
Eleven men were required to eat quarter-pound slabs of raw liver. The liver was thick cut and soaked in oil. One of the men, after three tries was unable to follow orders. On the fourth try, he was finally able to get the liver down, at least down as far as his throat. Unfortunately, the liver lodged in his throat. All efforts to dislodge it proved unsuccessful. It killed him.
Two men were taken to a dungeon and locked in a closet for nearly two full days. During this time, they were fed only salty foods and given no water. They were, however, given empty cups to be used to catch their own urine.
Why in the world, after nearly a month of non-stop front page reporting on the abuse at Abu Ghraib have you not heard about these, much more serious forms of “torture?” Could it be out of respect for the constitutional rights of the accused – you know – innocent before proven guilty and all of that? Could it be that I have secret, highly placed inside sources at the Defense Department or, even worse, Haliburton?
No. You have not read about these much worse abuses because every one of them was, in fact, a college fraternity hazing ritual.
Five men were forced to dig “graves” at Monmouth College in New Jersey in 1990. By the way, a grand jury ruled the death as accidental, no charges were brought.
The electrical shocking took place At Stetson University in Florida. Those responsible were expelled from the Fraternity. (Note they were not even expelled from school, just the Frat).
The raw liver incident took place at the Kappa Sigma house at USC
The two-days in the dungeon took place at Ohio State.
Look it up, it’s all out there, documented on the internet for anyone willing to spend 15 minutes using Google.
Oops. I guess the right-wing talk show guys were wrong after all. The infamous abuses at AG prison were not just fraternity hazing; they were much, much milder. No self-respecting fraternity would even think of a hazing as silly has having men put women’s underwear on their heads. Come on people, let’s get serious here, that’s not hazing; it’s a bad joke in an old college movie staring Tim Matheson or Matthew Broderick.
I, for one, and sick and tired of all the self flagellation going on about some relatively minor abuse that a few over terrorists received at the hands of a handful of overzealous young people. Was it right, probably not, but not for the reasons most people seem to believe. I don’t care a fig about violating the Arab modesty of a bunch of men who would cut my throat or bomb my children if they had a chance. Sorry if I’m insensitive. It was a bad idea because these kind of tactics generally don’t generate reliable intelligence and because by taking those pictures, they gave the enemy’s propaganda machine (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, the New York Times…) ammunition to use against American interests. That was what was wrong.
For all of the ink and air time that has been spent crying crocodile tears over what our soldiers did to terrorist prisoners, you would think that someone in the partisan, left-wing press (see above) would have taken 15 minutes to read about what our brightest young people, at our best colleges, are doing to each other. It’s a lot worse than what they are asking the Secretary of Defense to resign over. Heck, there was worse abuse going on in the White House through most of the 1990’s.
I don’t get it.
There are more and more details coming to light of the terrible acts performed by young Americans. We have all seen the pictures and heard about some of the despicable acts done to terrorist prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison. Congressional hearings have been held and the media has held a non-stop, 30-day session of American self-loathing. It is clear that, in the history of man, no one anywhere has done anything as terrible as the acts performed on the terrorists being held in Abu Ghraib prison.
Here are the acts most have already heard about:
One man was forced to stand on a box with a bag over his head and wires attached to him. At no time was a current actually passed through these wires, but that’s not the point.
Shocking!
Other men were forced to stand naked in front of female guards.
Unspeakable!
Other men were forced to wear women’s underwear, sometimes on their heads.
Despicable!
Arab men, used to Arab modesty, were forced to strip naked and form human pyramids.
Even the Nazis at their worst would not have done this.
Some male and female twenty something-year-old soldiers had sex with each other, forcing the prisoners to listen.
No wonder there were congressional hearings!
And some cruel, unfeeling right-wing talk show hosts have had the audacity to claim this is nothing more than “fraternity hazing.” Unthinkable!
But this is only the beginning. Here are some acts performed by our brave American young men that you have not yet been reported.
Five men were forced to dig 6-foot “graves” and lay down in them. At this point handfuls of sand were thrown top of them. One of the graves collapsed causing the man in it to inhale sand and die of asphyxiation.
Numerous men were repeatedly shocked with an electrical device. Actually shocked, not just threatened.
Eleven men were required to eat quarter-pound slabs of raw liver. The liver was thick cut and soaked in oil. One of the men, after three tries was unable to follow orders. On the fourth try, he was finally able to get the liver down, at least down as far as his throat. Unfortunately, the liver lodged in his throat. All efforts to dislodge it proved unsuccessful. It killed him.
Two men were taken to a dungeon and locked in a closet for nearly two full days. During this time, they were fed only salty foods and given no water. They were, however, given empty cups to be used to catch their own urine.
Why in the world, after nearly a month of non-stop front page reporting on the abuse at Abu Ghraib have you not heard about these, much more serious forms of “torture?” Could it be out of respect for the constitutional rights of the accused – you know – innocent before proven guilty and all of that? Could it be that I have secret, highly placed inside sources at the Defense Department or, even worse, Haliburton?
No. You have not read about these much worse abuses because every one of them was, in fact, a college fraternity hazing ritual.
Five men were forced to dig “graves” at Monmouth College in New Jersey in 1990. By the way, a grand jury ruled the death as accidental, no charges were brought.
The electrical shocking took place At Stetson University in Florida. Those responsible were expelled from the Fraternity. (Note they were not even expelled from school, just the Frat).
The raw liver incident took place at the Kappa Sigma house at USC
The two-days in the dungeon took place at Ohio State.
Look it up, it’s all out there, documented on the internet for anyone willing to spend 15 minutes using Google.
Oops. I guess the right-wing talk show guys were wrong after all. The infamous abuses at AG prison were not just fraternity hazing; they were much, much milder. No self-respecting fraternity would even think of a hazing as silly has having men put women’s underwear on their heads. Come on people, let’s get serious here, that’s not hazing; it’s a bad joke in an old college movie staring Tim Matheson or Matthew Broderick.
I, for one, and sick and tired of all the self flagellation going on about some relatively minor abuse that a few over terrorists received at the hands of a handful of overzealous young people. Was it right, probably not, but not for the reasons most people seem to believe. I don’t care a fig about violating the Arab modesty of a bunch of men who would cut my throat or bomb my children if they had a chance. Sorry if I’m insensitive. It was a bad idea because these kind of tactics generally don’t generate reliable intelligence and because by taking those pictures, they gave the enemy’s propaganda machine (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, the New York Times…) ammunition to use against American interests. That was what was wrong.
For all of the ink and air time that has been spent crying crocodile tears over what our soldiers did to terrorist prisoners, you would think that someone in the partisan, left-wing press (see above) would have taken 15 minutes to read about what our brightest young people, at our best colleges, are doing to each other. It’s a lot worse than what they are asking the Secretary of Defense to resign over. Heck, there was worse abuse going on in the White House through most of the 1990’s.
I don’t get it.
Monday, May 31, 2004
Why the love affair with “THE UNITED NATIONS?”
I don’t get it. The way that most politicians and all liberals act, there is something sacred about The United Nations. This organization has to be something very special indeed. Just look a few of the amazing things this organization and this organization alone is capable of:
1) The United Nations knows better than the President, the US Congress and the US Military what is and is not a national security threat to the United States. We should only be allowed to take military action if The United Nations approves of the action.
2) The United Nations has meetings all over the world where representatives from all across the globe meet to pass important treaties that tell us what we can and cannot do and, most importantly, how much of our money we need to send to them. A recent such event was held in Kyoto, Japan. If we choose to disagree with their important treaties, through our constitutionally elected government, we are not only wrong but somehow evil.
3) The United Nations, alone among all organizations in the world, is capable of managing other countries affairs for them. Examples of UN successes here abound. Look at the UN success in managing the “Oil for Food” program in Iraq or in turning Kosovo into an independent, self ruled country.
Say what you like, the evidence is clear that after all the cash that was skimmed off the top by Saddam, the French, the Russians and the United Nations bureaucrats like Kofi Annan’s son, at least some of the remaining money from the “Oil for Food Program” actually was used to buy some food. It may have been food used in banquets celebrating Saddam latest palace or newest weapon, but it was food, damn it. As for Kosovo, all my research indicates quite clearly that they are on track to achieve true independence by the end of the next century, assuming there are no further setbacks.
Kosovo, in particular, highlights the true magic of The United Nations. The UN has been running Kosovo since 1999, preparing it for a “gradual handover of responsibilities to local government.” There is, after five years, no end in sight to the UN’s management of Kosovo. In fact, the fourth head of the UN Mission in Kosovo just resigned in disgrace for his failure to control the crime and ethnic violence there. Kosovo has become, under UN management, a complete basket case. At the same time, it is said that the US must achieve a fully functioning Iraqi democracy within 15 months, or we will be abject failures in our endeavor and must recognize that we should have left it up to, of course, the wildly effective United Nations in the first place.
Given the obeisance that most world leaders, and all liberals, pay to The United Nations, I could come to no conclusion but that I had to be wrong somehow. So I took it upon myself to do a little research. Just who makes up this wonderful body? Here is what I found.
The UN is made up of 191 member states. Think about that, 191 different countries. I’d bet that most Americans could not name 20 countries without a globe in front of them, and the ones they could name would all be in Europe or South America. Unaided, one out of 3 would probably remember China and Japan. These 191 countries include such well-managed, models of freedom, economic strength and democracy as Bangladesh, Albania, Algeria, Chad, Cuba, Ghana, Libya, Haiti, Tonga and France. All are sovereign states, all equal in the eyes of The United Nations. In fact, of the 191 Member States, most have far more in common with Algeria than with us. Most of the countries that make up The United Nations are small, backward nations run by some kind of dictator. Why then is it that so many Americans feel we should bow to the greater wisdom of representatives from countries who cannot manage to run their own countries well enough so that their own people can eat?
Aha, you say, I have fallen into a typical logical trap. When politicians talk of The United Nations, they don’t actually mean The United Nations, what they mean is The United Nations Security Council. OK. Let us then take a look at The Security Council. What is their story?
The Security Council is made up of 15 members. These are divided into five permanent members and 10 non-permanent members. Currently the non-permanent members are Algeria, Angola, Benin, Brazil, Chile, Germany, Romania, Pakistan, Philippines and Spain. Quick, how many out there thought Germany was a permanent member? Wrong. Oh, and does anybody know where Benin is? The permanent members of the Security Council are China, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the United States and, in what was probably the worst mistake of the founding of the organization, France. What makes the five permanent members special is their ability to veto any resolution unilaterally, a power that France has used to its advantage since the beginning. It is also this fact that has allowed France to continue to pretend that it is still an important country in the world.
While space does not permit a detailed description of all 15 members of the Security Council, here are a few highlights. Algeria is a socialist, Islamic republic with a population of 32 million, a per capita income of $5,400 per year and a 31% unemployment rate. Angola has been in a constant state of civil war since it achieved independence in 1975. It has a population of about 10 million, almost one-half or which are under the age of 15. It has a per capita annual income of $1,700 and an unemployment rate that is too high to measure. Angola is probably the worst run country in the world, if you don’t count Kosovo. Benin, a small country in western Africa, shaped roughly like a dildo, has a population of about 7 million, an annual per capita income of about $1,000 and an economy based on subsistence agriculture. Get the picture?
Armed now with these facts, I again asked myself, why the United Nations? The more I thought about it, the more I came to the conclusion that trusting this group with any important decision is not only unwise, it’s downright crazy. What person in their right mind would trust a group of unelected, poorly educated people with nothing at stake to make any important decision in their lives? The American public needs an education here. I propose we set up a local equivalent of the UN.
Here is how it would work. We would randomly divide every major city into about 100 different neighborhoods. True, some cities are already divided into historic neighborhoods but we would ignore these as the artifacts of prior colonial imperialism that they are. We would create new ones for our purposes. Each of these new neighborhoods would hold a strong man competition. This would basically be a bare knuckled fist fight, open to all comers. The fight would end when there was one man left standing. The winner of the neighborhood strong man competition would be designated the neighborhood president for life. Each of these leaders would then choose a representative, probably a relative, to the United Neighborhood Association. This association would have the power to tell everyone in the city how to live their lives including, how much tax to pay, where they were allowed to live, where they could work, whom they could marry, etc. In other words, they would run the city the way the neighborhood strong men were able to run the neighborhoods. One of two things would happen as a result of this experiment. Either we would all learn that the United Nations approach is truly the wonderful thing that so many politicians and all liberals claim it is, or most of us would learn (I exempt liberals here) that the United Nations is a fraud and the public would create enough pressure on the politicians for us to withdraw from this outdated, overrated and dangerous sham of an organization.
You know, it might even be worth it.
I don’t get it. The way that most politicians and all liberals act, there is something sacred about The United Nations. This organization has to be something very special indeed. Just look a few of the amazing things this organization and this organization alone is capable of:
1) The United Nations knows better than the President, the US Congress and the US Military what is and is not a national security threat to the United States. We should only be allowed to take military action if The United Nations approves of the action.
2) The United Nations has meetings all over the world where representatives from all across the globe meet to pass important treaties that tell us what we can and cannot do and, most importantly, how much of our money we need to send to them. A recent such event was held in Kyoto, Japan. If we choose to disagree with their important treaties, through our constitutionally elected government, we are not only wrong but somehow evil.
3) The United Nations, alone among all organizations in the world, is capable of managing other countries affairs for them. Examples of UN successes here abound. Look at the UN success in managing the “Oil for Food” program in Iraq or in turning Kosovo into an independent, self ruled country.
Say what you like, the evidence is clear that after all the cash that was skimmed off the top by Saddam, the French, the Russians and the United Nations bureaucrats like Kofi Annan’s son, at least some of the remaining money from the “Oil for Food Program” actually was used to buy some food. It may have been food used in banquets celebrating Saddam latest palace or newest weapon, but it was food, damn it. As for Kosovo, all my research indicates quite clearly that they are on track to achieve true independence by the end of the next century, assuming there are no further setbacks.
Kosovo, in particular, highlights the true magic of The United Nations. The UN has been running Kosovo since 1999, preparing it for a “gradual handover of responsibilities to local government.” There is, after five years, no end in sight to the UN’s management of Kosovo. In fact, the fourth head of the UN Mission in Kosovo just resigned in disgrace for his failure to control the crime and ethnic violence there. Kosovo has become, under UN management, a complete basket case. At the same time, it is said that the US must achieve a fully functioning Iraqi democracy within 15 months, or we will be abject failures in our endeavor and must recognize that we should have left it up to, of course, the wildly effective United Nations in the first place.
Given the obeisance that most world leaders, and all liberals, pay to The United Nations, I could come to no conclusion but that I had to be wrong somehow. So I took it upon myself to do a little research. Just who makes up this wonderful body? Here is what I found.
The UN is made up of 191 member states. Think about that, 191 different countries. I’d bet that most Americans could not name 20 countries without a globe in front of them, and the ones they could name would all be in Europe or South America. Unaided, one out of 3 would probably remember China and Japan. These 191 countries include such well-managed, models of freedom, economic strength and democracy as Bangladesh, Albania, Algeria, Chad, Cuba, Ghana, Libya, Haiti, Tonga and France. All are sovereign states, all equal in the eyes of The United Nations. In fact, of the 191 Member States, most have far more in common with Algeria than with us. Most of the countries that make up The United Nations are small, backward nations run by some kind of dictator. Why then is it that so many Americans feel we should bow to the greater wisdom of representatives from countries who cannot manage to run their own countries well enough so that their own people can eat?
Aha, you say, I have fallen into a typical logical trap. When politicians talk of The United Nations, they don’t actually mean The United Nations, what they mean is The United Nations Security Council. OK. Let us then take a look at The Security Council. What is their story?
The Security Council is made up of 15 members. These are divided into five permanent members and 10 non-permanent members. Currently the non-permanent members are Algeria, Angola, Benin, Brazil, Chile, Germany, Romania, Pakistan, Philippines and Spain. Quick, how many out there thought Germany was a permanent member? Wrong. Oh, and does anybody know where Benin is? The permanent members of the Security Council are China, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the United States and, in what was probably the worst mistake of the founding of the organization, France. What makes the five permanent members special is their ability to veto any resolution unilaterally, a power that France has used to its advantage since the beginning. It is also this fact that has allowed France to continue to pretend that it is still an important country in the world.
While space does not permit a detailed description of all 15 members of the Security Council, here are a few highlights. Algeria is a socialist, Islamic republic with a population of 32 million, a per capita income of $5,400 per year and a 31% unemployment rate. Angola has been in a constant state of civil war since it achieved independence in 1975. It has a population of about 10 million, almost one-half or which are under the age of 15. It has a per capita annual income of $1,700 and an unemployment rate that is too high to measure. Angola is probably the worst run country in the world, if you don’t count Kosovo. Benin, a small country in western Africa, shaped roughly like a dildo, has a population of about 7 million, an annual per capita income of about $1,000 and an economy based on subsistence agriculture. Get the picture?
Armed now with these facts, I again asked myself, why the United Nations? The more I thought about it, the more I came to the conclusion that trusting this group with any important decision is not only unwise, it’s downright crazy. What person in their right mind would trust a group of unelected, poorly educated people with nothing at stake to make any important decision in their lives? The American public needs an education here. I propose we set up a local equivalent of the UN.
Here is how it would work. We would randomly divide every major city into about 100 different neighborhoods. True, some cities are already divided into historic neighborhoods but we would ignore these as the artifacts of prior colonial imperialism that they are. We would create new ones for our purposes. Each of these new neighborhoods would hold a strong man competition. This would basically be a bare knuckled fist fight, open to all comers. The fight would end when there was one man left standing. The winner of the neighborhood strong man competition would be designated the neighborhood president for life. Each of these leaders would then choose a representative, probably a relative, to the United Neighborhood Association. This association would have the power to tell everyone in the city how to live their lives including, how much tax to pay, where they were allowed to live, where they could work, whom they could marry, etc. In other words, they would run the city the way the neighborhood strong men were able to run the neighborhoods. One of two things would happen as a result of this experiment. Either we would all learn that the United Nations approach is truly the wonderful thing that so many politicians and all liberals claim it is, or most of us would learn (I exempt liberals here) that the United Nations is a fraud and the public would create enough pressure on the politicians for us to withdraw from this outdated, overrated and dangerous sham of an organization.
You know, it might even be worth it.
