A perfect example of why local control is to be preferred over control that is further removed from our immediate control would be when United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon declared, in Congress, that we the people of the United States of America are ‘deadbeats’ when it comes to paying the 22% of the operating costs we agree to do because we are not as prompt as he’d like.
As expected from any sovereign nation, our Congressmen stood up to such language and expressed their shock at such presumptive elitism coming from a non-elected figurehead of an increasingly irrelevant international social club. Unfortunately this was not the case, and as may be expected those more likely to side with the non-elected figurehead were Democrats.
A Republican did speak up, “He used the word ‘deadbeat’ when it came to characterizing the United States. I take great umbrage (over) that,” Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the panel’s senior Republican, said after an hour-long, closed-door meeting. “We certainly contribute a whole lot of U.S. taxpayer dollars to that organization. We do not deserve such a phrase.”
Democrats responded with, Ban generally got a “very respectful” reception from the House committee, said Rep. Bill Delahunt, D-Mass., who chairs a subcommittee that oversees U.S. participation in the United Nations. “Clearly they have an interest in the United States meeting its responsibility. In terms of peacekeeping, we’re about $670 million behind, and I think the argument is well-stated,” Delahunt said.
Delahunt, a well established Democrat has a history of voting against anything in defense of the country — especially if backed by Republicans such as when he voted against HR2462 which was for continued funding our own troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, he voted no to go into Iraq (H J Res 114), he voted no on the Global War on Terror Bill (H Res 861 – not to be confused with the PATRIOT Act) and he voted no on the National Defense Authorization Ace FY2003 which was the first non-emergency funding after the September 11th attacks, including $7.3 billion for counter-terrorism programs, including $200 million for nuclear materials and weapons protection, $15.7 billion for the Defense Department, $5.8 billion for the Homeland Security Department, $7.8 billion for Ballistic Missile Defense programs, $56.7 billion for military research and development, eliminates a law that cuts the amount of retirement pay veterans receive if they receive disability compensation, and authorizes a 4.1 percent pay increase for military personnel; up to 6.5 percent for mid-level personnel. What should then strike the reader as out of character is when [h]e noted America backs U.N. peacekeeping operations — and said it loses credibility if it doesn’t provide financial support. “And at the same time, we have to recognize that there are no American troops involved in the 17 different venues where there are peacekeeping operations.” It would appear he would not mind US soldiers dying for fights the UN deems worthwhile, but not when people in his own nation feel going to war is right. He’ll side with unelected figure-heads over his own President… especially if he is not a member of the correct party.
No one was reported to be taken aback at the idea that we ware deadbeats enough to bring up the fact that we’re already deficit spending like we just don’t care and that perhaps now would be a good time to cut back or eliminate dues to social clubs. If it hard enough to think that people in Washington have your best interests in mind, even after being elected, what do you think some non-elected international big wig thinks about your opinion? Why does anyone continue to support the United Nations as a whole unless they do not mind lack of control or accountability?
Zeno Sees, Zeno Writes 