Comments on: SECOND Interim Report

By: ThatManJack

ThatManJack — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 21:55:14 +0000

Okay, let’s reveiw.

Official records released by the State Department identify the men listed below as the key U.S. planners for the global criminal cabal known as the UN. Each of the 16 was subsequently identified in sworn testimony before U.S. government agencies as a secret communist.

Alger Hiss

Nathan Gregory Silvermaster

Harry Dexter White

Harold Glasser

Virginius Frank Coe

Victor Perlo

Noel Field

Irving Kaplan

Laurence Duggan

Solomon Adler

Henry Julian Wadleigh

Abraham George Silverman

John Carter Vincent

William K. Ullman

David Weintraub

William H. Taylor

Postwar Foreign Policy Preparation, 1939-1945, U.S. State Department

Of thes 17 US men responsible for the creation of the United Nations, the only one not identified as actively an agent of the Communists was Dean Acheson; and his law firm represented the Soviet Union before the Bar in America. Go figure.

I fail to see how anyone is astonished at the criminality, the vile and utter debasement that flows from the United Nations and all that is unHoly and wrong in humaan experience when its very founding was undertaken by men loyal to that most anit-God theology ever formed…Communism.

How is it we should be surprised?? Fruit of the poisoned tree, as it were.

By: Charlie Quidnunc

Charlie Quidnunc — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 16:37:01 +0000

Roger,

Great initiative and reporting!

I read parts of this post and played parts of the Kofi press conference in my Podcast today. Give it a listen if you get a minute. I play some of his opening remarks, and include the question about his resignation (answer: “Hell no”). Some fisking, too. Give it a listen if you get a minute.

Charlie

By: richard mcenroe

richard mcenroe — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 01:19:10 +0000

Riiiiiiight… and it all stopped with Haldeman and Ehrlichman, too…

By: index

index — Tue, 29 Mar 2005 23:44:34 +0000

Sorry, but Kofi won’t get any Johnnie Cochran defense since O.J.’s lawyer died today.

By: gekkobear

gekkobear — Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:33:40 +0000

Well, as for the BBC…

“Are they reading the same report that Roger is reading?”

I can’t tell. Roger linked the document so I can see what he is reading and form my own opinion.

Apparantly the BBC doesn’t believe this is something I should be doing, so they don’t show their sourcing of the document.

Big surprise there, fortunately the MSM has all those editors and procedures to avoid making mistakes…

By: TM Lutas

TM Lutas — Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:20:34 +0000

UN reform is simple and easy to do. It also can be done unilaterally. The key is history. Many of the organizations that do good work in the UN (and create a lot of support for the system) at one point were independent and joined the UN as a convenience. Others were rolled into the UN from the League of Nations. What was independent before can be independent again. You simply take the US contribution, divert it to the Council for a Community of Democracies. Offer every organ of the UN the ability to become part of the Council and make membership in the Council conditioned on the ability to pass regular audits for honesty and transparency. How are you going to argue against the requirement to prove honesty and transparency and responsibility, especially if the US offers to pay for the audits? I don't have a doubt that the ITU (founded in 1865) would pass such audits and do so quickly. Lots of other UN bits would do so as well. What would be left unfunded would be the corrupt bits, the bits that have been hiding behind the functional ones. Reform is possible.

By: TigerHawk

TigerHawk — Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:59:57 +0000

R C Dean nailed it. For all the sanctimony attending our own corporate malfeasance, the United States has standards of institutional propriety unmatched in any country with a population bigger than, say, Chicago. This is to our credit, but it makes it very hard for us to deal with institutions such as the United Nations.

By: R C Dean

R C Dean — Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:54:55 +0000

In many UN member nations they would quite simply be shot.

Sadly, this is not so. In many UN member nations, they would be promoted.

And therein lies the root of the problem. You cannot expect an organization that is composed primarily of illegitimate kleptocrats to be anything other than corrupt.

By: TigerHawk

TigerHawk — Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:28:03 +0000

The destruction of documents in this context will not be viewed negatively in most of the world. Preservation of evidence is largely an Anglo-American value, and even most other common law countries do not have our far-reaching rules of discovery. In most European countries, destruction of documents is essentially expected. Even in France [I can't believe you're giving us France!] there is no real legal risk or social opprobium in destroying evidence. Just a couple of months ago I was shooting the breeze with a French lawyer in a Paris conference room, discussing French rules of discovery. He said that while it was theoretically possible that various internal documents would be produced in a hypothetical case, they wouldn't in practice because the custom in France is just to destroy damaging documents. If this is true in France, which like it or not has a fairly respectable system of justice [ Non! L'affaire Dreyfus!], then we can't expect a bunch of bureaucrats extracted from substantially lawless countries to behave any better. Not apologisin', just explainin', is all.

By: Terrye

Terrye — Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:50:32 +0000

When asked if he would resign Kofi said “Hell no”.

spunky isn’t he?

The idea that the UN could stop the US or China is almost as silly as the idea that it can end poverty and bring peace to the world.